Brexit deadlock: MPs fail to back any of the eight options aimed at solving crisis

Reuters ^ | 28 March 2019 | Enews

[Cronos]

BMPs have failed to back any of the eight options aimed at breaking the Brexit deadlock.

The UK parliament held a number of non-binding, indicative votes on suggestions aimed at solving the impasse around the country's EU departure.

But none of the eight options put forward on Wednesday gained a majority.

A move to hold a public vote on PM Theresa May's Brexit deal got the most votes with 268 but ultimately fell short.

The same was the case for a plan to establish an EU-UK customs union.

It comes after May has twice failed to get MPs to back her EU divorce deal. She offered to resign earlier on Wednesday if members of parliament pass it at a third attempt. However, there are question marks around whether it will ever make it back to the House of Commons: speaker John Bercow has said May cannot bring the deal back unless it is changed.

The indicative votes were aimed at allowing MPs to express their preference for how they think Brexit should go forward and potentially allowed the government to see which option could command a majority in the House of Commons.

What were the results of the eight amendments MPs voted on? No deal Brexit (Amendment B): Proposed by Conservative Brexiteer John Baron. It is calling for the UK to leave the EU without a deal on 12 April.

(For: 160, Against: 400)

"Common Market 2.0" (Amendment D): Proposed by Conservative Remainer Nick Boles. It calls the government to negotiate for a Norway plus style deal which would see the UK negotiating a customs arrangement, remaining part of the Single Market, to join the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the European Economic Area (EEA).

(For: 188, Against: 283)

EEA and ETFA terms; no customs union (Amendment H): Proposed by Conservative Brexiteer George Eustice. Calls for the UK to accede to the EEA and ETFA but not to remain in a customs union. It also calls for the government to ask the EU to reopen the Withdrawal Agreement to renegotiate the Irish backstop.

(For: 65, Against 300)

A customs union (Amendment J): Proposed by Conservative Remainer Ken Clarke. It calls for the government to negotiate "a permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU".

(For: 264, Against 272)

Labour's alternative Brexit plan (Amendment K): Proposed by Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn. This lays out Labour's alternative plan for Brexit including a comprehensive customs union with the EU (with the UK having a say on future trade deals), close alignment with the Single Market, the dynamic alignment on workers' rights and environmental protections, participation in EU agencies and funding programmes as well cooperation on security matters

(For: 237, Against 307)

Article 50 or 'no deal' (Amendment L): Proposed by SNP MP Joanna Cherry. It states that if a deal is not reached the day before the scheduled department date Parliament will again vote on no deal. If it approves it the UK will leave without a deal and if it does not the government must give notice it will revoke Article 50.

(For: 184, Against 293)

Public confirmatory vote (Amendment M): Originally proposed by Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson but submitted in the name of Dame Margaret Beckett. This states MPs will vote to confirm Theresa May's deal but only on the provision that it is then subject to a public vote to confirm it.

(For: 268, Against 295)

Contingent preferential arrangements (Amendment 0): Proposed by Conservative Brexiteer Marcus Fysh. Says if the government cannot get its Withdrawal Agreement through parliament it should immediately seek a range of arrangements with the EU to manage the immediate post Brexit environment (rather than extending or revoking Article 50) and should "unilaterally guarantee" the rights of EU citizens in the UK.

(For: 139, Against 422)

What happened earlier on Wednesday? During a meeting with the 1922 committee, which represents backbench MPs interests in parliament, May announced she would be stepping down if her Brexit deal is approved.

She said: “I have heard very clearly the mood of the parliamentary party. I know there is a desire for a new approach – and new leadership – in the second phase of the Brexit negotiations and I won’t stand in the way of that,” May said, according to a transcript released afterwards.

“I know some people are worried that if you vote for the withdrawal agreement, I will take that as a mandate to rush on into phase two without the debate we need to have. I won’t; I hear what you are saying. But we need to get the deal through and deliver Brexit.

“I am prepared to leave this job earlier than I intended in order to do what is right for our country and our party.”

She did not set out a formal date for departure but it is expected she will announce her resignation on May 22 - the new Brexit date if the deal is approved - to allow for a summer leadership contest and for the next prime minister to be in place by the Autumn Conservative party conference.

What did the Conservatives say? Immediately after her resignation, several arch Brexiteers such as former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and European Research Group chairman Jacob Rees-Mogg indicated they would now support May's deal.

Johnson, in particular, was immediately accused of hypocrisy having said they could not vote for May's deal or they risked suffering an "even greater humiliation" in the second phase of the negotiation earlier this month.

