Notably, the UK government’s Brexit rhetoric has shifted. No longer is it claiming that Parliament must choose between the Brexit Withdrawal deal that May agreed to in November or face the alternative of a (painful) no-deal. Instead, the government is suggesting that the choice is now between the PM’s deal or no-Brexit. This shift partly reflects the (constitutional) efforts Parliament has made of late to reassert itself against a no-deal. It also reflects clearer signs from within the Cabinet that May would face a revolt if she allowed the UK to drift too close to no-deal cliff edge.
But just because Parliament is collectively willing to show its distaste for a no-deal does not mean that it is any nearer to offering an alternative deal that would command a majority in the still very-divided House of Commons. Indeed, the Labour opposition may still try and opt for a fresh election rather than more actively consider a fresh referendum that would otherwise provide perhaps the least-difficult way out of the current impasse. In addition, May will probably be unwilling to ditch her Brexit Withdrawal deal entirely in the hope that the EU may make some further concession that would eventually make it more palatable to the UK Parliament.
As a result, the Brexit impasse may continue without any clearer a picture of what may be the eventual resolution. This reinforces our existing view of Brexit limbo persisting enough to necessitate an extension of the March 29 Brexit deadline.