Brexit - No Deal Rejection












16















As you might know last night at 19:00 MPs voted on whether or not we would leave the EU without a deal. Needless to say, it was rejected. However, if the outcome of that vote is not legally binding and leaving the EU without a deal is still the default, what was the point?



Surely if it is not legally binding & still the default that therefore means if they decide to leave without a deal there is nothing we can do about it - so why did we hold that vote in the first place?










share|improve this question









New contributor




J.J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 12





    Don't forget that the Brexit referendum itself wasn't legally binding either. Just because it's not legally binding doesn't mean that it's not going to be respected.

    – UKMonkey
    16 hours ago
















16















As you might know last night at 19:00 MPs voted on whether or not we would leave the EU without a deal. Needless to say, it was rejected. However, if the outcome of that vote is not legally binding and leaving the EU without a deal is still the default, what was the point?



Surely if it is not legally binding & still the default that therefore means if they decide to leave without a deal there is nothing we can do about it - so why did we hold that vote in the first place?










share|improve this question









New contributor




J.J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 12





    Don't forget that the Brexit referendum itself wasn't legally binding either. Just because it's not legally binding doesn't mean that it's not going to be respected.

    – UKMonkey
    16 hours ago














16












16








16


1






As you might know last night at 19:00 MPs voted on whether or not we would leave the EU without a deal. Needless to say, it was rejected. However, if the outcome of that vote is not legally binding and leaving the EU without a deal is still the default, what was the point?



Surely if it is not legally binding & still the default that therefore means if they decide to leave without a deal there is nothing we can do about it - so why did we hold that vote in the first place?










share|improve this question









New contributor




J.J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












As you might know last night at 19:00 MPs voted on whether or not we would leave the EU without a deal. Needless to say, it was rejected. However, if the outcome of that vote is not legally binding and leaving the EU without a deal is still the default, what was the point?



Surely if it is not legally binding & still the default that therefore means if they decide to leave without a deal there is nothing we can do about it - so why did we hold that vote in the first place?







united-kingdom brexit






share|improve this question









New contributor




J.J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




J.J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 9 hours ago







J.J













New contributor




J.J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 18 hours ago









J.JJ.J

18116




18116




New contributor




J.J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





J.J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






J.J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 12





    Don't forget that the Brexit referendum itself wasn't legally binding either. Just because it's not legally binding doesn't mean that it's not going to be respected.

    – UKMonkey
    16 hours ago














  • 12





    Don't forget that the Brexit referendum itself wasn't legally binding either. Just because it's not legally binding doesn't mean that it's not going to be respected.

    – UKMonkey
    16 hours ago








12




12





Don't forget that the Brexit referendum itself wasn't legally binding either. Just because it's not legally binding doesn't mean that it's not going to be respected.

– UKMonkey
16 hours ago





Don't forget that the Brexit referendum itself wasn't legally binding either. Just because it's not legally binding doesn't mean that it's not going to be respected.

– UKMonkey
16 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















25















so why did we hold that vote in the first place?




Mainly for the following two reasons:



For some, to put pressure on the government to ensure that there is either a deal or no Brexit



For others, so they can blame it all on the government even though they know full well they've done nothing to actually prevent it, by saying 'look, we voted against no deal'.






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    I think the Spelman amendment put pressure on the Government, but the original bill was brought by the Government, so it is difficult to see how that would have been a pressure move in the first place.

    – Jontia
    17 hours ago






  • 3





    Hmm, but if two deals have already been rejected what the hell do they think more pressure will do? She cannot get anything through parliament so I don't see their logic. I guess that leaves one thing; no Brexit.

    – J.J
    17 hours ago








  • 2





    @J.J the pressure is against the no deal; indeed, for many no Brexit would be the preferred outcome altogether, and for the rest they prefer no Brexit to no deal

    – Orangesandlemons
    17 hours ago






  • 3





    @J.J: The falacy, IMHO, is that the Tories keep interpreting, and referring to, the 2016 referendum as instructive and binding. Those who voted "Leave" in 2016 were a collection of wishes for "no deal" and "candyland deal" (lots of Brexit myths that have unraveled since then). Right now it looks like the options available are "no deal exit", or "no exit". I find it disingenuous to deny people a vote on these actual options. Candyland is no longer on the table, and people have wisened up on many things. I seriously don't think a second referendum would uphold Leave on these terms.

    – DevSolar
    16 hours ago








  • 7





    @DevSolar one big issue with second referendum would be one of the main criticisms of the pro-EU brigade was the 'neverendum'. The mistake may have been to hold the referendum in the first place; now a second referendum could potentially have massive negative effects of its own.

    – Orangesandlemons
    16 hours ago



















11














This is old-fashioned power politics of a type rarely seen in the UK, normally associated with times of extreme crisis. Normally Parliament is irrelevant: the Government produces a policy, whips the MPs to vote for it, and it always passes.



Until 2010, there was a strong guarantee that ensured a way forwards could always be found: the confidence vote. A vote could be declared a confidence vote so that voting it down would force fresh elections. The effect of that was that government MPs were extremely reluctant to vote against the government on a confidence vote given the high risk of losing their seats. Under this approach, either the deal would be approved or we would be having another election right now.



The Liberal Democrats broke that with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.



Now the government staggers on, having completely lost control of the process and being reduced to voting against its own motions. And yet May remains as PM, because who else is there? The Conservative Party failed to elect another leader. A no confidence vote was held in January and failed to remove the government. But at the same time there is no majority for doing anything specific. Achieving one will either (a) require the ERG and/or hard Brexit group and/or DUP to surrender (unlikely); (b) require enough of the Opposition to vote with the Government to back the deal (unlikely); (c) require May to give up on her Deal; or (d) require some other option to be assembled and members of the Government to break the whip to vote for it.



The votes are an opportunity for a coalition to assemble. If there's a majority for "not no deal", can that be turned into a deal / delay / rescind majority?






share|improve this answer































    10














    Trying to force though "the deal"



    This is the main reason for this vote.



