Ironically, the only way to get Brexit "done", i.e. not have years of interminable negotiations about trade etc with the EU is to revoke Article 50. That would end the whole sorry process. Obviously, we'd have the likes of Farage, Johnson etc posing as Brexit martyrs for the rest of their careers, but they'd rather like that. As far the rest of the leave voters, I reckon lots would be secretly relieved it's all over and only a very small minority would give enough of a toss to go out on the streets.

Riots from the Brexit demographic? No chance.

I am afraid that's just wrong. Perhaps the fundamental principle of the British constitution is that the Queen can only appoint as PM someone who commands a majority in the HOC. If its clear the HOC has confidence in someone other than Johnson, Johnson would be obliged to resign. If he refused to do so, the Queen would be obliged to dismiss him.

The FTPA doesn't alter than fundamental principle. Under the old system, where a government lost a VONC and someone else could command a majority in the HOC, the PM would have been obliged to resign and that person would be appointed. It was only where no other person could command a majority that an election would be called with the existing PM staying in office as a caretaker, as happened in 1979 - Callaghan lost a VONC, but neither Thatcher or anyone else would have commanded a majority in that parliament, hence an election. If Thatcher had been able to get a majority of MPs to support her as PM, Callaghan would have resigned and Thatcher would have been appointed as PM.

The only difference now is that the FTPA has inserted a 14 day period before which an election can be called, otherwise the same principle applies - if Johnson loses a VONC and there is no one else who commands a majority, he stays as PM and there is an election after 14 days. If there is someone else, he has to resign and a new PM is appointed.

As it happens, I don't think Johnson has gone so far down the Bolshevik route as to refuse tor resign if it clear someone else commands a majority in the HOC., though the prospect of the Tory PM picking a fight with the Queen is rather delicious.

Polls show that on the best case scenario, the Brexit Party will get around a third of the vote. That's how many people in this country support "no deal". Hence there is literally no chance of no deal happening.

I never ceased to be gobsmacked about how the ardent Brexiters refuse to vote for a deal they would have given their right arm for three years ago. The delicious irony is that the only reason the UK is still in the EU is because those who most hate the EU refuse to vote to leave it.

As my name implies I'm not a Tory, but even from a neutral point of view I am gobsmacked that someone who was a cabinet minister can post such nonsense.

As Ms Patel well knows that there is a large parliamentary majority against leaving with no deal on 12th April, so it is literally pointless urging the government to do precisely that. It's not far off urging the government to re-start the Hundred Years War against France.

I presume this is all about Ms Patel currying favour with the grassroots in support of her political ambitions; she's stroking Tory members erogenous zones, but I would have thought most could see through her...