//It certainly wasn't asked if we wanted to leave on 31st October, with No Deal, three years ago.//
Neither was I. I was asked if I wanted too leave and I said that I did. I also wasn't asked if I wanted to leave only provided it didn't cause too much inconvenience.
//Suppose that whenever the current Government is facing defeat on a given policy, all they need to do in order to avoid that defeat is to suspend Parliament, until a relevant deadline passes.//
But the government is not facing defeat on a particular policy. The policy (to leave) has been decided and endorsed by Parliament. It was Parliament that forced the Prime Minister to beg for an extension to the original leaving date and Parliament which agreed to that new date. No more votes are necessary. Normally when the government is facing defeat the policy has not been endorsed by Parliament and suspending proceedings will simply see that policy fail to materialise. That is not the case here. This continual kicking the can down the road is causing untold damage to UK businesses and the economy in general and those suggesting they are interested in its wellbeing and so will seek to defer or abandon Brexit are actually causing extended damage.
//Jim, from the link//Using a judicial review, anyone can apply to challenge the lawfulness of decisionsmade by the government.
Advice is not a decision, only the Queen can make that decision.//
Then we should have a Judicial Review to establish whether we can have a Judicial Review! :-)