    The prime minster is hemmed in and is trying to show that there is no other option but to accept "her deal", as already negotiated with the EU. She knows that there is not a majority for "no deal" in the parliament. So the vote is a way to show to everyone that the majority of parliament do not want a no deal, vis a ve parliament (or more to the point the pro-brexit MPs) should accept her deal. It's trying to prove to the MPs that say "we should leave without a deal" that they are in the minority.



    Context



    This needs to be viewed in the context of what is currently happening. There are lots of factors at play here, some big ones include (not an exhaustive list we'd be here all day):




    • The current government is a minority government without an overall
      majority in the house, it is only in power currently because of a
      loose arrangement with the DUP. This is so loose that the DUP has
      voted against the government several times! So the government , even
      if it could force ("whip") all of it's MPs to vote with it, still
      cannot make parliament accept the current deal on the table on it's
      own.

    • The government has lost 2 major votes votes on it's main policy
      ("Brexit"). Under normal circumstances this would cause the
      collapse of the government and a general election.

    • Earlier last year, the Prime Minister has barely scrapped a no
      confidence vote.
      This has again highlighted that the government cannot produce a
      majority. Again, Under normal circumstances this would cause the
      collapse of the government and a general election.

    • The government tried to win a majority with it's snap election of
      2017.
      This tactic failed miserably resulting in the Conservative party
      losing it's majority. So the Conservative party really doesn't want
      an election because it's afraid it will loose it or it'll make
      matters even worse (again!).

    • The DUP could withdraw it's support to the government this would
      cause the collapse of the government and a general election. The
      DUP doesn't want an election though because it now has a lot of
      power.


    So at the moment the UK government is basically after something it can call a win in any shape or form, even if it's not binding at least it shows progress.



    You can see form above just how tentative the current governments grip on power is. The current state of affairs is totally unprecedented. At any other time this government would of collapsed a long time ago or at the very least the prime minister would of resigned. Why has none of this happened? Because there simply isn't enough time to hold elections, etc. before 29th March.



    The government never wanted to have this vote. It's been forced into by the circumstances. But without the government it's hard to make votes legally binding in the current circumstances. So the government is trapped by parliament and parliament is trapped by the government. Eventually (dear god hopefully soon!) one will have to give.



    A vote cannot rule out Brexit, legally



    The other thing here is that there is primary legislation(an act of parliament) that says the UK will leave the EU on the 29th March.



    The only way to revoke this is with more primary legislation. This vote is not primary legislation. Revoking article 50 would require a new Act of Parliament. The EU has said the UK can revoke article 50 whenever it wants, the UK act of parliament says this isn't possible. This was only a vote on the original Brexit bill.



    Unless a deal is agreed by the 29th March, then the legal default is no deal, no matter how many votes in parliament say that it's not true, the law says no.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Liam is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.
















    • 7





      I suspect one of the reasons May is still the PM is because nobody else wants to be stuck in the hot seat (and catch the blame and responsibility) when the whole house of cards collapses.

      – Shadur
      15 hours ago






    • 2





      Also the FTPA allows this situation to exist by not forcing a government that can't pass bills to collapse and hold fresh elections.

      – pjc50
      15 hours ago






    • 1





      @Liam: "The government tried to win a majority with it's snap election of 2017." Technically, they tried to win a larger majority. That worked out well... ;)

      – Nicol Bolas
      9 hours ago



















    7














    The point of the votes on no deal and on an extension to the leaving date, is for Theresa May to pressure the Democratic Unionist Party (her 'confidence and supply' partners) and the European Research Group (hard brexit conservatives) to vote for her deal






    share|improve this answer



















    • 12





      Then she's really living in a candy land given that she is now 1st & 4th place for biggest defeats in parliament IIRC.

      – J.J
      17 hours ago






    • 1





      @J.J Based on Tuesday night's defeat by 149, she needs to persuade 75 people to change their minds. It doesn't look likely

      – Dave Gremlin
      17 hours ago






    • 2





      at the current rate, she wins meaningful vote 4

      – Caleth
      17 hours ago






    • 3





      @J.J: only because parliament has so far been able to be against everything, and for nothing. If they're faced with an actual choice between the deal and some specific alternative, they may yet choose the deal.

      – RemcoGerlich
      17 hours ago






    • 1





      @J.J Defeat implies that government(or May) lost something. I mean, if we look at it from the position that the UK Government doesn't want any of what the EU is offering(aka no useful movement) (and the media have created an environment in which) it seems as if the UK always needs to be the group offering solutions, the Government essentially doesn't have to do anything but stall for time until the EU makes the no-deal decision itself. In the meantime the EU/anti-Brexit camp has to build up 'the sense' that it's the UK's fault that it has a negotiating partner that is unwilling to negotiate.

      – Giu Piete
      12 hours ago













    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "475"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    J.J is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39423%2fbrexit-no-deal-rejection%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    25















    so why did we hold that vote in the first place?




    Mainly for the following two reasons:



    For some, to put pressure on the government to ensure that there is either a deal or no Brexit



    For others, so they can blame it all on the government even though they know full well they've done nothing to actually prevent it, by saying 'look, we voted against no deal'.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 1





      I think the Spelman amendment put pressure on the Government, but the original bill was brought by the Government, so it is difficult to see how that would have been a pressure move in the first place.

      – Jontia
      17 hours ago






    • 3





      Hmm, but if two deals have already been rejected what the hell do they think more pressure will do? She cannot get anything through parliament so I don't see their logic. I guess that leaves one thing; no Brexit.

      – J.J
      17 hours ago








    • 2





      @J.J the pressure is against the no deal; indeed, for many no Brexit would be the preferred outcome altogether, and for the rest they prefer no Brexit to no deal

      – Orangesandlemons
      17 hours ago






    • 3





      @J.J: The falacy, IMHO, is that the Tories keep interpreting, and referring to, the 2016 referendum as instructive and binding. Those who voted "Leave" in 2016 were a collection of wishes for "no deal" and "candyland deal" (lots of Brexit myths that have unraveled since then). Right now it looks like the options available are "no deal exit", or "no exit". I find it disingenuous to deny people a vote on these actual options. Candyland is no longer on the table, and people have wisened up on many things. I seriously don't think a second referendum would uphold Leave on these terms.

