The House of Commons voted 498 to 114 to pass the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 which allowed the PM to trigger article 50. Politicians did so knowing that article 50 clearly states that if no deal can be agreed upon btw the member state and the EU within 2 years (unless an extension is agreed upon) then the member state shall in effect leave without a deal. Now Parliament are saying that the UK cannot leave without a deal. It has created a brand new law to prevent the PM from taking the UK out without a deal even though leaving without a deal was always the default outcome once article 50 was triggered. So no, Parliament are not acting in a manner consistent with their passing the aforesaid European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. By the way, if the French really do block an extension what do Parliament do then?
Only I can as the house of Commons voted to give he PM the power to trigger article 50 where leaving without a deal is the DEFAULT option. The house has now created a new law to prevent the current PM from leaving without a deal even though under Article 50 leaving without a deal is the default option. So clearly the rebel alliance are not abiding by their decision to pass the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. Furthermore, under law it is only the executive branch of the Government who can negotiate and sign treaties with foreign powers and yet Parliament's new law seeks to prevent the executive from doing this and have created a law to dictate the PM's actions. How on earth is that in any way consistent with passing the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017?
And now we're talking about how two different laws interact with each other, not what one law allows and disallows. Also, I still can't find the text of that law forbidding no deal, so I can neither say what happens in the event the EU say no to an extension (a real possibility), or how it interacts with article 50.
As for whether or not Parliament are seen to be acting in a manner consistent with how they said they would act is something for the electorate to decide. As it is a great many leave voters seem to see the attack on no deal as being in reality an attack on Brexit. I for one think they are right.
Oh, and clearly when you said I "made NO indication" that I was "talking about the default position only", and that I "made it sound like the time limit was 2 years and that there would be no way to change that" you were wrong.
Sure. You were talking about the default option only, which is why you decided to drag the no no deal bill into this conversation. You were talking about the default option in the context of Parliament's obligations to follow their own legislation, which makes whatever the default is a moot point.