Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Minimalist]

Am I wrong, or isn't this just votes on amendments?

Majority of 4 on Spelman/Dromey will translate to a higher majority on the actual motion.

Yeah you're right.

 

[Smores]

If they can only get a majority of 4 against no deal I have no idea how they will get a majority for anything?

They were whipped for it though i think? they won't be whipped for the main motion

 

[Kentonio]

They passed EXACTLY the same amendment in January (by 7 votes that time), so why is it necessary to do it again? They can just ignore the first time for ‘reasons’?

 

[Brwned]

Do the people who didn't vote to reject no deal want no deal, or is there more nuance to it - could there be another reason not to rule it out? Seems an oddly large number of people...

 

[Walrus]

Wouldnt it be a bittersweet irony if the gov't came out and said that because it was such a slight margin of victory, they werent going to respect the vote on the amendment...

 

[Penna]

Am I wrong, or isn't this just votes on amendments?

Majority of 4 on Spelman/Dromey will translate to a higher majority on the actual motion.

Yes, that's right. The Government didn't want their hands tied by "no deal to never happen under any circumstances". It hasn't worked (by a very slim margin).

 

[Silva]

Am I wrong, or isn't this just votes on amendments?

Majority of 4 on Spelman/Dromey will translate to a higher majority on the actual motion.

spelman/dromey have withdrawn their motion completely i think

 

[Pexbo]

Amendment A wasn't a free vote though was it?

Those commenting on how close it was, Amendment A wasn't a free vote was it?

 

[Kentonio]

They were whipped for it though i think? they won't be whipped for the main motion

There is no main motion now, this one made it obsolete.

 

[Pexbo]

spelman/dromey have withdrawn their motion completely

It had already gone to the house so was put forward by Burcow.

 

[Penna]

Do the people who didn't vote to reject no deal want no deal, or is there more nuance to it - could there be another reason not to rule it out? Seems an oddly large number of people...

Must be the whipping on this amendment.

 

[Kentonio]

spelman/dromey have withdrawn their motion completely

They just voted on it, and it passed. Bercow wouldn’t allow them to withdraw it, and one of the other signatories moved it.

 

[ha_rooney]

feck off Rees-Mogg

 

[madzo2007]

Is that the Wetherspoons boss on the BBC getting his ass handed to him by Andrew Neil??

 

[Dobba]

MPs are now voting on whether Jolly Boys' Outing is the best episode of Only Fools and Horses.

 

[Silva]

It had already gone to the house so was put forward by Burcow.

oh seen

 

[Minimalist]

Rees Mogg dealing out the 'this isn't binding, it's not law' line.

Bit like the referendum dickhead.

 

[Hephaestus]

spelman/dromey have withdrawn their motion completely i think

Spelman tried but was overruled by the speaker as any of the signatories could put it forward which Yvette Cooper did.

 

[FC Ronaldo]

The Tories whipped against it.

Appreciated but even still. This was a question of morality on the countries best interest first and foremost. Any risk of jobs following a revolt against the whips would be swept aside by an invitation to join the Independent Group anyway.

 

[Ubik]

Gov apparently now going to whip against their motion.

 

[sun_tzu]

Gov apparently now going to whip against their motion.

and ministers may resign?

 

[Dobba]

 

[Fully Fledged]

Did No deal just get rejected under any circumstances?

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.

 

[sullydnl]

 

[Penna]

and ministers may resign?

If they wanted to vote against the whip, they'd have to resign.

 

[Walrus]

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...

 

[Damien]

Majority of 210 for No.

 

[Buster15]

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.

 

[Penna]

164/374 against second amendment, which was a stupid one anyway.

 

[Damien]

At least they're getting some exercise.

 

[Rajma]

and ministers may resign?

Can anybody translate that into simple language for someone not familiar with nuances of the UK gov. system? What does it all mean?

 

[Pexbo]

F Smashed to peices

 

[horsechoker]

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.

 

[Drifter]

So a extension and more of the same .

 

[Buster15]

Yes, but not legally binding, interesting to see the response to this

Quite correct. For it to become legally binding it will need to be translated into legislation.

 

[ha_rooney]

The govt is a joke

 

[Ubik]

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.

 

[FootyGirl88]

So what happens now?

 

[Smores]

Surely they're not actually whipping against it. There's feck all upside and huge downside

 

[Fully Fledged]

Am I wrong, or isn't this just votes on amendments?

Majority of 4 on Spelman/Dromey will translate to a higher majority on the actual motion.

You are not wrong.