      – DevSolar
      16 hours ago








    • 7





      @DevSolar one big issue with second referendum would be one of the main criticisms of the pro-EU brigade was the 'neverendum'. The mistake may have been to hold the referendum in the first place; now a second referendum could potentially have massive negative effects of its own.

      – Orangesandlemons
      16 hours ago
















    25















    so why did we hold that vote in the first place?




    Mainly for the following two reasons:



    For some, to put pressure on the government to ensure that there is either a deal or no Brexit



    For others, so they can blame it all on the government even though they know full well they've done nothing to actually prevent it, by saying 'look, we voted against no deal'.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 1





      I think the Spelman amendment put pressure on the Government, but the original bill was brought by the Government, so it is difficult to see how that would have been a pressure move in the first place.

      – Jontia
      17 hours ago






    • 3





      Hmm, but if two deals have already been rejected what the hell do they think more pressure will do? She cannot get anything through parliament so I don't see their logic. I guess that leaves one thing; no Brexit.

      – J.J
      17 hours ago








    • 2





      @J.J the pressure is against the no deal; indeed, for many no Brexit would be the preferred outcome altogether, and for the rest they prefer no Brexit to no deal

      – Orangesandlemons
      17 hours ago






    • 3





      @J.J: The falacy, IMHO, is that the Tories keep interpreting, and referring to, the 2016 referendum as instructive and binding. Those who voted "Leave" in 2016 were a collection of wishes for "no deal" and "candyland deal" (lots of Brexit myths that have unraveled since then). Right now it looks like the options available are "no deal exit", or "no exit". I find it disingenuous to deny people a vote on these actual options. Candyland is no longer on the table, and people have wisened up on many things. I seriously don't think a second referendum would uphold Leave on these terms.

      – DevSolar
      16 hours ago








    • 7





      @DevSolar one big issue with second referendum would be one of the main criticisms of the pro-EU brigade was the 'neverendum'. The mistake may have been to hold the referendum in the first place; now a second referendum could potentially have massive negative effects of its own.

      – Orangesandlemons
      16 hours ago














    25












    25








    25








    so why did we hold that vote in the first place?




    Mainly for the following two reasons:



    For some, to put pressure on the government to ensure that there is either a deal or no Brexit



    For others, so they can blame it all on the government even though they know full well they've done nothing to actually prevent it, by saying 'look, we voted against no deal'.






    share|improve this answer
















    so why did we hold that vote in the first place?




    Mainly for the following two reasons:



    For some, to put pressure on the government to ensure that there is either a deal or no Brexit



    For others, so they can blame it all on the government even though they know full well they've done nothing to actually prevent it, by saying 'look, we voted against no deal'.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 15 hours ago









    Federico

    3,75232748




    3,75232748










    answered 17 hours ago









    OrangesandlemonsOrangesandlemons

    2,054620




    2,054620








    • 1





      I think the Spelman amendment put pressure on the Government, but the original bill was brought by the Government, so it is difficult to see how that would have been a pressure move in the first place.

      – Jontia
      17 hours ago






    • 3





      Hmm, but if two deals have already been rejected what the hell do they think more pressure will do? She cannot get anything through parliament so I don't see their logic. I guess that leaves one thing; no Brexit.

      – J.J
      17 hours ago








    • 2





      @J.J the pressure is against the no deal; indeed, for many no Brexit would be the preferred outcome altogether, and for the rest they prefer no Brexit to no deal

      – Orangesandlemons
      17 hours ago






    • 3





      @J.J: The falacy, IMHO, is that the Tories keep interpreting, and referring to, the 2016 referendum as instructive and binding. Those who voted "Leave" in 2016 were a collection of wishes for "no deal" and "candyland deal" (lots of Brexit myths that have unraveled since then). Right now it looks like the options available are "no deal exit", or "no exit". I find it disingenuous to deny people a vote on these actual options. Candyland is no longer on the table, and people have wisened up on many things. I seriously don't think a second referendum would uphold Leave on these terms.

      – DevSolar
      16 hours ago








    • 7





      @DevSolar one big issue with second referendum would be one of the main criticisms of the pro-EU brigade was the 'neverendum'. The mistake may have been to hold the referendum in the first place; now a second referendum could potentially have massive negative effects of its own.

      – Orangesandlemons
      16 hours ago














    • 1





      I think the Spelman amendment put pressure on the Government, but the original bill was brought by the Government, so it is difficult to see how that would have been a pressure move in the first place.

      – Jontia
      17 hours ago






    • 3





      Hmm, but if two deals have already been rejected what the hell do they think more pressure will do? She cannot get anything through parliament so I don't see their logic. I guess that leaves one thing; no Brexit.

      – J.J
      17 hours ago








    • 2





      @J.J the pressure is against the no deal; indeed, for many no Brexit would be the preferred outcome altogether, and for the rest they prefer no Brexit to no deal

      – Orangesandlemons
      17 hours ago






    • 3





      @J.J: The falacy, IMHO, is that the Tories keep interpreting, and referring to, the 2016 referendum as instructive and binding. Those who voted "Leave" in 2016 were a collection of wishes for "no deal" and "candyland deal" (lots of Brexit myths that have unraveled since then). Right now it looks like the options available are "no deal exit", or "no exit". I find it disingenuous to deny people a vote on these actual options. Candyland is no longer on the table, and people have wisened up on many things. I seriously don't think a second referendum would uphold Leave on these terms.

      – DevSolar
      16 hours ago








    • 7





      @DevSolar one big issue with second referendum would be one of the main criticisms of the pro-EU brigade was the 'neverendum'. The mistake may have been to hold the referendum in the first place; now a second referendum could potentially have massive negative effects of its own.

      – Orangesandlemons
      16 hours ago








    1




    1





    I think the Spelman amendment put pressure on the Government, but the original bill was brought by the Government, so it is difficult to see how that would have been a pressure move in the first place.

    – Jontia
    17 hours ago





    I think the Spelman amendment put pressure on the Government, but the original bill was brought by the Government, so it is difficult to see how that would have been a pressure move in the first place.

    – Jontia
    17 hours ago




    3




    3





    Hmm, but if two deals have already been rejected what the hell do they think more pressure will do? She cannot get anything through parliament so I don't see their logic. I guess that leaves one thing; no Brexit.

