Brexit - No Deal Rejection
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
New contributor
add a comment |
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
New contributor
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
12 hours ago
add a comment |
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
New contributor
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
united-kingdom brexit
New contributor
New contributor
edited 4 hours ago
J.J
New contributor
asked 13 hours ago
J.JJ.J
17616
17616
New contributor
New contributor
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
12 hours ago
add a comment |
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
12 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
12 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
12 hours ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
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'.
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
13 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
13 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
13 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
12 hours ago
6
@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
12 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
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?
add a comment |
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.
New contributor
6
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
11 hours ago
1
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
11 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
4 hours ago
add a comment |
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
11
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
13 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
13 hours ago
2
at the current rate, she wins meaningful vote 4
– Caleth
13 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
12 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
8 hours ago
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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'.
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
13 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
13 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
13 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
12 hours ago
6
@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
12 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
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'.
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
13 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
13 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
13 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
12 hours ago
6
@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
12 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
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'.
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'.
edited 11 hours ago
Federico
3,75232748
3,75232748
answered 13 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
13 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
13 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
13 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
12 hours ago
6
@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
12 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
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
13 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
13 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
13 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
12 hours ago
6
@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
12 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
13 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
13 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
13 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
13 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
13 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
13 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
12 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
12 hours ago
6
6
@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
12 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
12 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
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?
add a comment |
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?
add a comment |
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?
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?
answered 12 hours ago
pjc50pjc50
5,4531228
5,4531228
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
New contributor
6
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
11 hours ago
1
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
11 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
4 hours ago
add a comment |
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.
New contributor
6
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
11 hours ago
1
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
11 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
4 hours ago
add a comment |
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.
New contributor
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.
New contributor
edited 10 hours ago
New contributor
answered 12 hours ago
LiamLiam
1895
1895
New contributor
New contributor
6
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
11 hours ago
1
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
11 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
4 hours ago
add a comment |
6
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
11 hours ago
1
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
11 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
4 hours ago
6
6
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
11 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
11 hours ago
1
1
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
11 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
11 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
4 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
4 hours ago
add a comment |
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
11
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
13 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
13 hours ago
2
at the current rate, she wins meaningful vote 4
– Caleth
13 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
12 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
8 hours ago
add a comment |
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
11
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
13 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
13 hours ago
2
at the current rate, she wins meaningful vote 4
– Caleth
13 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
12 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
8 hours ago
add a comment |
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
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
answered 13 hours ago
Dave GremlinDave Gremlin
2344
2344
11
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
13 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
13 hours ago
2
at the current rate, she wins meaningful vote 4
– Caleth
13 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
12 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
8 hours ago
add a comment |
11
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
13 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
13 hours ago
2
at the current rate, she wins meaningful vote 4
– Caleth
13 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
12 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
8 hours ago
11
11
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
13 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
13 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
13 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
13 hours ago
2
2
at the current rate, she wins meaningful vote 4
– Caleth
13 hours ago
at the current rate, she wins meaningful vote 4
– Caleth
13 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
12 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
12 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
8 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
8 hours ago
add a comment |
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.
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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
12 hours ago