No majority for any of Brexit options

[muriel_volestrangler]

Source: BBC

None of MPs' eight proposed options for Brexit have secured clear backing following a Commons vote.

Calls for a customs union with the EU were rejected by 272 to 264 votes while a call for a referendum to endorse any deal was rejected by 295 to 268 votes.

Brexit Secretary Steven Barclay said the results strengthened ministers' view their deal was "the best option".


Read more: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47728333

---

margins here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/27/alternative-brexit-options-what-will-john-bercow-select-for-indicative-votes

Closest were:

D. 'Common market 2.0' - DEFEATED 188 to 283

J. Customs union - DEFEATED 264 to 272

K. Labour plan - DEFEATED 237 to 307

M. Confirmatory public vote - DEFEATED 268 to 295

A clusterfuck. They should have had an Alternative Vote system, to try and construct a majority in favour of something.

[turbinetree]

1. "CLUSTERFUCK".............you nailed it "CLUSTERFUCK"

they are hell bent on the austerity, to hell with a petitions to re-think this "CLUSTERFUCK"...................

When will the Queen have to leave the country.......................

[LonePirate]

2. Was option M essentially a Brexit revote?

If so, I am surprised it was defeated. It seems the tide has turned and a majority of Britons no longer support Brexit, even if the politicians are committed to leaving the EU.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. A bit like that, but not precisely, I think

It was "whatever gets decided, there must be a public vote to confirm it before it becomes law". But I don't think it, on its own, would have stopped a 'no deal' Brexit if nothing gets passed at all.

I too am surprised how many MPs don't want to have another public vote I know a lot of voters will be pissed off at being called on to sort things out, but, yes, polls have been showing a consistent majority for not leaving.

[Rollo]

10. I also don't think a "none of the above" vote on M means not Brexit...

It would just mean a "hard Brexit", or that is, a Brexit with no deal with the EU to soften the impact.

At least that's the logical interpretation. Not that British politics appear all that logical at present.

[padah513]

3. Should have allowed the people to decide

[nitpicker]

4. Staggering off

The white cliffs of Dover.

((tommyrot))

[ancianita]

6. So does it mean Brexit will still go through whether Parliament approves or not? Or are they

overriding the 2016 nationwide referendum, which was around 52% for Brexit.

The invocation of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union set a two-year process which was due to conclude with the exit on 29 March 2019 at 11 pm UK time. The European Council has extended the deadline to 12 April 2019 if the UK does not ratify the Brexit withdrawal agreement, or, if the UK does ratify the Agreement, to 22 May 2019, when the period for ratifying the Agreement will end unless a further extension is agreed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit

Just a curious aside. Does the queen have anything to do with what this parliament does re the original vote to split from the EU? Maybe parliament reflecting her opinion of the original referendum? She's seemed worried enough to say something, but isn't taking a definitive side. And yet...

Aggressive rhetoric which rejects the legitimacy of dissenting views has become increasingly widespread. That shrinks the space where politics can be conducted within civil boundaries and in recognition that democracy itself is the overarching enterprise.

These trends have not appeared overnight. But the Queen’s decision to say something indicates that the situation has reached a certain gravity. The palace is not a neutral or dispassionate player. There is a monarchical self-interest in wanting the ship of state steadied;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/25/the-guardian-view-on-the-queen-and-brexit-a-crisis-in-the-making

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. It's not the last chance for parliament to take control, but it now looks unlikely they will

They have a chance to vote on Monday on what have been the least unpopular of these options. But if they can't manage a majority for something then, it'll all have meant nothing. And May has said she has no intention of regarding these votes as binding. So the main thing these might do is make a strong case for a vote of no confidence in the government. But I can't see that working now.

May still thinks she might get her deal through; but since the DUP has said they won't support it, that seems unlikely - unless many Labour MPs switch to supporting her deal because they fear 'no deal' even more.

(Interesting - while I was typing this, The Sun's political editor (yes, Murdoch tabloid, but the right wingers like talking to them) has just said on the BBC that we shouldn't take the DUP's "never" seriously)

I think there's a real chance of 'no deal' now. Everyone is playing brinkmanship, and I think someone will either screw up, or say "screw you guys, I'm going home" and let 'no deal' happen on purpose.

Another referendum? Looks very unlikely to me now. The Queen intervening, even less likely. She felt comfortable with a general "talk to each other" nudge, but she won't intervene explicitly.

[Denzil_DC]

12. Ian Dunt's a bit less pessimistic (while still dispairing)

Here's how today's options ranked:



Regardless of the DUP's line or today's spectacular/embarrassing changes of mind from some in the ERG, Bercow's taking hard line that there will be no meaningful vote 3 unless there are substantial changes to the original motion, and has indicated he'll block any moves to try to get around his ruling. If the MV3 vote doesn't happen on Friday, then the 22 May extension the EU offered won't either, and we're left with the shorter one.

So we're facing a run-off on Monday of the options that came closest to gaining a majority. From Dunt's latest post (if you read the rest of it, he's more bullish about the prospects of a people's vote than I'm feeling, but who the hell knows?):

We always knew it would go like this. It had been plain for a long time that there was no majority for any one option in the Commons. When Oliver Letwin was arguing for his system on Monday, before MPs voted to support it, he made it clear that it would be a multi-stage process. "My own view is that, at least to begin with, it may be wiser simply to disclose where the votes lie on a plain vanilla basis," he said. "We can, in the succeeding few days, having observed the lie of the land, zero in on a compromise that could get a majority." MPs then voted to pursue the idea.

