UPDATE: Brexit vote: British Parliament rejects Theresa May's Brexit deal
Source: Washington Post
LONDON — With just 73 days to go until Britain is scheduled to leave the European Union, lawmakers rejected — by a vote of 432 to 202 — the withdrawal deal that had been painstakingly negotiated between Prime Minister Theresa May and the European Union. The landslide vote was pure humiliation for a British leader who has spent the past two years trying to sell her version of Brexit, and it increased doubts about how or whether Britain will leave the E.U. on March 29. May stood almost alone, as many in her own party abandoned their leader.
Jeremy Corbyn, the opposition Labour Party leader, called the loss historic. He said her process of “delay and denial” had lead to failure. He then introduced a motion of no-confidence, to be debated on Wednesday.
During the evening debate, as the members in the chamber hooted and jeered, the speaker gaveled the members to quiet, complaining of the “noisy and unseemly atmosphere.” “The House must calm itself. Zen!” John Bercow shouted.
Before the vote, May told Parliament that the choice was plain: support her imperfect, but practical, compromise deal — and the only one that Europe will abide, she stressed — or face the cliff edge of no-deal Brexit. May said that everyone who thought they could go to Brussels and get a better deal was deluding themselves. But the vote was decisive.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/brexit-vote-2019/2019/01/15/8eb6579a-1816-11e9-b8e6-567190c2fd08_story.html
Full title/original article:
Breaking news: With just 73 days to go until Britain is scheduled to leave the European Union, lawmakers voted down the withdrawal deal that had been painstakingly negotiated between Prime Minister Theresa May and the European Union. May has until Monday to come back to Parliament with a Plan B.
This is a developing story and will be updated.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/brexit-vote-2019/2019/01/15/8eb6579a-1816-11e9-b8e6-567190c2fd08_story.html?utm_term=.060f2adb269b
New York Times -
By Stephen Castle and Ellen Barry
Jan. 15, 2019
LONDON -- Prime Minister Theresa May on Tuesday suffered a humiliating defeat over her plan to withdraw Britain from the European Union, thrusting the country further into political chaos with only 10 weeks to go until it is scheduled to leave the bloc.
The 432-to-202 vote to reject her plan was one of the biggest defeats in the House of Commons for a prime minister in recent British history, and it underscores how under Ms. May, the prime minister's office has lost ground in shaping important policy. Now factions in Parliament will seek to seize the initiative, an unpredictable new stage in the process of withdrawing from Europe, known as Brexit.
Before the vote, lawmakers in both the Conservative and Labour parties were being urged to put country before party to resolve the stalemate. Yet the problem remains that, even if they did, there is no clear path forward that can command a majority in the Commons.
In her final appeal in Parliament, Mrs. May impressed on the lawmakers the importance of the vote facing them. "The responsibility on each and every one of us at this moment is profound," she said, "for this is a historic decision that will set the future of our country for generations."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/world/europe/brexit-vote-theresa-may.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
It at least means she's unlikely to try, try, and try again at this stage.
(pic stolen from Twitter)
There was no doubt about a defeat on this deal, but pundits had assessed a significant margin would be at least around 75-100. This margin should be decisive.
It goes without saying that May has to go.
Message from the EU (with more than a degree of impatience at this point):
What next? We'll see how tomorrow's no confidence motion goes (I'm not holding my breath).
Could this have been avoided? Voices are now saying she has to reach across the aisle, rather than the gentile patricianship that seems to be the core of her character.
Here's an important take from a Welsh politician on Twitter (and if May had had the wisdom to take this tack over two years ago, things could have gone quite differently, even for an ardent Remainer like me). An early draft of May's major pre-vote speech from a day ago claimed that previous UK referendum results had been accepted, whereas her and her party's votes in Parliament had doggedly opposed them, to the extent that Scottish devolution was originally rejected on a technicality until a second referendum, and opposition to Welsh devolution was actually a plank in a Conservative election manifesto.