    – J.J
    17 hours ago







    Hmm, but if two deals have already been rejected what the hell do they think more pressure will do? She cannot get anything through parliament so I don't see their logic. I guess that leaves one thing; no Brexit.

    – J.J
    17 hours ago






    2




    2





    @J.J the pressure is against the no deal; indeed, for many no Brexit would be the preferred outcome altogether, and for the rest they prefer no Brexit to no deal

    – Orangesandlemons
    17 hours ago





    @J.J the pressure is against the no deal; indeed, for many no Brexit would be the preferred outcome altogether, and for the rest they prefer no Brexit to no deal

    – Orangesandlemons
    17 hours ago




    3




    3





    @J.J: The falacy, IMHO, is that the Tories keep interpreting, and referring to, the 2016 referendum as instructive and binding. Those who voted "Leave" in 2016 were a collection of wishes for "no deal" and "candyland deal" (lots of Brexit myths that have unraveled since then). Right now it looks like the options available are "no deal exit", or "no exit". I find it disingenuous to deny people a vote on these actual options. Candyland is no longer on the table, and people have wisened up on many things. I seriously don't think a second referendum would uphold Leave on these terms.

    – DevSolar
    16 hours ago







    @J.J: The falacy, IMHO, is that the Tories keep interpreting, and referring to, the 2016 referendum as instructive and binding. Those who voted "Leave" in 2016 were a collection of wishes for "no deal" and "candyland deal" (lots of Brexit myths that have unraveled since then). Right now it looks like the options available are "no deal exit", or "no exit". I find it disingenuous to deny people a vote on these actual options. Candyland is no longer on the table, and people have wisened up on many things. I seriously don't think a second referendum would uphold Leave on these terms.

    – DevSolar
    16 hours ago






    7




    7





    @DevSolar one big issue with second referendum would be one of the main criticisms of the pro-EU brigade was the 'neverendum'. The mistake may have been to hold the referendum in the first place; now a second referendum could potentially have massive negative effects of its own.

    – Orangesandlemons
    16 hours ago





    @DevSolar one big issue with second referendum would be one of the main criticisms of the pro-EU brigade was the 'neverendum'. The mistake may have been to hold the referendum in the first place; now a second referendum could potentially have massive negative effects of its own.

    – Orangesandlemons
    16 hours ago











    11














    This is old-fashioned power politics of a type rarely seen in the UK, normally associated with times of extreme crisis. Normally Parliament is irrelevant: the Government produces a policy, whips the MPs to vote for it, and it always passes.



    Until 2010, there was a strong guarantee that ensured a way forwards could always be found: the confidence vote. A vote could be declared a confidence vote so that voting it down would force fresh elections. The effect of that was that government MPs were extremely reluctant to vote against the government on a confidence vote given the high risk of losing their seats. Under this approach, either the deal would be approved or we would be having another election right now.



    The Liberal Democrats broke that with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.



    Now the government staggers on, having completely lost control of the process and being reduced to voting against its own motions. And yet May remains as PM, because who else is there? The Conservative Party failed to elect another leader. A no confidence vote was held in January and failed to remove the government. But at the same time there is no majority for doing anything specific. Achieving one will either (a) require the ERG and/or hard Brexit group and/or DUP to surrender (unlikely); (b) require enough of the Opposition to vote with the Government to back the deal (unlikely); (c) require May to give up on her Deal; or (d) require some other option to be assembled and members of the Government to break the whip to vote for it.



    The votes are an opportunity for a coalition to assemble. If there's a majority for "not no deal", can that be turned into a deal / delay / rescind majority?






    share|improve this answer




























      11














      This is old-fashioned power politics of a type rarely seen in the UK, normally associated with times of extreme crisis. Normally Parliament is irrelevant: the Government produces a policy, whips the MPs to vote for it, and it always passes.



      Until 2010, there was a strong guarantee that ensured a way forwards could always be found: the confidence vote. A vote could be declared a confidence vote so that voting it down would force fresh elections. The effect of that was that government MPs were extremely reluctant to vote against the government on a confidence vote given the high risk of losing their seats. Under this approach, either the deal would be approved or we would be having another election right now.



      The Liberal Democrats broke that with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.



      Now the government staggers on, having completely lost control of the process and being reduced to voting against its own motions. And yet May remains as PM, because who else is there? The Conservative Party failed to elect another leader. A no confidence vote was held in January and failed to remove the government. But at the same time there is no majority for doing anything specific. Achieving one will either (a) require the ERG and/or hard Brexit group and/or DUP to surrender (unlikely); (b) require enough of the Opposition to vote with the Government to back the deal (unlikely); (c) require May to give up on her Deal; or (d) require some other option to be assembled and members of the Government to break the whip to vote for it.



      The votes are an opportunity for a coalition to assemble. If there's a majority for "not no deal", can that be turned into a deal / delay / rescind majority?






      share|improve this answer


























        11












        11








        11







        This is old-fashioned power politics of a type rarely seen in the UK, normally associated with times of extreme crisis. Normally Parliament is irrelevant: the Government produces a policy, whips the MPs to vote for it, and it always passes.



        Until 2010, there was a strong guarantee that ensured a way forwards could always be found: the confidence vote. A vote could be declared a confidence vote so that voting it down would force fresh elections. The effect of that was that government MPs were extremely reluctant to vote against the government on a confidence vote given the high risk of losing their seats. Under this approach, either the deal would be approved or we would be having another election right now.



        The Liberal Democrats broke that with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.



        Now the government staggers on, having completely lost control of the process and being reduced to voting against its own motions. And yet May remains as PM, because who else is there? The Conservative Party failed to elect another leader. A no confidence vote was held in January and failed to remove the government. But at the same time there is no majority for doing anything specific. Achieving one will either (a) require the ERG and/or hard Brexit group and/or DUP to surrender (unlikely); (b) require enough of the Opposition to vote with the Government to back the deal (unlikely); (c) require May to give up on her Deal; or (d) require some other option to be assembled and members of the Government to break the whip to vote for it.



