Every single MP that stands for re-election will accept the full responsibility of not being re-elected if they go against a majority of their constituents.

@Jan that's the point. They want to be able to say that they haven't technically blocked Brexit even if they de facto have

At the moment this is simply a poor quality answer. It's prima facie simply incorrect in the claim that MPs are hoping to frustrate Brexit altogether. Indeed the vast majority of MPs specifically voted in favour of Brexit. You need to provide better reasoning and some sources to improve the quality of the answer.

@Dan Scully besides the fact that times have somewhat changed, as I said, there is a desire to shift blame. Voting against triggering article 50 (or even abstaining) would hardly allow them to say 'we didn't stop it' As to sources, quite difficult to bring a source that someone is trying to avoid getting blamed for something -theyre hardly going to admit to it.

@Dan Scully in addition to the above - the very fact that MPs have failed to say what form of Brexit they want, and literally voted against every option, is pretty much all the evidence that you need.

"without actually doing any positive action" - this answer is based on an irredeemably flawed premise. Parliament does not take positive action, it supervises government. HM's Government should take positive action; Parliament asks for the extension because the Government is slow.

@MSalters "this answer is based on an irredeemably flawed premise. Parliament does not take positive action," Oh, like it doesn't dictate to the executive to write a letter requesting for an extension for example? Or is this somehow a 'negative' action? "Parliament asks for the extension because the Government is slow" The government under May took action; Parliament grabbed hold of the legislative session under May, decided that they wouldn't support any path the government would take, refused to vote no confidence, and then basically decided to take a spoiling action.

@Displayname: Even that is not a positive action. It forbids the PM from doing one specific thing. Johnson still has the option to cancel the Brexit altogether (Royal Prerogative) which would not be the case if Parliament had dictated the single allowed action would be Brexit by a later date.

@MSalters it literally dictates to him to make a request which can only be made by the executive. "Johnson still has the option to cancel the Brexit altogether (Royal Prerogative) " Actually, considering a court-case ruled that since parliament voted to join the EU it had to vote to leave, voting to cancel that second vote cannot possibly be in the remit of the royal prerogative; even the most activist court would struggle to explain how unilaterally revoking Parliament's vote to trigger Article 50 would be legal according to their own definition.

@Displayname: Doesn't take a particularly activist court. Parliament has to approve a withdrawal agreement because it affects an earlier adopted law (entry into the EU), but cancellation does not do so. Triggering art 50 is not a law.

@Displayname "the very fact that MPs have failed to say what form of Brexit they want, and literally voted against every option [is evidence that they have blocked Brexit]". Except, the Tory 'rebels' who voted for the Benn bill also voted for the May deal and mostly voted for Customs Union and Common Market 2.0 in the indicative votes. The Labour party's 2017 manifesto and voting record is for leaving the EU and staying in the Customs Union. The Lib Dems and SNP are and have always been openly anti-Brexit. Of the others, only the ERG and DUP have voted against every Brexit option.

You are correct, a vote to delay is just a hope of stopping Brexit all together. Many MPs talk about being opposed to "No Deal" but they are in fact opposed to leaving full stop. Remaining in the EU is a legitimate view and supported by many (48% in the referendum and a recent surge in Lib Dem support) but the dishonesty we are seeing from politicians is unacceptable. The pipe dream solution is a GE with three new parties: Leave At All Costs Party, Let's Make a Deal Party, and a Remain At All Costs Party

@MarkPerryman "The Lib Dems and SNP are and have always been openly anti-Brexit" Indeed, I pointed this out in my answer that some of the MPs have definitive aims; e.g. ``` as many Libdems who are open about stopping Brexit ... and a group of generally pro-brexit Corbynites who see it as a chance to seize power.``` however it is the large proportion of MPs who refuse to take any particular stand , i.e. ``` a large proportion are aiming to block Brexit without having to accept any responsibility for their actions.``` is why this particular course of action was chosen

@Displayname. You missed my actual point. The supporters of the Benn bill have en masse voted for a range of viable Brexits. The "tory rebels" for Mays deal and soft brexits, Labour for soft Brexits. The only groups that have not voted for a viable deal are the hard-Brexiteers.

@MarkPerryman not so simple, as many (not all) of those groups have showing no interest in supporting any others (especially labour, who have actually played the 'vote against whatever the government may support game') so no viable deal as you need to pass parliament. The main point I'm making is at the point we stand the MPs voted for this measure to avoid taking responsibilities of what they are attempting to do - it may be they'd support a deal if history had been different, but at the point we are a significant portion are they are trying to push an outcome without taking the blame

Just to clarify, as many people seem to fundamentally misunderstand my point - it's not that some MPs who are ideologically against Brexit are playing games to avoid blame - it's that some MPs against Brexit as the situation stands with th practicalities are playing games.

@Displayname, I still think you are wrong. The Tory rebels, bulk of Labour (as well as Lib Dems and SNP) who passed the bill all have clearly defined objectives that are consistent with their previous votes (though not consistent with each other). Those that are willing support a Brexit in some form have each voted for multiple variants of it. Those that wish to halt Brexit have been open about it. None of the groupings are trying to subtly prevent Brexit.

@MarkPerryman fair enough; I may indeed be wrong. But a bill which is designed to prevent no deal, whilst not explicitly ending the chances of no-deal (at least to a future GE, which it could have) suggests that there is a lot of shifting responsibilities going on.

@Displayname I don't understand what responsibilities you think are shifting. The Government has a responsbility to produce a Brexit solution that can both pass the house and be agreed by the EU. MPs have a responsbility to vote as representatives of their constituents. That's it. If a Government cannot get parliament or its own party to support it it should reign. By any sensible measure that would have been Nov 2018 when the ERG and DUP started to force kicking the can down the road.

@Jontia.. 1) once MPs voted for art50 to be invoked the default has been no deal. This bill is precisely a case of legislation originating from outside the government so clearly they can take action when they want to. 2) May resigned, and besides, the onus in the UK system is actually on a vonc, which the opposition have refused to do. As for responsibilities; this seems to be a translation issue - I'm not saying they are responsible for a fix but the bill tries to force an outcome whilst making it blamable on someone else

@Displayname perhaps we are just sailing past each other, but the Benn Act in No way forces an outcome. It simply prevents the no deal default and puts the onus on Government to do something positive. Which could be proving no deal has support from the electorate.