He is widely expected to run for leader after May's resignation and has been repeatedly accused of backing Brexit to bolster his chances to gain the top job.

Meanwhile, Rees-Mogg suggested he would vote for the deal provided the DUP abstained on the bill.

He had already indicated he was softening on the deal and wrote in an op-ed in the Daily Mail newspaper on Wednesday morning saying that he was "ready to back May's deal" to avoid a long Brexit delay, a catastrophic no deal Brexit, or no deal at all.

"I have come to this view because the numbers in Parliament make it clear that all the other potential outcomes are worse and an awkward reality needs to be faced", he wrote.

To explain his position, he added in a Twitter post: "Half a loaf is better than no bread", meaning he would rather have a half Brexit than no Brexit at all.

[Cronos]

The British parliament is as divided as the people of the UK. If you ask the Brits which deal they want, everything from no-deal to soft-brexit will get 20% of the vote no more.

There is no consensus on what type of Brexit they want

[Mount Athos]

couple days before deadline, guessing another vote to revoke article 50, with a lot more support for it

[gunsequalfreedom]

I don’t understand the complexities of this so this will sound simple I’m sure. Is it so difficult to simply reclaim their nation’s autonomy? Declare it and be done it.

https://youtu.be/nrvpZxMfKaU

Congress approves the Declaration of Independence, brilliant scene from John Adams mini-series.

[Long Jon No Silver]

“You can check out any time you like, But you can never leave!”

[pepsionice]

I sat and watched about two hours of this yesterday. Fascinating event. On the day prior, having watched both BBC/Sky analysts go over the eight options, they felt that a minimum of one would pass...maybe two. Surprising none passed.

I think May will attempt to resign but the party will tell her to stay because no one wants the job at this point. Pretty much a no-deal BREXIT at this point. Whether good or bad, it’s a done deal.

[chris37]

If government isn’t going to serve its people, and I mean its NATIVE people, then what the Hell is the point of having government at all?

No one needs people such as this.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

“Is it so difficult to simply reclaim their nation’s autonomy?”

It is, if that value is not paramount in your DNA. It’s not a lot different than those in the US who value individual freedom versus government supplied succor. Freedom is an intangible and placing freedom at the apex of a hierarchy of values is something that may seem obvious to you and me (despite including the freedom to fail) but it has to be learned. “We didn’t inherit it in our DNA” as a famous American once said. The Brits, or I should say half of them, regard economic interaction with the rest of Europe in the form of a massive tariff-free trade zone as critical to their survival. We, perhaps remembering WW2, probably think of the Brits as freedom loving and individualistic as when they stood up to the Nazis. I don’t think this freedom thing is so deeply or at least widely engrained as it is here.

The EU, which started out as an economic union, has morphed relentlessly into a de facto overlay over Britain’s ability to control and direct its own future as a sovereign. Under current conditions, there is little perceivable difference between a Belgian military conquest of Britain such they do not get to make their own laws and are pledged to pay tribute to the uberlords in Brussels. As absurd as that may sound. It would be absolutely inconceivable and intolerable to us but apparently it is not that way for them, or half of them.

[Cronos]

Because the UK already has autonomy. What exactly did you think the EU does to curtail their autonomy?

The EU is a federation of nations that have a common trade policy and common laws and regulations. More than USMCA/Nafta but less than the Swiss confederation and far less than the USA

The UK could go to war with whomever they liked, set up diplomatic relations, vote separately in the UN, they could even opt-out of the Schengen etc.

What autonomy did they lose, in your opinion, by being part of the EU?

[Cronos]

They can leave, but they are like the cat that lingers on the doorway not knowing if it wants in or out. The delay is purely and completely on the British side.

[Cronos]

agreed, it is close to a done-deal. Just two days to countdown and then April 12 is no-deal buh-bye to the UK day.

[Cronos]

Their gridlock reflects British society - 50% or so want to say in the EU. Of the 50% who want to get out of the EU, less than half of those want a no-deal Brexit. This reflect the “native people” of the UK

[Cronos]

also a point of "their nation's autonomy" - the UK is not a nation but a union of 4 nations - English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish. Out of these, the Scots and NorIres voted to stay in the EU and the English and Welsh voted out

So technically the Scots and NIs should be allowed to stay in the EU as nations....

[Cronos]

The EU did not start as a monetary union

The goals of the European Coal & Steel Community, European Economic Community, and now the European Union were perfectly clear.

