Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » And so MPs move on to vote against leaving the EU with no deal

24567

Comments

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Floater said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Mr Pennycook accuses the government of "endlessly repeating the nonsensical mantra that no deal is better than a bad deal".

    That, he argues, "desensitised many people in this country to the risks involved".


    I certainly hope no one else ever endlessly repeats nonsensical mantras, like 'For the many not the few'.

    Or Brexit Means Brexit?
    That one was even worse, yes.
    No deal better than a bad deal?
    Again, actually means something though (though of course people will always quibble over what is a bad deal), so not as bad as Brexit means Brexit.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733

    So are tories whipping against this amendment??

    May's tastes lie more towards self-flagellation I think.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandbach another MP making the point that voting for the government's deal twice is respect enough for the referendum result.

    More and more people on the deal side are trying to dissuade the government from trying MV3 it seems - essentially saying don't count on new switchers to get it over the line, I'm done.
    Bottom line is that the ERG leavers had their chance and have blown it.

    That puts the whole question of Brexit (being trashed in the Commons with almost every speech) back on the table.
    I struggle with how some of the more passionate ones who think any Brexit would be terrible can not support revocation. Yes, referendum and all that, but if any Brexit is as bad as they say, and they don't feel bound by the first referendum, why should they risk any Brexit in a second? It might be the best they can hope for, but I don't know that it is logically coherent to say any Brexit is a tragedy but that it'll be ok if the public vote for it...the second time.

    Those who want a vote to prevent no deal is more reasonable.
    The right answer for the country is obviously revocation. The question is how to get there with democratic endorsement.
    You can't. If you revoke you have decided democracy no longer matters. I am sure many politicians, not least Corbyn, are going to be very happy with that precedent.
    The honest position to take on revocation is that there are some decisions that you will not allow the voters to take, and leaving the EU is one such.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    Bercow looks crazed. The whole lot of them have driven themselves batshit over Brexit. I love a bit of chaos!

    Bercow is a self serving Arse
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733

    Cooper moves Spelman.

    Was she in the way?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,543
    edited March 2019
    Two essentially inescapable facts about Brexit. Any Brexit arrangement will require the UK sooner rather than later to agree the Withdrawal Agreement including de facto permanent backstop. To succeed Leavers paradoxically have to accept Brexit has failed.

    To satisfy both parties, the end deal needs to be better than nothing, but worse than what we had as members. Better than nothing but worse than before is a big negotiating space. But it does require the UK and Leavers in particular to accept the baseline is nothing at all, not the status quo. That Brexit is entirely about damage limitation.
  • IanB2 said:

    Floater said:

    IanB2 said:

    Fox has lost it.

    This is the moment Brexit dies.

    Says the bloke who rubbishes brexit nigh on every post.
    Are you listening to the desperation in his speech?
    Fox is genuinely of no consequence. No one gives a flying feck what he says or does. Brexit may well be dead, but not because he's rattled tonight.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    IanB2 said:

    Fox has lost it.

    This is the moment Brexit dies.

    I have heard that so many times, I have even said it myself but it is still default
    True, but it is the first time a leading leaver has stood up publicly and effectively faced the prospect that Brexit is going down the pan.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733

    IanB2 said:

    Floater said:

    IanB2 said:

    Fox has lost it.

    This is the moment Brexit dies.

    Says the bloke who rubbishes brexit nigh on every post.
    Are you listening to the desperation in his speech?
    Fox is genuinely of no consequence. No one gives a flying feck what he says or does. Brexit may well be dead, but not because he's rattled tonight.
    If he wants to fail he's having Adam good try, in Werrity!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Mr Pennycook accuses the government of "endlessly repeating the nonsensical mantra that no deal is better than a bad deal".

    That, he argues, "desensitised many people in this country to the risks involved".


    I certainly hope no one else ever endlessly repeats nonsensical mantras, like 'For the many not the few'.

