Brexit votes: MPs fail to back proposals again

[muriel_volestrangler]

Source: BBC

MPs have again failed to agree on proposals on the next steps for Brexit.

The Commons voted on four motions for leaving the EU, including a customs union and a Norway-style arrangement - keeping the UK in the single market - but none gained a majority.

The votes were not legally binding, so the government would not have been forced to adopt the proposals.

Read more: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47781009

---

Chaos.

Motion C: customs union – defeated
Defeated by 276 t0 273, a majority of 3

Motion D: ‘common market 2.0’ – defeated
Defeated by 282 t0 261, a majority of 21

Motion E: confirmatory public vote – defeated
Defeated by 292 t0 280, a majority of 12

Motion G: parliamentary supremacy – defeated
Defeated by 292 t0 191, a majority of 101

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/01/brexit-what-are-the-indicative-votes-mps-will-vote-on

[nycbos]

1. I don't know who said it...

... but someone compared May trying to get her deal through parliament to the Black Knight in Monty Python.

[Ghost Dog]

2. Thing is, more & more people see this is true:

(albeit in the words of Mr. Livingstone and published by RT) :
[link:https://www.rt.com/op-ed/455266-chaos-flawed-democracy-brexit/|
‘UK is most deeply flawed democracy in the West’ – Ken Livingstone on chaos in Parliament]

[maxsolomon]

6. Have they taken a look at the US?

Where the rural minority imposes their will on the urban majority through undemocratic structural inequalities built into the constitution?

AKA "The Republic"?

[Pope George Ringo II]

21. Long story short: Brexit.

It's already worse than anything going on in the US since 1865, and it hasn't even happened yet.

[Iliyah]

3. Do they kepp voting? Like forever?

[Baclava]

4. All the soft Brexit options and a new referendum vote just went down, so, 11 days to hard Brexit

but, yeah she could try another vote on her other failed option plans again i think

[Denzil_DC]

5. These are only indicative votes.

So in theory they'll continue having them as long as the speaker feels it productive and Parliament has an appetite for the debate.

But no, not for ever.

The process has narrowed the options down in a way that should have been done before Article 50 was even triggered. Motion D was only beaten by three votes, though the Cabinet were whipped to abstain, so their votes would have to be added to the equation.

It all shows how much bullshit May's continued bleating about the country or Parliament "coming together" has been, though. These are politicians with as many facts (and nonsenses) as can be mustered available, but many are evidently agonizing about the choices facing them. How the hell a vague referendum vote three years ago can be held up as the Last Word of the People when so little was known about how the result might be enacted, I've no idea.

[BumRushDaShow]

8. It sounds just like the "Repeal and Replace" (the ACA) clarion call of the GOP here

where they fictionalized the public's support for getting rid of the Affordable Care Act and kept insisting that they had their "own" plan that they could put in place instead - both assertions being lies. The "people" had no such desire to eliminate the ACA (they mainly wanted to fix it) and the GOP had no real "replacement" plan in the queue because that was not their original ideological goal from the outset.

So the GOP ended up being forced to make up some crap in a backroom without hearings, and threw it out on the floor to be voted on... and of course it failed.

[Denzil_DC]

10. Yes, there are similarities:

the invoking of fake public support for what they wanted to do anyway, the absence of any meaningful preparation, or even real understanding of what they want to do involves in all its complications.

This was Tweeted last week:

Link to tweet

Faisal Islam ✔
@faisalislam

So @SamCoatesTimes says that dozens of MPs next week have a tutorial scheduled on what the customs union is from some trade experts...

They've only been considering these issues for three years or so.

[BumRushDaShow]

12. "dozens of MPs next week have a tutorial scheduled"

I can see a young country like the U.S. fumbling around but the U.K.?

[crazytown]

7. No deal Brexit virtually inevitable - EU

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/apr/01/brexit-latest-live-news-indicative-votes--brexiters-dismiss-customs-union-plan-as-unacceptable-as-mps-prepare-for-more-indicative-votes-live-new

[KPN]

23. So all of those who vote for ignoramouses and stupid referendums because, well ... let's just

blow the whole kit and kaboodle up ... will get their wishes.

[DeminPennswoods]

9. There have been many proposals, none have garnered a majority

What, exactly, do MPs want? I'd say this all indicates there should be a 2nd referendum, but apparently MPs don't want that either.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. There's still a lot of "not exactly what I/we want, so won't vote for it"

You can see party and individual votes here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2019/apr/01/how-did-each-mp-vote-on-the-second-round-of-indicative-votes (you can order by party, so you can also see how they divided up)

The SNP all abstained on the "customs union" option, though about 30 of them voted for the similar "Common Market 2.0" option. Same goes for all 4 Plaid Cymru MPs. Only one of the Lib Dems voted for both. The 2nd referendum failed to win largely because several Labour MPs with large "Leave" votes in their constituency voted against it.

