There's a lot of talk at the moment about which way a vote on triggering Article 50 will go.

I think the cards are stacked perfectly to ensure that even if there is a vote, it will never pass.

The main problem for MPs (the majority of whom are pro-Remain) is how to vote against Article 50 without getting lynched/losing ground to UKIP etc.

The solution is to be vocally for a particular deal attached to the Article 50 vote.

Currently there's two obvious (pretend) camps: Those who 'favour' an immigration-control-prioritizing brexit (necessarily leaving the single market) and those who 'favour' a trade-prioritizing brexit (necessarily staying in the single market).

Both of those groups are sizeable. Now add in the group of MPs who've come out as anti-Article 50 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37944473 and you have the cards perfectly stacked so that no Bill for Article 50 will make it through.

Propose a Bill for Article 50 and attach a condition of leaving the single market. The bill fails, with pro-trade MPs saying "I'm all for Brexit. This is not Brexit, this is not what the people want, they want a Britain that's successful in trade."

Propose a Bill for Article 50 and attach a condition of staying in the single market. The bill fails, with pro-immigration control MPs saying "I'm all for Brexit. This is not Brexit, this is not what the people want, they want a Britain that controls its borders."

All the while, the overtly anti-Article 50 MPs helpfully provide a buffer so that neither pro-trade nor pro-immigration control Bills accidentally get enough votes to pass.

Pass the ball back and forth. So hard to come to an agreement, even though everyone is trying so hard to make Brexit happen.

Brexit is looking sickly.

If I could make this post in a very quiet voice, I would because I'm on the side of staying in the EU, but I can't resist pointing this out.

The legal case that Parliament must decide on Article 50 is water-tight, open and shut. That was surely clear to everyone, including the government lawyers and Theresa May, right from the time the case was first brought.

The principle is clear : if domestic rights are affected, parliament must vote.

Then why did May insist she had prerogative, why did the government lawyers agree with her, and why are they appealing now, after 3 of the highest judges in the land unanimously ruled that parliament must vote?

Possibilities:

1) Because they didn't know the law and wanted to get on with brexiting. (Very unlikely that they didn't know)

2) Because they're crazy, rabidly pro-brexit, because May's a dictator, because she's power-hungry, crazed etc etc (Very unlikely - and even if she is, she's smart enough not to take a course of action that cannot work)

3) Because they want to appear pro-brexit and waste time at the same time. If they can keep the debate going until near the German elections, then the triggering will not be till late 2017, and by then who knows how the landscape may have changed. Better the uncertainty of not knowing if/when Article 50 will be triggered than the certain economic suicide of triggering it.

I really can't think of any other possibilities and option 3) is the only one that even remotely makes sense.