This morning, in the business motion which preceded the debate, Letwin put aside a further day for the second stage of the process, which would move from finding the options with substantial support and see if any of them could secure a majority. He tabled it for Monday. The government whipped against it, in a last-gasp attempt to kill off the process, and they failed.

...

Two propositions stood out, prompting gasps as their numbers were read out in the Commons. Ken Clarke's proposal for the UK to stay in the customs union fell by just 264 votes to 272 - a majority of just eight. And Margaret Beckett's motion calling for a confirmatory public vote on whatever deal was passed fell by 268 votes to 295 - a majority of 27. It was a far tighter margin than expected and also the single largest positive vote for any Brexit option so far.

https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/03/27/indicative-votes-a-people-s-vote-just-became-much-more-likel

Contrast these figures with the drubbings MVs 1 and 2 received. On the other hand, I believe the cabinet abstained today, I don't know whether that would happen next Monday.

I've no idea what's on Letwin's mind, but based on today's votes, options J (customs union) and M (confirmatory public vote) should be in the mix, maybe along with some others, maybe one we've not even heard of yet.

[ancianita]

14. Thanks, though I'm still "in the weeds" trying to understand this, and will keep working on it.

[Denzil_DC]

13. If Parliament doesn't do anything, then there will be a no-deal Brexit.

That's the default position, because Article 50 specifies it.

Your question about "overriding" the 2016 referendum is loaded. It was advisory. It could have been ignored all along, at varying political costs, and probably at far less cost now than before, judging by the polls - and Article 50 revocation's relative popularity among MPs voting today shows how the tide has been turning.

The Queen's only role in all this would be to give the rubber-stamp Royal Assent to whatever Acts Parliament passes. There's no chance she would withhold assent. It may be unusual for the Palace to issue a statement, even in heavy code, but she did something similar in 2014 when it looked like Yes might win the Scottish independence referendum (being conveniently "overheard" by the media outside a church saying words to the effect that "people should think very carefully about how they vote" ), so it's not unprecedented.

If things degenerate enough that May's shaky majority propped up by the DUP falls and there is a successful no confidence vote in Parliament, then the Queen would be involved in discussions about who would be able to cobble together a working majority in Parliament to form a new government in the absence of a general election. If no majority could be formed with the existing MPs within 14 days, then there would have to be a general election.

A general election right now would be very awkward for the Tories because May's offered her hardline backbenchers in the ERG to stand down in the unlikely event her deal is passed by Parliament (you'll see from my reply above to Muriel that it's almost certainly not even going to be voted on unless the government changes the motion substantially), and has made it clear that she doesn't want to be Prime Minister during the next stage of negotiations with the EU (yes, there's much more to come after this stage ...). There's no time for a Tory leadership contest within the time frame that would affect matters right now, so the Tories would have to go into that election with a leader who was due to resign forthwith.

More likely, things will just stagger on and on much as they have been, but don't hold me to that as any sort of prediction, as the situation's too crazy right now for any of that.

[ancianita]

15. Thanks. It does look crazy.

[ancianita]

7. I guess I must be asking the wrong questions. Admittedly, I'm still confused about this process.

[cab67]

9. It's a comedy of errors.

UK: We want to leave, but keep all the benefits of staying. What will you do for us?

EU: Um...it was your decision to leave...

[SomewhereInTheMiddle]

21. This! in a nutshell

It seems to me that many in Britain's politics seem to be under the impression that the UK will be able to dictate the conditions under which it leaves the Union.

Everyone seems to forget that negotiations have two sides. The fact that May was able to reach a deal with the EU, only for her own government to help vote it down seems to say that they all want her to go back and demand a better deal. The EU has no reason to offer a better deal, not that the UK is in agreement as to what a better deal would look like.

This most recent vote(s) seems to be more of the same - no agreement and the idea that they can dictate to Europe the conditions of the withdrawal. I think Europe has basically said our deal, leave with no deal or no withdrawal are the only options they are willing to consider. And they have more power than the UK in this negotiation.

My hope is that another referendum will be allowed and the people of the UK can make a much more informed decision.

But this is a view from the outside.

[cab67]

8. Talk about a lack of foresight.....

The decision to hold a referendum on the EU, but not have a solid concept of how to enact it should it pass, is surely one of the worst in all of British political history.

[ancianita]

16. Seriously. Brexit's going to happen, and good luck to Parliament's dealing with its consequences.

[Baclava]

17. So May is staying?

She said she'd leave when it passes

[Polybius]

18. She may be there for life then

It may never pass.

[Baclava]

22. Something tells me we'll be reading this same story a year from now, endless delays

rabble rabble rabble

[moondust]

19. Morbidly entertaining

watching Bercow read off all the failed votes one after another with everybody mumbling and grumbling after each one. I suspect some cartoonists will have some fun with it.

[Richard_GB]

20. The good news

Hard Brexit was defeated

The only way I see May's deal passing parliament is if it is subject to confirmation by a peoples vote.

Demographics are on the side of remain, new young pro EU voters are replacing old Brexit voters that are leaving the voting pool (by death, dementia or overseas retirement). So if the UK does leave remain will become rejoin and leaving will likely only be short term.

Brexit hopefully has made the Tory party unelectable for several election cycles, so good times are ahead.