[Denzil_DC]

13. The SNP abstained on that Clarke customs union motion because it didn't include freedom of movement.

It's a red line in a country that desperately needs immigration, on top of the moral aspects.

Most disturbing was Labour whipping against Joanna Cherry's motion for a safety net revocation of Article 50 at the last minute to prevent a no deal Brexit (121 abstained). Apparently it's "too early"

Oh, and meanwhile:

Link to tweet

Sam Coates Times ✔
@SamCoatesTimes

Tory MPs held their training session today on what is a customs union

“It was very useful but one person did raise the question why they hadn’t done this two years ago”

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. I don't see why that should be a "red line"

Yes, freedom of movement would be good for Scotland, but there's a real chance it'll now be 'no deal'. I can't see that Scotland should say "we need immigration from the EU so much that any agreement that doesn't make it unlimited is useless".

[Denzil_DC]

16. But this is a winnowing process.

If the choice ended up no deal versus Clarke's motion, I don't doubt the SNP would whip for Clarke rather than abstaining, but at this stage they're entitled to use their votes to contribute to steering the debate as much as the system allows. It's not as if the SNP abstained en masse on the other options (they didn't vote against any), so I don't see where you get "any agreement that doesn't make it unlimited is useless".

Freedom of movement (in EU terms) wouldn't just be "good" for Scotland, it's essential, for demographic reasons.

And if, as you say, there's a real chance of no deal, Cherry's motion is all the more critical. Saying it's "too soon" right now harks back to Corbyn's words when A50 was triggered: "Now the fight starts." Still waiting here.

[Denzil_DC]

17. Oh, and in case the FOM argument seems a little parochial because of the way it cropped up here,

here's another argument to add to the stack that should have been conducted years ago, certainly before the referendum (and has been expressed in more or less these terms by Sturgeon at various times):

Labour must make a principled case for free movement
Undermining existing rights to free movement undermines the rights of the whole working class. Labour must offer a vision of an open, democratic, egalitarian Britain.

...

But Labour’s alternative vision has to be grounded in its principles. There should have never been any serious doubt that Labour would oppose the Immigration Bill. More than this, Corbynism will start to look like shallow, business-as-usual politics if it cannot conduct a principled argument in defence of migration and free movement.

The economic arguments in favour of migration – from its impact on growth to the absence of impact on wages and employment – are clear, robust, empirically-grounded, and politically almost useless. Trying to tackle Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson by waving academic research around is like bringing a spreadsheet to a knife fight. It’s not that people don’t want evidence and research – they do. And they want clear policies that they can see will be workable. But both have to arrive in a context where what really matters is the story we tell about the kind of people we are and the kind of country we want to build.

This political argument is where the left has to win this fight. We defend free movement on the grounds of the solid principle at stake – that we defend the rights of the 3.7 million EU citizens here in Britain, and the 1.3 million UK citizens in the EU – and the defence of that principle should be an important part of Labour’s story.

...

Undermining existing rights to free movement undermines the rights of the whole working class: forcing migrants into illegal work or depriving them of protections makes it harder, not easier, to maintain rights for everyone else. And as polling shows, public attitudes on migration are softening markedly. Class politics, growing electoral advantage and – above all – a clear and principled vision of an open, democratic, egalitarian Britain should all point Labour towards a solid defence of existing rights to free movement.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/02/labour-must-make-principled-case-free-movement

[Ghost Dog]

18. "bringing a spreadsheet to a knife fight"

Nice image, thanks!

[Denzil_DC]

19. Not my line, but glad you liked it!

Given my discussion with Muriel above, here's Westminster SNP leader Ian Blackford earlier in the day explaining how they expected to vote and why:

Link to tweet

STV News ✔
@STVNews

SNP Westminster leader @IanBlackfordMP tells @STVNews why his party's MPs are backing the 'Common Market 2.0' #Brexit proposal.

The results of tonight's indicative votes will be announced after 10pm. https://bit.ly/2uJqg7r

[Denzil_DC]

14. A handy chart summarizing how the different parties voted:

The left-hand column shows May's last attempt at getting her deal passed.

There's a hell of a lot of blue in the "No" section, in case anyone was in any doubt where the root of the impasse lies (blue is the Tories' colour in the UK, in case it's confusing for our American pals).

[Denzil_DC]

22. I was curious about the 3-4 SNP "abstentions"

on Common Market 2.0, Confirmatory Referendum and Parliamentary Supremacy. Not that they'd have made any difference, but the SNP whip's usually pretty solid.

Here's another graphic, of just the Scottish MPs' votes:



Angus MacNeil was trapped on Barra when an unannounced NATO exercise meant his flight to the mainland was cancelled, so didn't attend at all.

Stewart Hosie and Carol Monaghan had health problems, so also didn't attend.

Pete Wishart explained his abstention on the Confirmatory Referendum on Twitter:

Link to tweet

Pete Wishart ✔
@PeteWishart

I said I would keep my constituents up to date on the Brexit votes. How I voted this evening and why.