Britain was not in EEC but instead EFTA from 1960-1973. EFTA was expressly a rival: EEC was a "community" that was more than trade; EFTA was deliberately only trade (European Free Trade Area). But despite reciprocal arrangements UK realised they wanted more and chose to stop being "just free trade" and applied to join the community. UK joined the EEC in 1973 and "the four freedoms" were fundamental even then.

1. Freedom of movement of goods
2. Freedom of movement of People
3. Freedom of services
4. Freedom of capital

The British establishment persistently underestimated the commitment of other Europeans to unification, and consistently misrepresented the nature of the agreements they were signing to their own people

Even in the 1970s, the distinction between the European Free Trade Agency (EFTA) and the European Economic Community (EEC) was clear: the former grouping of states was made up of those countries which did not want to become members of the EEC and its affiliated agencies, created on an explicitly supranational basis. The idea of a "Common Market", for instance, involved a necessary degree of national governments acquiescing to supranational authorities' dictates. Many of the other core elements of the modern European Union, first instance the European Parliament, had already existed for a while by the time the UK join. The term "ever-closer union" even featured prominently in the preamble to the Treaty of Rome that created the EEC!

If Britons did not know that the European Economic Community was on the path towards become an integrated quasi-state covering a growing chunk of the European continent, they cannot blame the EEC. The EEC was always straightforward about its intent. Rather, they have to blame their elected officials, who may have misled them into believing that the EEC was a free trade zone, and they have to blame themselves, for being such dullards as to not bother investigating the basic facts concerning the organization that their country was joining.

The UK joined the European Communities, not just the EEC.

“We’ve been accustomed during these years and all these arguments to hear the Community as described the Common Market. I hope this is a habit that we can now abandon.” Edward Heath, UK prime minister, 1973

The European Communities was the European Economic Community (EEC), European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom. The Treaty of Maastricht established the European Union of which the European Communities became one of the three pillars.

the uk joined because membership of the EEC was understood to be a way to stop UK’s economic decline.

The alternatives — commonwealth market was perceived to be less sophisticated, less demanding than EEC’s more developed market next door. EFTA performance was inferior to EEC’s.

The founding members of EEC outperformed UK persistently between 1945 and 1972 —

In 1945, UK’s GDP per capita was 90% larger than average GDP per capita of the six founding members (the war damaged EU6 economies much more)

By 1950, when UK declined to join European Coal and Steel community, post-war catch up was nearly over — EU6 average GDP per capita was 28% smaller.

In 1957, when treaty of Rome was signed, EU6 average was 15% behind.

By 1961, when UK first opened discussion to join EEC, the difference was 10% (UK’s higher)

In 1967, when UK applied to join the second time, the difference had shrunk to 6% (UK’s higher)

[Berlin_Freeper]

All options are off the table.

[Hugin]

Hotel Euronation.

[Long Jon No Silver]

good one. Maybe Hotel Urination ( nah Steele used that for his fake dossier). Brits are gonna get devoured by Eurocats if they twist and turn about Brexit. Sad to see a nation that helped clobber the Germans now being dictated to by a Euro dominating Germany. Might as well have been no Battle of Britain.

[Cronos]

Sigh, there is little in common between the Germany of the Nazis and the Germany of today. Today's Germany is far more federal. the Battle of Britain was against the Nazis - the only group you can compare with the Nazis were the Soviets or the Chinese communists, or well communism in general

The EU is hardly dictating terms to the UK - the UK opted to call for Article 50 without being prepared. It can still walk away with no-deal but it isn't. The UK isn't deciding anything

[tennmountainman]

New MP elections are needed.
There will be quite a few Remainer MP’s that will be sacked.
Quite a few in Leave voting districts that betrayed their voters
that will end up on the curb.

[Long Jon No Silver]

Do you think Germany dominates the current European experiment? I think it does. And it follows for me that resistance against the Germans in WW2 was a waste of time, if close on 80 years later they call the shots in Europe. The current bunch running Germany are not Nazis. Granted. But the Kaiser wasn't one either. Germany has a ‘destiny’ thing. WW1. WW2. Different players. But the same baseline belief in German destiny. Many non German politicians probably thought that the EU would someone constrain and even extinguish the German preoccupation with destiny. But they were and are wrong.Because the German elite see the EU itself as Germany's destiny. And they will do everything in their power short of warfare (for now) to prevent the EU from unravelling. The U.K will not be let go. Deep down in the mind of probably most Germans, is a certain glee at Britains current national discomfort and vacillation. A certain gigantic irony

[gunsequalfreedom]

Now those are interesting replies. Had you each read each others assessment of things? I’m still in trying-to-understand-the-situation mode? Which of your posts is how I should view it or are both correct?