According to Sky:
"... full Commons consent would be withheld from the deal until the whole package of EU exit laws are pushed through..."
More procedural tricksiness. It never ends - and never will end. The remainers do not accept the referendum result and, furthermore, appear to have literally zero in the way of internal turmoil as they engage in parliamentary skullduggery. This is hard to understand. One can only conclude that careers, jobs, and influence are at stake, and so Brexit has become personal. Alternatively, they may be True Believers in the EU project, and thus their mindset is ideological. Perhaps a little column a, a little column b.
The long-term consequences are hard to predict. Disclosure: I was previously a soft-remainer. Also, I've loathed the idea of the Supreme Court from the outset, about which I intend a longer post. However, there is a fascinating constitutional issue that has so far remained unresolved: can parliament effectively veto a referendum result? Perhaps I should rephrase, as clearly parliament can do exactly that: should a parliament veto a referendum result? No, of course not, but The Supreme Court has decided otherwise.
So here we are. How this will work in practice, I do not know. Does parliament have a line by line veto of the EU deal? The answer appears to be yes. Perhaps we should just send Jo Swinson to do the negotiating? Boris appears to be the middle-man here, who isn't making the decisions. Boris appears to be playing a straight bat, for which he is due credit, though his opponents give him none.
Here in Australia, Gough Whitlam's government was axed for far, far less. Queenie won't do that here, though perhaps she should. The only conclusion I can come to is that a written constitution is now required. And if we can't axe the Supreme Court, who have arrogated themselves powers beyond their station, a more US style nomination process is on the cards. That'll be fun.