        The votes are an opportunity for a coalition to assemble. If there's a majority for "not no deal", can that be turned into a deal / delay / rescind majority?






        share|improve this answer













        This is old-fashioned power politics of a type rarely seen in the UK, normally associated with times of extreme crisis. Normally Parliament is irrelevant: the Government produces a policy, whips the MPs to vote for it, and it always passes.



        Until 2010, there was a strong guarantee that ensured a way forwards could always be found: the confidence vote. A vote could be declared a confidence vote so that voting it down would force fresh elections. The effect of that was that government MPs were extremely reluctant to vote against the government on a confidence vote given the high risk of losing their seats. Under this approach, either the deal would be approved or we would be having another election right now.



        The Liberal Democrats broke that with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.



        Now the government staggers on, having completely lost control of the process and being reduced to voting against its own motions. And yet May remains as PM, because who else is there? The Conservative Party failed to elect another leader. A no confidence vote was held in January and failed to remove the government. But at the same time there is no majority for doing anything specific. Achieving one will either (a) require the ERG and/or hard Brexit group and/or DUP to surrender (unlikely); (b) require enough of the Opposition to vote with the Government to back the deal (unlikely); (c) require May to give up on her Deal; or (d) require some other option to be assembled and members of the Government to break the whip to vote for it.



        The votes are an opportunity for a coalition to assemble. If there's a majority for "not no deal", can that be turned into a deal / delay / rescind majority?







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 17 hours ago









        pjc50pjc50

        5,4631229




        5,4631229























            10














            Trying to force though "the deal"



            This is the main reason for this vote.



            The prime minster is hemmed in and is trying to show that there is no other option but to accept "her deal", as already negotiated with the EU. She knows that there is not a majority for "no deal" in the parliament. So the vote is a way to show to everyone that the majority of parliament do not want a no deal, vis a ve parliament (or more to the point the pro-brexit MPs) should accept her deal. It's trying to prove to the MPs that say "we should leave without a deal" that they are in the minority.



            Context



            This needs to be viewed in the context of what is currently happening. There are lots of factors at play here, some big ones include (not an exhaustive list we'd be here all day):




            • The current government is a minority government without an overall
              majority in the house, it is only in power currently because of a
              loose arrangement with the DUP. This is so loose that the DUP has
              voted against the government several times! So the government , even
              if it could force ("whip") all of it's MPs to vote with it, still
              cannot make parliament accept the current deal on the table on it's
              own.

            • The government has lost 2 major votes votes on it's main policy
              ("Brexit"). Under normal circumstances this would cause the
              collapse of the government and a general election.

            • Earlier last year, the Prime Minister has barely scrapped a no
              confidence vote.
              This has again highlighted that the government cannot produce a
              majority. Again, Under normal circumstances this would cause the
              collapse of the government and a general election.

            • The government tried to win a majority with it's snap election of
              2017.
              This tactic failed miserably resulting in the Conservative party
              losing it's majority. So the Conservative party really doesn't want
              an election because it's afraid it will loose it or it'll make
              matters even worse (again!).

            • The DUP could withdraw it's support to the government this would
              cause the collapse of the government and a general election. The
              DUP doesn't want an election though because it now has a lot of
              power.


            So at the moment the UK government is basically after something it can call a win in any shape or form, even if it's not binding at least it shows progress.



            You can see form above just how tentative the current governments grip on power is. The current state of affairs is totally unprecedented. At any other time this government would of collapsed a long time ago or at the very least the prime minister would of resigned. Why has none of this happened? Because there simply isn't enough time to hold elections, etc. before 29th March.



            The government never wanted to have this vote. It's been forced into by the circumstances. But without the government it's hard to make votes legally binding in the current circumstances. So the government is trapped by parliament and parliament is trapped by the government. Eventually (dear god hopefully soon!) one will have to give.



            A vote cannot rule out Brexit, legally



            The other thing here is that there is primary legislation(an act of parliament) that says the UK will leave the EU on the 29th March.



            The only way to revoke this is with more primary legislation. This vote is not primary legislation. Revoking article 50 would require a new Act of Parliament. The EU has said the UK can revoke article 50 whenever it wants, the UK act of parliament says this isn't possible. This was only a vote on the original Brexit bill.



            Unless a deal is agreed by the 29th March, then the legal default is no deal, no matter how many votes in parliament say that it's not true, the law says no.






            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            Liam is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.
















            • 7





              I suspect one of the reasons May is still the PM is because nobody else wants to be stuck in the hot seat (and catch the blame and responsibility) when the whole house of cards collapses.

              – Shadur
              15 hours ago






            • 2





              Also the FTPA allows this situation to exist by not forcing a government that can't pass bills to collapse and hold fresh elections.

              – pjc50
              15 hours ago






            • 1





              @Liam: "The government tried to win a majority with it's snap election of 2017." Technically, they tried to win a larger majority. That worked out well... ;)

              – Nicol Bolas
              9 hours ago
















            10














            Trying to force though "the deal"



            This is the main reason for this vote.



            The prime minster is hemmed in and is trying to show that there is no other option but to accept "her deal", as already negotiated with the EU. She knows that there is not a majority for "no deal" in the parliament. So the vote is a way to show to everyone that the majority of parliament do not want a no deal, vis a ve parliament (or more to the point the pro-brexit MPs) should accept her deal. It's trying to prove to the MPs that say "we should leave without a deal" that they are in the minority.



            Context



            This needs to be viewed in the context of what is currently happening. There are lots of factors at play here, some big ones include (not an exhaustive list we'd be here all day):




            • The current government is a minority government without an overall
              majority in the house, it is only in power currently because of a
              loose arrangement with the DUP. This is so loose that the DUP has
              voted against the government several times! So the government , even
              if it could force ("whip") all of it's MPs to vote with it, still
              cannot make parliament accept the current deal on the table on it's
              own.

            • The government has lost 2 major votes votes on it's main policy
              ("Brexit"). Under normal circumstances this would cause the
              collapse of the government and a general election.

            • Earlier last year, the Prime Minister has barely scrapped a no
              confidence vote.
              This has again highlighted that the government cannot produce a
              majority. Again, Under normal circumstances this would cause the
              collapse of the government and a general election.

