JUST when you thought it couldn’t get any more confused, Westminster has delivered.
There was, of course, an inevitability about Theresa May’s announcement.
After months of ministerial resignations, the leakiest of Cabinets, senior ministers rebelling on key votes, MPs openly calling for their leader’s resignation and a string of humiliating Commons defeats, the PM's authority has been oozing from under the door of Downing St.
The cumulative impact looked as though it could end in only one way.
Mrs May’s forced offer of a long goodbye is that if her deal goes through, she will stand down some time after May 22; the extended exit day offered by the EU.
Yet the chances of a smooth and orderly Mexit look as remote as a smooth and orderly Brexit.
Last night, MPs having taken control of parliamentary business could not decide on which of eight options they liked.
Supporters of a softer Brexit pointed out how 264 MPs had voted for a customs union and 268 for a second referendum, which were more than the 249 who had backed Mrs May’s deal.
But with a deal of understatement Sir Oliver Letwin, the veteran Tory MP, who led the “indicative votes” process, said the results were “disappointing” but he hoped a new round of votes would be held on Monday. To which several MPs groaned loudly and groaned some more when Speaker John Bercow announced he would allow it.
Stephen Barclay, the Brexit Secretary, popped up to say that given there was no majority for any of the alternative options, MPs should now back the PM's plan "in the national interest".
While the Government has tabled a motion that would allow MPs to vote on Friday, it is still not certain if UK ministers will call a vote, particularly as the DUP made clear it was still unconvinced by Mrs May's deal.
So the uncertainty continues as the next exit day of April 12, possibly, draws nearer.
But even if Mrs May were to pull off a Brexit miracle, one way or another her days are numbered.
After Thatcher, Major and Cameron, the Tory Party’s European psychodrama looks set to claim another victim.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here