    Or Brexit Means Brexit?
    That one was even worse, yes.
    Strong And Stable Leadership (In The National Interest) has to be the winner, surely?
    His arguments about desensitising the country can't really apply to the slogans because they aren't really policy positions.
    I was only really teasing, because you're right a slogan is not really a policy position, but his take that saying no deal is better than a bad deal desensitised people strikes me as silly, as for one it is saying people are stupid and got fooled by a slogan, particularly when so many people have said the opposite. Plus no deal being better than a bad deal could be true, since some people at least think what we have is a good deal.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Spelman vote expected to pass, right? The argument really really 'ruling out' no deal would harm negotiations surely doesn't fly for many since the gov have defended their deal on the basis negotiations are over?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    kle4 said:

    Spelman vote expected to pass, right? The argument really really 'ruling out' no deal would harm negotiations surely doesn't fly for many since the gov have defended their deal on the basis negotiations are over?

    It has unfortunately become painfully clear there is absolutely no commonality between us and the EU on just about anything. We can't stay in, and we can't agree how to leave. The crashout may be all that's left.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    The MPs can always revoke, and then go back to their constituencies and prepare for war.

    In the end it comes down to who rules Britain. The MPs or the electorate.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    FF43 said:

    Two essentially inescapable facts about Brexit. Any Brexit arrangement will require the UK sooner rather than later to agree the Withdrawal Agreement including de facto permanent backstop. To succeed Leavers paradoxically have to accept Brexit has failed.

    To satisfy both parties, the end deal needs to be better than nothing, but worse than what we had as members. Better than nothing but worse than before is a big negotiating space. But it does require the UK and Leavers in particular to accept the baseline is nothing at all, not the status quo. That Brexit is entirely about damage limitation.

    That would require one to believe that EU membership is a good thing.

    But, I take your point on the WA. Lots of MP's on either side seem to object to the very principle of the WA.
  • The whole house looks as mad as a box of frogs. Jumpy, tetchy, lying useless frogs though!
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,623
    kle4 said:

    Spelman vote expected to pass, right? The argument really really 'ruling out' no deal would harm negotiations surely doesn't fly for many since the gov have defended their deal on the basis negotiations are over?

    You'd think that would be the case, but the twisted logic of Brexit suggests otherwise...
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    If Spelman passes, does May still vote for main motion?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    So are the useless tw*ts in the cabinet going to resign to vote for this amendment?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733

    The whole house looks as mad as a box of frogs. Jumpy, tetchy, lying useless frogs though!

    People are being really horrible tonight. We've had arseholes and now frogs compared to MPs.

    Just think how these things might feel at being compared to Fox or Brady or Corbyn and back off, guys!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    If Spelman passes does Malthouse still go to a vote?

    Malthouse seems like the right compromise but I think it will lose overwhelmingly.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    MikeL said:

    If Spelman passes, does May still vote for main motion?

    I would expect more to vote for the substantive than vote for the amendment.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    I get the feeling Spelman probably wishes her amendment wasn't being voted on right now.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733

    So are the useless tw*ts in the cabinet going to resign to vote for this amendment?

    What about the useful ones? Oh, sorry, silly question.

    And again, unfair to twats.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    So are the useless tw*ts in the cabinet going to resign to vote for this amendment?

    Why bother? There's no practical difference between this and the main motion anyway.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    Pulpstar said:

    I get the feeling Spelman probably wishes her amendment wasn't being voted on right now.

    Wonder how she was nobbled?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786

    So are the useless tw*ts in the cabinet going to resign to vote for this amendment?

    A brutal resignation speech from someone senior enough might help bring some clarity.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    MikeL said:

    If Spelman passes, does May still vote for main motion?

    According to Graun website if Spelman passes it replaces the main motion, with no further vote. I guess that means Malthouse does not proceed it Spelman passes.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    So are the useless tw*ts in the cabinet going to resign to vote for this amendment?

    A brutal resignation speech from someone senior enough might help bring some clarity.
    Dream on
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    ydoethur said:

    The whole house looks as mad as a box of frogs. Jumpy, tetchy, lying useless frogs though!

    People are being really horrible tonight. We've had arseholes and now frogs compared to MPs.

    Just think how these things might feel at being compared to Fox or Brady or Corbyn and back off, guys!
    I apologise to all wankers for comparing them to the ERG.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    So are the useless tw*ts in the cabinet going to resign to vote for this amendment?