Setting aside Theresa May's misremembering/rank hypocrisy [delete according to taste] concerning her own and her own party's position, the lesson of Wales 1997 is actually about 'loser's consent' 1/
Welsh devolutionists (led by Ron Davies) fully realised that there was a real legitimacy question resulting from the very narrow referendum result. They worried about it, thought about and got people like myself to brief them about it in pretty lurid terms 2/
And to the extent that these things are possible, they deliberately set about trying to generate 'loser's consent' for the result.
* By involving opponents of devolution in discussions about the internal processes that would be adopted in the new National Assembly 3/
* By being unusually cross-party in their approach during the parliamentary passage of what became the 1998 Government of Wales Act (kudos here to the Wales
Office team of Ron Davies, @PeterHain and Win Griffiths)
4/
In other words, they realised that the referendum result was only a fragile mandate on which to build a new constitutional dispensation for Wales. That mandate had to be shored up. Undergirded. Supported.
5/
And the only way to do that was to be cross-party and to do what they could to reach out to and address the concerns of their opponents.
It helped, of course, that this approach 'went with the grain' of that particular ministerial team. There were also willing interlocutors
6/
But the fundamental point was that they realised that the narrowness of the referendum result meant that they simply had to make every effort to build consent among those who had been opposed as well as those who just hadn't bothered to participate in the vote.
Whole Twitter thread here: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1084721238809997313.html
Instead, any attempts (e.g. by the Scottish Government) at offering constructive input into the negotiation process were rejected, and Remainers were labeled "Bremoaners" and traitors or worse.
Hell mend her.
The European Court of Justice has ruled that it would be legal for the UK to unilaterally revoke Article 50 to cancel Brexit (without the need for agreement from the other 27 EU countries).
With the government still committed to Brexit, it's very likely that a major event such as a further referendum or change of government would have to happen before such a move.
After Theresa May survived a challenge to her leadership, the Conservative Party's rules mean she won't face another for 12 months.
But she could always decide to resign anyway, if she can't get her deal through and she's not prepared to change course.
That would trigger a Conservative leadership campaign which would result in the appointment of a new prime minister.
She might also come under pressure to resign if MPs pass a "censure motion" - that would be a bit like a no confidence vote but without the same automatic consequences. Again this could lead to a change in prime minister or even a change in government.
Whoever ended up in charge would still face the same basic range of Brexit options though.
To me, the UK never really went "all-in" with the EU as it is because it kept the £.
than a political grandstanding stunt with a bunch of impossible "have our cake and eat it too" promises that was never expected to pass, even by the people who drew it up... (Just for fun, go look up all those "Day After Brexit Vote" BBC stories where dozens of 'Yes' voters admit they didn't know Brexit *really* meant actually leaving the EU, or those who ONLY voted 'Yes' because they believed it was never going to pass anyway. 
And just like with Trump, Moscow's ratfucking combined with *just* enough indifferent liberals who couldn't be bothered to vote makes all the difference.
A day after her Brexit plan suffered the worst parliamentary defeat in modern British political history, U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May has survived a motion of no-confidence brought by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn by a vote of 325-306.
Why it matters: May's job has been under threat for months, and yet she keeps on surviving. Having already seen off one challenge from rebels in her own party, she's now defeated a motion from the opposition.
Still, May is no closer to delivering on Brexit with 10 weeks left until the U.K. is scheduled to leave the European Union
https://www.axios.com/theresa-may-survives-no-confidence-vote-corbyn-brexit-429a1781-3152-46bf-aa33-c2d7def214aa.html
--------------------
So no deal means there will be a Hard Brexit? Britain will exit the EU in March without a “deal” on trade agreements, visas, immigration, etc
to suffer with an expectation that she would resign and call for an election and/or cede to the Nigel Farage wing of the party (who would magically bully their way to an agreement 
).
