British MPs vote to reject no-deal Brexit

[Mr. Sparkle]

Last edited Wed Mar 13, 2019, 04:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: BBC

MPs have voted by 312 to 308 to reject leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement.

It is not a legally-binding decision - and it does not rule out the UK leaving the EU.

But it means MPs could now get a vote on delaying Brexit.

That vote would take place on Thursday, and if it is passed - and the EU agrees to it - the UK will not leave the EU as planned on 29 March.

MPs are now voting on whether the PM's Brexit plan should be scrapped in favour of a "managed no deal".

BBC political editor tweets...

Link to tweet

Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47562995

---

The hardline right wingers have been defeated.

[DirtEdonE]

1. Will the EU agree on a delay?

I might be wrong, I can barely keep up with the details of this story lately, but didn't the EU say the Brits would be out of the EU regardless of new votes or other assorted changes of heart?

[marylandblue]

3. EU has previously said UK can have a delay if they ask.

The only thing they ruled out is a renegotiated deal.

[DirtEdonE]

14. Thanks! nt

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

2. So they don't want the deal the EU is willing to give, and they don't want no deal.

Not sure what's left.

[marylandblue]

4. New referendum, with no pie in the sky promises.

Hard Brexit or stay will be the choice. You will not get a.pony.

[ProudLib72]

5. This goes toward your first post above as well

My understanding was that the EU wouldn't grant a delay unless there was a good reason. So that leads me to wonder if granting a delay would be their way of putting pressure on the UK to have another referendum, hoping that this time they get it right.

[marylandblue]

6. I don't know if it's pressure or an invitation, but

in either case, it signals that the EU really doesn't want them to leave.

[Yavin4]

7. Or Not Leaving at all

Which would be the grown up thing to do.

[Ghost Dog]

8. It's not about repeating referenda until they get the answer right; it's about

getting the referendum question right in the first place. UK voters weren't told what leaving the EU would or could mean in reality: they were told a pack of lies.

Now people know better, they are in a better position to vote in a way that will more clearly express the will of the people, including newly-eligible young people who will live long with the consequences.

[ProudLib72]

10. I was thinking along the lines of forcing a second vote on leaving the EU

That's what I was getting at. You said it yourself, UK voters were told a pack of lies. Now that they know the truth, maybe they would vote to stay. The EU knows this. I'm imagining that (rightly or wrongly) the decision on granting a delay could be coercion. If the EU believes the UK will hold a second vote on Brexit, then they could grant a delay. If not, they could let the UK crash out.

[Ghost Dog]

9. I fear May's Deal (again)

or Revoke Article 50 & Remain in the EU (perhaps with some concessions from the EU?) might be the choice May's aiming for eventually.

An Exit without a deal really ought to be out by now.

Cancelling Brexit would divide the country with dire and unpredictable consequences, some cry. I think it is more that the Tory party is direly divided and will splinter further and split.

[DRoseDARs]

12. It's is *absolutely* an effort to save face and hold onto power. 0 benefit to the UK, only ruin. nt

[Ghost Dog]

17. It was always about attempting to hold the Tory party together

and in power. UK people and even large sectors of the UK establishment as well as people of the EU and its establishments could go to hell, for all the Tory party cares.

[pampango]

15. "Cancelling Brexit would divide the country with dire and unpredictable consequences, some cry."

“Cancelling Brexit would divide the country with dire and unpredictable consequences” is true. Completing “Brexit would (also) divide the country with dire and unpredictable consequences”
Kind of hard to avoid the ‘consequences’ at this point.

A new referendum is indeed the best way to bring closure to this though it will leave hard feelings as well. I would like to see 3 options on the ballot: ‘hard’ Brexit, May’ Last deal and Remain in the EU. If none gets 50% (I think Remain might) the top 2 go to a runoff.

Since Parliament has failed to resolve Brexit going back to the people is the best option.

[Ghost Dog]

16. Agree.

Although EU leaders have said the UK can unilaterally cancel Brexit by revoking Article 50, some pressure on the UK might follow - pressure to actually codify some basic laws in a Written Constitution, for example...

[Denzil_DC]

18. Actually, EU leaders were opposed to the UK's unilateral revocation of Article 50.

The EU Commission ruled it out, and the issue had to be pursued through the European Court of Justice to come up with the decision that it could be done without any penalties whatsoever.

As for a further referendum, the first one wasn't legally binding, despite whatever Cameron had printed on the government's booklet (no UK government can bind the hands of a future parliament). If it had been binding, it would have been ruled illegal because of the numerous irregularities - just one of the ironies in this horrible situation.

This leads to the question of whether any future Brexit referendum could or should be binding. That would be a fun debate ...

[Ghost Dog]

19. I suggest that, rather than UK governments making up the rules as they go along,

according to convenience, the country needs a written constitution setting out a set of basic rights and duties, as is the practice in almost every country in the world following the (albeit imperfect) example set by the then newly-independent USA.

[Denzil_DC]

20. Well, I signed up for that idea back in the 1990s.

I can't remember the name of the campaign now, so it obviously didn't gain sufficient traction. Most constitutions are formulated after successful rebellions, and what became the UK didn't grab its chance way back.

Nowadays, I'm torn. A fully codified constitution sets limits on rights as well as safeguarding them. I can't think of a recent UK government I'd trust to draw one up!

[Ghost Dog]

21. Oh, such a constitution definitely shouldn't be drawn up by any government!

Nor, perhaps, by (professional) politicians.

[Denzil_DC]

22. HERESY! SOVEREIGNTY!

Sorry, must be the zeitgeist ...

[DRoseDARs]

11. "It is not a legally-binding decision" Know what else wasn't legally-binding? The original vote.

I wish the Queen would make a public address denouncing this nonsense to publicly embarrass and humiliate May for her and her party's reckless foolishness. The Queen can't stop it herself, but she can sway public opinion strongly against this.

[GulfCoast66]

13. The Irony of the country that produced Shakespeare find themselves in this situation.

Even he could not have come up with such a goat rodeo brought on by false pride and hubris. Where there are no good solutions.

Been 20 years since I read his works. Makes me want to revisit them.