    A brutal resignation speech from someone senior enough might help bring some clarity.
    Who could do that without looking like a fool for going along this far? It's why when Hunt and Javid and co eventually talk about how they thought May was doing X or Y wrong, they will look like utter idiots.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 1,047
    Fox is off on it again. 17.4 million voted for Brexit. Could someone please tell him that means 49.5 million didn't
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    Sean_F said:

    FF43 said:

    Two essentially inescapable facts about Brexit. Any Brexit arrangement will require the UK sooner rather than later to agree the Withdrawal Agreement including de facto permanent backstop. To succeed Leavers paradoxically have to accept Brexit has failed.

    To satisfy both parties, the end deal needs to be better than nothing, but worse than what we had as members. Better than nothing but worse than before is a big negotiating space. But it does require the UK and Leavers in particular to accept the baseline is nothing at all, not the status quo. That Brexit is entirely about damage limitation.

    That would require one to believe that EU membership is a good thing.

    But, I take your point on the WA. Lots of MP's on either side seem to object to the very principle of the WA.
    Which seems utter bonkers to me, the WA is just giving space for the final relationship to be negotiated.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695

    The whole house looks as mad as a box of frogs. Jumpy, tetchy, lying useless frogs though!

    They are functioning on Valium and copious amounts of gin now.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    edited March 2019
    rpjs said:

    MikeL said:

    If Spelman passes, does May still vote for main motion?

    According to Graun website if Spelman passes it replaces the main motion, with no further vote. I guess that means Malthouse does not proceed it Spelman passes.
    That doesn't sound right. At least the substantive (as amended) always requires a vote.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Fenman said:

    Fox is off on it again. 17.4 million voted for Brexit. Could someone please tell him that means 49.5 million didn't

    That's not how referendums work. The important numbers are those voting for and against.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Mr Pennycook accuses the government of "endlessly repeating the nonsensical mantra that no deal is better than a bad deal".

    That, he argues, "desensitised many people in this country to the risks involved".


    I certainly hope no one else ever endlessly repeats nonsensical mantras, like 'For the many not the few'.

    Or Brexit Means Brexit?
    That one was even worse, yes.
    Strong And Stable Leadership (In The National Interest) has to be the winner, surely?
    His arguments about desensitising the country can't really apply to the slogans because they aren't really policy positions.
    I was only really teasing, because you're right a slogan is not really a policy position, but his take that saying no deal is better than a bad deal desensitised people strikes me as silly, as for one it is saying people are stupid and got fooled by a slogan, particularly when so many people have said the opposite. Plus no deal being better than a bad deal could be true, since some people at least think what we have is a good deal.
    In fairness there is more to it than just the slogan, the government advanced the idea of standing up to Europe and how we would walk away with no deal if we needed to which gave a lot more credence to those who genuinely wanted to walk away with no deal or those who were leaning towards it.

    I wouldn't say they've tricked people although most don't pay anywhere near the attention PBers pay but they made the idea more realistic and more mainstream to Conservatives. Before the referendum a Conservative demanding we left with no deal would have been on the fringes of the party. A few years later and that same Conservative would be in the mainstream of the party with people advocating other options being more of a fringe. Although that isn't solely down to the Conservative government they played a huge part in it.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Fenman said:

    Fox is off on it again. 17.4 million voted for Brexit. Could someone please tell him that means 49.5 million didn't

    You counting infants?

    16.1 million voted against.

    Nobody else counts.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Fenman said:

    Fox is off on it again. 17.4 million voted for Brexit. Could someone please tell him that means 49.5 million didn't

    You count children and non voters as well as alternate votes when tallying up vote totals all the time do you?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    In other news; is there any plans for another PB meet up in London in the future?
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Mr Firestopper,

    I've been surprised how angry some of the voters are by the childish machinations of the MPs. It may be different in the South, but up here they're as popular as ringworm.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    rpjs said:

    Sean_F said:

    FF43 said:

    Two essentially inescapable facts about Brexit. Any Brexit arrangement will require the UK sooner rather than later to agree the Withdrawal Agreement including de facto permanent backstop. To succeed Leavers paradoxically have to accept Brexit has failed.