            • The government tried to win a majority with it's snap election of
              2017.
              This tactic failed miserably resulting in the Conservative party
              losing it's majority. So the Conservative party really doesn't want
              an election because it's afraid it will loose it or it'll make
              matters even worse (again!).

            • The DUP could withdraw it's support to the government this would
              cause the collapse of the government and a general election. The
              DUP doesn't want an election though because it now has a lot of
              power.


            So at the moment the UK government is basically after something it can call a win in any shape or form, even if it's not binding at least it shows progress.



            You can see form above just how tentative the current governments grip on power is. The current state of affairs is totally unprecedented. At any other time this government would of collapsed a long time ago or at the very least the prime minister would of resigned. Why has none of this happened? Because there simply isn't enough time to hold elections, etc. before 29th March.



            The government never wanted to have this vote. It's been forced into by the circumstances. But without the government it's hard to make votes legally binding in the current circumstances. So the government is trapped by parliament and parliament is trapped by the government. Eventually (dear god hopefully soon!) one will have to give.



            A vote cannot rule out Brexit, legally



            The other thing here is that there is primary legislation(an act of parliament) that says the UK will leave the EU on the 29th March.



            The only way to revoke this is with more primary legislation. This vote is not primary legislation. Revoking article 50 would require a new Act of Parliament. The EU has said the UK can revoke article 50 whenever it wants, the UK act of parliament says this isn't possible. This was only a vote on the original Brexit bill.



            Unless a deal is agreed by the 29th March, then the legal default is no deal, no matter how many votes in parliament say that it's not true, the law says no.






            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            Liam is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.
















            • 7





              I suspect one of the reasons May is still the PM is because nobody else wants to be stuck in the hot seat (and catch the blame and responsibility) when the whole house of cards collapses.

              – Shadur
              15 hours ago






            • 2





              Also the FTPA allows this situation to exist by not forcing a government that can't pass bills to collapse and hold fresh elections.

              – pjc50
              15 hours ago






            • 1





              @Liam: "The government tried to win a majority with it's snap election of 2017." Technically, they tried to win a larger majority. That worked out well... ;)

              – Nicol Bolas
              9 hours ago














            10












            10








            10







            Trying to force though "the deal"



            This is the main reason for this vote.



            The prime minster is hemmed in and is trying to show that there is no other option but to accept "her deal", as already negotiated with the EU. She knows that there is not a majority for "no deal" in the parliament. So the vote is a way to show to everyone that the majority of parliament do not want a no deal, vis a ve parliament (or more to the point the pro-brexit MPs) should accept her deal. It's trying to prove to the MPs that say "we should leave without a deal" that they are in the minority.



            Context



            This needs to be viewed in the context of what is currently happening. There are lots of factors at play here, some big ones include (not an exhaustive list we'd be here all day):




            • The current government is a minority government without an overall
              majority in the house, it is only in power currently because of a
              loose arrangement with the DUP. This is so loose that the DUP has
              voted against the government several times! So the government , even
              if it could force ("whip") all of it's MPs to vote with it, still
              cannot make parliament accept the current deal on the table on it's
              own.

            • The government has lost 2 major votes votes on it's main policy
              ("Brexit"). Under normal circumstances this would cause the
              collapse of the government and a general election.

            • Earlier last year, the Prime Minister has barely scrapped a no
              confidence vote.
              This has again highlighted that the government cannot produce a
              majority. Again, Under normal circumstances this would cause the
              collapse of the government and a general election.

            • The government tried to win a majority with it's snap election of
              2017.
              This tactic failed miserably resulting in the Conservative party
              losing it's majority. So the Conservative party really doesn't want
              an election because it's afraid it will loose it or it'll make
              matters even worse (again!).

            • The DUP could withdraw it's support to the government this would
              cause the collapse of the government and a general election. The
              DUP doesn't want an election though because it now has a lot of
              power.


            So at the moment the UK government is basically after something it can call a win in any shape or form, even if it's not binding at least it shows progress.



            You can see form above just how tentative the current governments grip on power is. The current state of affairs is totally unprecedented. At any other time this government would of collapsed a long time ago or at the very least the prime minister would of resigned. Why has none of this happened? Because there simply isn't enough time to hold elections, etc. before 29th March.



            The government never wanted to have this vote. It's been forced into by the circumstances. But without the government it's hard to make votes legally binding in the current circumstances. So the government is trapped by parliament and parliament is trapped by the government. Eventually (dear god hopefully soon!) one will have to give.



            A vote cannot rule out Brexit, legally



            The other thing here is that there is primary legislation(an act of parliament) that says the UK will leave the EU on the 29th March.



            The only way to revoke this is with more primary legislation. This vote is not primary legislation. Revoking article 50 would require a new Act of Parliament. The EU has said the UK can revoke article 50 whenever it wants, the UK act of parliament says this isn't possible. This was only a vote on the original Brexit bill.



            Unless a deal is agreed by the 29th March, then the legal default is no deal, no matter how many votes in parliament say that it's not true, the law says no.






            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            Liam is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.










            Trying to force though "the deal"



            This is the main reason for this vote.



            The prime minster is hemmed in and is trying to show that there is no other option but to accept "her deal", as already negotiated with the EU. She knows that there is not a majority for "no deal" in the parliament. So the vote is a way to show to everyone that the majority of parliament do not want a no deal, vis a ve parliament (or more to the point the pro-brexit MPs) should accept her deal. It's trying to prove to the MPs that say "we should leave without a deal" that they are in the minority.



            Context



            This needs to be viewed in the context of what is currently happening. There are lots of factors at play here, some big ones include (not an exhaustive list we'd be here all day):




            • The current government is a minority government without an overall
              majority in the house, it is only in power currently because of a
              loose arrangement with the DUP. This is so loose that the DUP has
              voted against the government several times! So the government , even
              if it could force ("whip") all of it's MPs to vote with it, still
              cannot make parliament accept the current deal on the table on it's
              own.

            • The government has lost 2 major votes votes on it's main policy
              ("Brexit"). Under normal circumstances this would cause the
              collapse of the government and a general election.

