Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?


  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
No it was just an amendment to the motion put by the PM. It will be voted on again after the Malthouse amendment is voted down. The thing is that today's votes are only motions so are not legally binding.

So was the referendum...
 
So the DUP will vote against taking No-Deal off the table, but they don’t want no deal, they think the UK should threaten the EU with No-Deal. Class

Every day we reach new lows from our elected politicians.
They are intent on playing games with their people's jobs and livelihood simply for their own gratification and ego.

I just hope that our people will remember this shameful episode.
 
Why the no-deal amendment does not definitely rule out no deal

It is important to stress, of course, that the Spelman amendment passed a few minutes ago does not definitely rule out a no-deal Brexit. There are two reasons for that. First, it is not a binding amendment. It is not legislation, and it is not a motion that gives a formal instruction to the government (like the “humble address” motions). The government could choose to accept it, and treat it as binding, but it has not said yet that it will. And even if it did ... Second, it is not within the government’s power to rule out no deal (in the terms of the motion) because it does not call for article 50 to be revoked (which would probably require separate legislation anyway). Caroline Spelman and Jack Dromey, who tabled it, intended it to signal that ministers should extend article 50 in the event of no deal being agreed. But, as Theresa May says repeatedly, that only postpones the problem.
 
Can anybody translate that into simple language for someone not familiar with nuances of the UK gov. system? What does it all mean?
Government were originally going to have a free vote for the main "take no deal from table" motion, meaning ministers could choose how to vote, but now that it's been amended, the government are going to make their MPs vote against it, meaning ministers cannot vote for it without resigning.
 
Surely they're not actually whipping against it. There's feck all upside and huge downside
 
Can anybody translate that into simple language for someone not familiar with nuances of the UK gov. system? What does it all mean?
The intention of the Government was to have a free vote on their motion tonight. That means their MPs can vote any way they see fit. Now that an amendment to that motion has been narrowly passed to say no-deal should be ruled out under any circumstances and must never happen, the Government doesn't want its own motion to pass, because they don't want that amendment.

So, they remove the free vote on the main motion and instead "whip" it, which means Tory MPs are instructed which way to vote. Basically, it would be the Government voting down its own original motion. Cabinet Ministers have to be loyal, so if they wanted to vote the other way they'd have to step down from their Cabinet posts.

(edit - I'm not sure if they are whipping the vote, but it seems as if they might be now that the first amendment was agreed).
 
Rees Mogg dealing out the 'this isn't binding, it's not law' line.

Bit like the referendum dickhead.

He is correct. The current law is that the UK will leave the EU on 29/3 whether or not their is a deal and as we all know the deal has been rejected.
 
Can anybody translate that into simple language for someone not familiar with nuances of the UK gov. system? What does it all mean?

Good luck :lol:

Our system is confusing as feck at the best of times, but you've jumped right in at the deep end.
 
He is correct. The current law is that the UK will leave the EU on 29/3 whether or not their is a deal and as we all know the deal has been rejected.

The gov said earlier if it passed they'd pass the neccesary legislation to change the date.
 
This last one sounds like a contradiction. It rules out No Deal and accepts No Deal as the default?
 
Can anybody translate that into simple language for someone not familiar with nuances of the UK gov. system? What does it all mean?
They offered a free vote... But have now decided to instruct people to vote against... If you hold a government post and vote against the instruction (the whip) you are by convention supposed to resign (or again in theory be sacked)
 
So May might bring back her deal for another vote. What a joke
 
Seems all very serious (sackings and what not) for something some people keep saying is legally meaningless.
 
Grieve said he'd resign the whip if the Tories began to back no deal. And if they three-line whip against this vote... they're backing no deal.
 
They offered a free vote... But have now decided to instruct people to vote against... If you hold a government post and vote against the instruction (the whip) you are by convention supposed to resign (or again in theory be sacked)

That doesn't seem very... democratic? A minister should have an own opinion and vote at all time. Weird, never heard about this before.
 
The gov said earlier if it passed they'd pass the neccesary legislation to change the date.

Yes of course. But as you will know passing a motion into law requires approval from both HoC and HoL and then needs Royal Ascent. All of which takes time.