    To satisfy both parties, the end deal needs to be better than nothing, but worse than what we had as members. Better than nothing but worse than before is a big negotiating space. But it does require the UK and Leavers in particular to accept the baseline is nothing at all, not the status quo. That Brexit is entirely about damage limitation.

    That would require one to believe that EU membership is a good thing.

    But, I take your point on the WA. Lots of MP's on either side seem to object to the very principle of the WA.
    Which seems utter bonkers to me, the WA is just giving space for the final relationship to be negotiated.
    Either that, or they don't understand that the WA and the final agreement are different.
  • Fenman said:

    Fox is off on it again. 17.4 million voted for Brexit. Could someone please tell him that means 49.5 million didn't

    With respect that is not true, the vote was 52/48 and of 33 million or so.

    You cannot claim those who did not vote were in the remain column
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Spelman amendment passes

    Ayes 312 Noes 308

    Commons votes to take No Deal off the table permanently
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,623
    Well that's gone wrong for May, surely.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,673
    THe ayes have it
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited March 2019
    Guardian saying the first amendment might be defeated.

    EDIT: *blushes*
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,911
    Majority of 4 - wow, close!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    Spelman amendment (ex Spelman) passes
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    We're not leaving...
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited March 2019

    Majority of 4 - wow, close!

    What were they voting on? Spelman I assume.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,543
    edited March 2019
    Sean_F said:

    FF43 said:

    Two essentially inescapable facts about Brexit. Any Brexit arrangement will require the UK sooner rather than later to agree the Withdrawal Agreement including de facto permanent backstop. To succeed Leavers paradoxically have to accept Brexit has failed.

    To satisfy both parties, the end deal needs to be better than nothing, but worse than what we had as members. Better than nothing but worse than before is a big negotiating space. But it does require the UK and Leavers in particular to accept the baseline is nothing at all, not the status quo. That Brexit is entirely about damage limitation.

    That would require one to believe that EU membership is a good thing.

    But, I take your point on the WA. Lots of MP's on either side seem to object to the very principle of the WA.
    It requires people to accept the fact that membership brings benefits they will no longer enjoy to the same extent after Brexit. Like trade, jobs, tax to fund welfare, national participation in decisions that affect you. You can minimise this damage but it will be there. The negotiating space is better than nothing but worse than before. Everything else is unicorns. The political mess comes from the Leavers' understandable reluctance to accept that truth.
  • Blimey. No Deal is dead.
  • _Anazina__Anazina_ Posts: 1,810
    No Deal Never passes 312/308
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    IanB2 said:

    MikeL said:

    If Spelman passes, does May still vote for main motion?

    I would expect more to vote for the substantive than vote for the amendment.
    Yes, but substantive now includes the amendment!!!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    HYUFD said:

    Spelman amendment passes

    Ayes 312 Noes 308

    Commons votes to take No Deal off the table permanently

    Huge blow to the ERG, now clear the Remainer majority in the Commons will do anything to stop No Deal including no Brexit at all most likely
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Danny565 said:

    Guardian saying the first amendment might be defeated.

    lol...
  • Shit the bed, someone needs to slip Bercow some ketamine before he goes buckwild.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    AndyJS said:

    Majority of 4 - wow, close!

    What were they voting on? Spelman I assume.
    Making it crystal clear that the no to 'no deal' motion really means no.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    HYUFD said:

    Spelman amendment passes

    Ayes 312 Noes 308

    Commons votes to take No Deal off the table permanently

    Much much closer than I'd have thought.
    AndyJS said:

    Majority of 4 - wow, close!

    What were they voting on? Spelman I assume.
    That we will not leave without a deal. Still legal hurdles to hurdle, I gather.

    But even less incentive for the remainer side at least to keep voting for the deal (as many have done, if not as many who do not).
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    MikeL said:

    IanB2 said:

    MikeL said:

    If Spelman passes, does May still vote for main motion?

    I would expect more to vote for the substantive than vote for the amendment.
    Yes, but substantive now includes the amendment!!!
    As I was saying....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    Well that's gone wrong for May, surely.