            • Earlier last year, the Prime Minister has barely scrapped a no
              confidence vote.
              This has again highlighted that the government cannot produce a
              majority. Again, Under normal circumstances this would cause the
              collapse of the government and a general election.

            • The government tried to win a majority with it's snap election of
              2017.
              This tactic failed miserably resulting in the Conservative party
              losing it's majority. So the Conservative party really doesn't want
              an election because it's afraid it will loose it or it'll make
              matters even worse (again!).

            • The DUP could withdraw it's support to the government this would
              cause the collapse of the government and a general election. The
              DUP doesn't want an election though because it now has a lot of
              power.


            So at the moment the UK government is basically after something it can call a win in any shape or form, even if it's not binding at least it shows progress.



            You can see form above just how tentative the current governments grip on power is. The current state of affairs is totally unprecedented. At any other time this government would of collapsed a long time ago or at the very least the prime minister would of resigned. Why has none of this happened? Because there simply isn't enough time to hold elections, etc. before 29th March.



            The government never wanted to have this vote. It's been forced into by the circumstances. But without the government it's hard to make votes legally binding in the current circumstances. So the government is trapped by parliament and parliament is trapped by the government. Eventually (dear god hopefully soon!) one will have to give.



            A vote cannot rule out Brexit, legally



            The other thing here is that there is primary legislation(an act of parliament) that says the UK will leave the EU on the 29th March.



            The only way to revoke this is with more primary legislation. This vote is not primary legislation. Revoking article 50 would require a new Act of Parliament. The EU has said the UK can revoke article 50 whenever it wants, the UK act of parliament says this isn't possible. This was only a vote on the original Brexit bill.



            Unless a deal is agreed by the 29th March, then the legal default is no deal, no matter how many votes in parliament say that it's not true, the law says no.







            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            Liam is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 14 hours ago





















            New contributor




            Liam is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            answered 16 hours ago









            LiamLiam

            1996




            1996




            New contributor




            Liam is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.





            New contributor





            Liam is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            Liam is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.








            • 7





              I suspect one of the reasons May is still the PM is because nobody else wants to be stuck in the hot seat (and catch the blame and responsibility) when the whole house of cards collapses.

              – Shadur
              15 hours ago






            • 2





              Also the FTPA allows this situation to exist by not forcing a government that can't pass bills to collapse and hold fresh elections.

              – pjc50
              15 hours ago






            • 1





              @Liam: "The government tried to win a majority with it's snap election of 2017." Technically, they tried to win a larger majority. That worked out well... ;)

              – Nicol Bolas
              9 hours ago














            • 7





              I suspect one of the reasons May is still the PM is because nobody else wants to be stuck in the hot seat (and catch the blame and responsibility) when the whole house of cards collapses.

              – Shadur
              15 hours ago






            • 2





              Also the FTPA allows this situation to exist by not forcing a government that can't pass bills to collapse and hold fresh elections.

              – pjc50
              15 hours ago






            • 1





              @Liam: "The government tried to win a majority with it's snap election of 2017." Technically, they tried to win a larger majority. That worked out well... ;)

              – Nicol Bolas
              9 hours ago








            7




            7





            I suspect one of the reasons May is still the PM is because nobody else wants to be stuck in the hot seat (and catch the blame and responsibility) when the whole house of cards collapses.

            – Shadur
            15 hours ago





            I suspect one of the reasons May is still the PM is because nobody else wants to be stuck in the hot seat (and catch the blame and responsibility) when the whole house of cards collapses.

            – Shadur
            15 hours ago




            2




            2





            Also the FTPA allows this situation to exist by not forcing a government that can't pass bills to collapse and hold fresh elections.

            – pjc50
            15 hours ago





            Also the FTPA allows this situation to exist by not forcing a government that can't pass bills to collapse and hold fresh elections.

            – pjc50
            15 hours ago




            1




            1





            @Liam: "The government tried to win a majority with it's snap election of 2017." Technically, they tried to win a larger majority. That worked out well... ;)

            – Nicol Bolas
            9 hours ago





            @Liam: "The government tried to win a majority with it's snap election of 2017." Technically, they tried to win a larger majority. That worked out well... ;)

            – Nicol Bolas
            9 hours ago











            7














            The point of the votes on no deal and on an extension to the leaving date, is for Theresa May to pressure the Democratic Unionist Party (her 'confidence and supply' partners) and the European Research Group (hard brexit conservatives) to vote for her deal






            share|improve this answer



















            • 12





              Then she's really living in a candy land given that she is now 1st & 4th place for biggest defeats in parliament IIRC.

              – J.J
              17 hours ago






            • 1





              @J.J Based on Tuesday night's defeat by 149, she needs to persuade 75 people to change their minds. It doesn't look likely

              – Dave Gremlin
              17 hours ago






            • 2





              at the current rate, she wins meaningful vote 4

              – Caleth
              17 hours ago






            • 3





              @J.J: only because parliament has so far been able to be against everything, and for nothing. If they're faced with an actual choice between the deal and some specific alternative, they may yet choose the deal.

              – RemcoGerlich
              17 hours ago






            • 1





              @J.J Defeat implies that government(or May) lost something. I mean, if we look at it from the position that the UK Government doesn't want any of what the EU is offering(aka no useful movement) (and the media have created an environment in which) it seems as if the UK always needs to be the group offering solutions, the Government essentially doesn't have to do anything but stall for time until the EU makes the no-deal decision itself. In the meantime the EU/anti-Brexit camp has to build up 'the sense' that it's the UK's fault that it has a negotiating partner that is unwilling to negotiate.

              – Giu Piete
              12 hours ago


















            7














            The point of the votes on no deal and on an extension to the leaving date, is for Theresa May to pressure the Democratic Unionist Party (her 'confidence and supply' partners) and the European Research Group (hard brexit conservatives) to vote for her deal






            share|improve this answer



















            • 12





              Then she's really living in a candy land given that she is now 1st & 4th place for biggest defeats in parliament IIRC.

              – J.J
              17 hours ago






            • 1





              @J.J Based on Tuesday night's defeat by 149, she needs to persuade 75 people to change their minds. It doesn't look likely

              – Dave Gremlin
              17 hours ago






            • 2





              at the current rate, she wins meaningful vote 4

              – Caleth
              17 hours ago






            • 3





              @J.J: only because parliament has so far been able to be against everything, and for nothing. If they're faced with an actual choice between the deal and some specific alternative, they may yet choose the deal.