    The opposite, the ERG are now faced with No Deal being dead so it is May's Deal or BINO/No Brexit at all
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited March 2019
    Bit of an impasse — parliament votes against the only deal on offer yesterday, and today votes against No Deal. Result = no man's land.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Spelman amendment passes

    Ayes 312 Noes 308

    Commons votes to take No Deal off the table permanently

    Huge blow to the ERG, now clear the Remainer majority in the Commons will do anything to stop No Deal including no Brexit at all most likely
    Who would have f**king thought it..... the ERG again proved to be morons.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,973
    Brexiters blew their chance of Brexit yesterday. They deserve today
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Spelman amendment passes

    Ayes 312 Noes 308

    Commons votes to take No Deal off the table permanently

    Huge blow to the ERG, now clear the Remainer majority in the Commons will do anything to stop No Deal including no Brexit at all most likely
    I'm not so sure - I'm surprised it is so close so I'm looking forward to seeing the actual names of who voted which way.

    And even more to seeing who abstained without a valid reason (speaker, teller, Sinn Fein, dead)
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    Massive moment coming.

    If main motion is moved it is as amended by Spelman.

    If May votes Aye, she is voting to exclude No Deal permanently.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited March 2019

    Blimey. No Deal Brexit is dead.

    There we go.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    FF43 said:

    Sean_F said:

    FF43 said:

    Two essentially inescapable facts about Brexit. Any Brexit arrangement will require the UK sooner rather than later to agree the Withdrawal Agreement including de facto permanent backstop. To succeed Leavers paradoxically have to accept Brexit has failed.

    To satisfy both parties, the end deal needs to be better than nothing, but worse than what we had as members. Better than nothing but worse than before is a big negotiating space. But it does require the UK and Leavers in particular to accept the baseline is nothing at all, not the status quo. That Brexit is entirely about damage limitation.

    That would require one to believe that EU membership is a good thing.

    But, I take your point on the WA. Lots of MP's on either side seem to object to the very principle of the WA.
    It requires people to accept the fact that membership brings benefits they will no longer enjoy to the same extent after Brexit. Like trade, jobs, tax to fund welfare, national participation in decisions that affect you. You can minimise this damage but it will be there. The negotiating space is better than nothing but worse than before. Everything else is unicorns. The political mess comes from the Leavers' understandable reluctance to accept that truth.
    It requires people to accept there are pluses and minuses to both leaving and remaining.
  • kle4 said:

    Blimey. No Deal Brexit is dead.

    There we go.
    Well, that too.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited March 2019
    I wonder if Spelman voted for her amendment which she did not want to move?
    Not sure Cooper was confident it would be a win given this beforehand
    https://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/1105909783138312192?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1105909783138312192&ref_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-47529293
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    Bone is teller against Malthouse.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    edited March 2019
    I think it is fair to say the Brexit process is now a pile of motions.

    But TBF it always was.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    edited March 2019
    AndyJS said:

    Bit of an impasse — parliament votes against the only deal on offer yesterday, and today votes against No Deal. Result = no man's land.

    Note quite - it leaves 2 options - an extension (for reasons unknown but the EU most agree) or revoke.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Well... could May swing to MV3 now? and ask the ERG to stop it at their own risk.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,957
    AndyJS said:

    Bit of an impasse — parliament votes against the only deal on offer yesterday, and today votes against No Deal. Result = no man's land.

    No Deal continues to slide down the mountain towards 29th March......
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    Well that's gone wrong for May, surely.

    It's hard to tell - her own plans are already dead in the water, so how significant defeats on measures like this are who can say?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    Malthouse just wants to cherry pick the better bits of the WA; hard to see how it passes.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    edited March 2019
    Why are they bothering with more votes now NO Deal Never has passed?
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    edited March 2019
    HYUFD said:

    Well that's gone wrong for May, surely.

    The opposite, the ERG are now faced with No Deal being dead so it is May's Deal or BINO/No Brexit at all
    Only if May can bring her deal (as it was last night) back to Parliament...

    And that probably requires the EU changing something to allow Bercow to say it's a new motion...
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,038
    I wonder if this anti-no-deal vote might finally scare the ERG and DUP into supporting the withdrawal agreement?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    Dadge said:

    I wonder if this anti-no-deal vote might finally scare the ERG and DUP into supporting the withdrawal agreement?

    If Bercow allows it back...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    GIN1138 said:

    Why are they bothering with more votes no NO Deal Never has passed?

    The amendment has passed, the substantive motion has not yet been voted on so technically it has no passed yet.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Wow, I’m pleased I laid off my stake on 400+ Ayes for the substantive, the government are probably going to whip against it now it got amended.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    Dadge said:

    I wonder if this anti-no-deal vote might finally scare the ERG and DUP into supporting the withdrawal agreement?

    It'd be amusing if Bercow ruled that that's not allowed by Erskine May.
  • Dadge said:

    I wonder if this anti-no-deal vote might finally scare the ERG and DUP into supporting the withdrawal agreement?

    It is their only chance now. We await MV3.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,623
    edited March 2019
    kle4 said:

    Well that's gone wrong for May, surely.

    It's hard to tell - her own plans are already dead in the water, so how significant defeats on measures like this are who can say?
    Well I think her plan was to rule out no deal temporarily, extend for a month or two, and then try to pass the deal in MV3 or MV4 at the "new" cliff edge at the end of the extension using the threat of no deal at THAT point.

    But if this gets through, and the main vote still has to be voted on (right?) then she can't do that.

    I think, the whole thing is so fucking confusing.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    AndyJS said:

    Bit of an impasse — parliament votes against the only deal on offer yesterday, and today votes against No Deal. Result = no man's land.

    No Deal continues to slide down the mountain towards 29th March......
    If the substantive is clearly passed (with the PM voting in favour), government will have to revoke before getting to no deal.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    Dadge said:

    I wonder if this anti-no-deal vote might finally scare the ERG and DUP into supporting the withdrawal agreement?

    If Bercow allows it back...
    It seems tailor made for him to say no at this moment in time, and be a remainer hero. It makes no sense given his own logic on departing from precedent, if there is a good indication MV3 might pass, but in fairness there's not actually a sign of that yet. I don't buy that the ERG and DUP could not see this vote coming and so needed to see it happen before they actually believed no deal would be prevented.
  • _Anazina__Anazina_ Posts: 1,810
    Jacob Rees really is a laughably ridiculous figure.

    What an absolute helmet.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    IanB2 said:

    Malthouse just wants to cherry pick the better bits of the WA; hard to see how it passes.

    Utterly pointless (as are all today's votes).
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    £/$ likes the way things are going. My January position well into profit now.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Campbell actually making sense for once on Sky news.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    Sandpit said:

    Wow, I’m pleased I laid off my stake on 400+ Ayes for the substantive, the government are probably going to whip against it now it got amended.

    Unlikely
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    HYUFD said:

    Well that's gone wrong for May, surely.

    The opposite, the ERG are now faced with No Deal being dead so it is May's Deal or BINO/No Brexit at all
    No deal doesn’t die until it’s positively replaced with something else in the eyes of the EU.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    GIN1138 said:

    Why are they bothering with more votes now NO Deal Never has passed?

    Nothing is passed until the substantive is agreed.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    IanB2 said:

    AndyJS said:

    Bit of an impasse — parliament votes against the only deal on offer yesterday, and today votes against No Deal. Result = no man's land.

    No Deal continues to slide down the mountain towards 29th March......
    If the substantive is clearly passed (with the PM voting in favour), government will have to revoke before getting to no deal.
    And whilst this vote doesn't actually say revoke is the will of Parliament, by eliminating the only other possibilities, deal and no-deal, the government could say that Parliament's will is clear and revoke without a further vote.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Malthouse not going to pass according to JRM
  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411
    Does this mean Brexit is off now?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841

    Malthouse not going to pass according to JRM

    Arf
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786

    Malthouse not going to pass according to JRM

    Is JRM right that the government is whipping against the amended motion or is he trying to bounce them to do so?
This discussion has been closed.