              – RemcoGerlich
              17 hours ago






            • 1





              @J.J Defeat implies that government(or May) lost something. I mean, if we look at it from the position that the UK Government doesn't want any of what the EU is offering(aka no useful movement) (and the media have created an environment in which) it seems as if the UK always needs to be the group offering solutions, the Government essentially doesn't have to do anything but stall for time until the EU makes the no-deal decision itself. In the meantime the EU/anti-Brexit camp has to build up 'the sense' that it's the UK's fault that it has a negotiating partner that is unwilling to negotiate.

              – Giu Piete
              12 hours ago
















            7












            7








            7







            The point of the votes on no deal and on an extension to the leaving date, is for Theresa May to pressure the Democratic Unionist Party (her 'confidence and supply' partners) and the European Research Group (hard brexit conservatives) to vote for her deal






            share|improve this answer













            The point of the votes on no deal and on an extension to the leaving date, is for Theresa May to pressure the Democratic Unionist Party (her 'confidence and supply' partners) and the European Research Group (hard brexit conservatives) to vote for her deal







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 17 hours ago









            Dave GremlinDave Gremlin

            2345




            2345








            • 12





              Then she's really living in a candy land given that she is now 1st & 4th place for biggest defeats in parliament IIRC.

              – J.J
              17 hours ago






            • 1





              @J.J Based on Tuesday night's defeat by 149, she needs to persuade 75 people to change their minds. It doesn't look likely

              – Dave Gremlin
              17 hours ago






            • 2





              at the current rate, she wins meaningful vote 4

              – Caleth
              17 hours ago






            • 3





              @J.J: only because parliament has so far been able to be against everything, and for nothing. If they're faced with an actual choice between the deal and some specific alternative, they may yet choose the deal.

              – RemcoGerlich
              17 hours ago






            • 1





              @J.J Defeat implies that government(or May) lost something. I mean, if we look at it from the position that the UK Government doesn't want any of what the EU is offering(aka no useful movement) (and the media have created an environment in which) it seems as if the UK always needs to be the group offering solutions, the Government essentially doesn't have to do anything but stall for time until the EU makes the no-deal decision itself. In the meantime the EU/anti-Brexit camp has to build up 'the sense' that it's the UK's fault that it has a negotiating partner that is unwilling to negotiate.

              – Giu Piete
              12 hours ago
















            • 12





              Then she's really living in a candy land given that she is now 1st & 4th place for biggest defeats in parliament IIRC.

              – J.J
              17 hours ago






            • 1





              @J.J Based on Tuesday night's defeat by 149, she needs to persuade 75 people to change their minds. It doesn't look likely

              – Dave Gremlin
              17 hours ago






            • 2





              at the current rate, she wins meaningful vote 4

              – Caleth
              17 hours ago






            • 3





              @J.J: only because parliament has so far been able to be against everything, and for nothing. If they're faced with an actual choice between the deal and some specific alternative, they may yet choose the deal.

              – RemcoGerlich
              17 hours ago






            • 1





              @J.J Defeat implies that government(or May) lost something. I mean, if we look at it from the position that the UK Government doesn't want any of what the EU is offering(aka no useful movement) (and the media have created an environment in which) it seems as if the UK always needs to be the group offering solutions, the Government essentially doesn't have to do anything but stall for time until the EU makes the no-deal decision itself. In the meantime the EU/anti-Brexit camp has to build up 'the sense' that it's the UK's fault that it has a negotiating partner that is unwilling to negotiate.

              – Giu Piete
              12 hours ago










            12




            12





            Then she's really living in a candy land given that she is now 1st & 4th place for biggest defeats in parliament IIRC.

            – J.J
            17 hours ago





            Then she's really living in a candy land given that she is now 1st & 4th place for biggest defeats in parliament IIRC.

            – J.J
            17 hours ago




            1




            1





            @J.J Based on Tuesday night's defeat by 149, she needs to persuade 75 people to change their minds. It doesn't look likely

            – Dave Gremlin
            17 hours ago





            @J.J Based on Tuesday night's defeat by 149, she needs to persuade 75 people to change their minds. It doesn't look likely

            – Dave Gremlin
            17 hours ago




            2




            2





            at the current rate, she wins meaningful vote 4

            – Caleth
            17 hours ago





            at the current rate, she wins meaningful vote 4

            – Caleth
            17 hours ago




            3




            3





            @J.J: only because parliament has so far been able to be against everything, and for nothing. If they're faced with an actual choice between the deal and some specific alternative, they may yet choose the deal.

            – RemcoGerlich
            17 hours ago





            @J.J: only because parliament has so far been able to be against everything, and for nothing. If they're faced with an actual choice between the deal and some specific alternative, they may yet choose the deal.

            – RemcoGerlich
            17 hours ago




            1




            1





            @J.J Defeat implies that government(or May) lost something. I mean, if we look at it from the position that the UK Government doesn't want any of what the EU is offering(aka no useful movement) (and the media have created an environment in which) it seems as if the UK always needs to be the group offering solutions, the Government essentially doesn't have to do anything but stall for time until the EU makes the no-deal decision itself. In the meantime the EU/anti-Brexit camp has to build up 'the sense' that it's the UK's fault that it has a negotiating partner that is unwilling to negotiate.

            – Giu Piete
            12 hours ago







            @J.J Defeat implies that government(or May) lost something. I mean, if we look at it from the position that the UK Government doesn't want any of what the EU is offering(aka no useful movement) (and the media have created an environment in which) it seems as if the UK always needs to be the group offering solutions, the Government essentially doesn't have to do anything but stall for time until the EU makes the no-deal decision itself. In the meantime the EU/anti-Brexit camp has to build up 'the sense' that it's the UK's fault that it has a negotiating partner that is unwilling to negotiate.

            – Giu Piete
            12 hours ago












            J.J is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            J.J is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            J.J is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            J.J is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39423%2fbrexit-no-deal-rejection%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

            Alcedinidae

            Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]