Brexit - No Deal RejectionWhat political motivations were provided by Brexit proponents besides these?Why is immigration control considered to be the first Brexit priority?Brexit deal 'Meaningful vote' battle between House of Lords and House of CommonsWhat would be the subject of a second Brexit Referendum?What are the main reasons for why negotiating a proper Brexit deal has been so hard?Could the UK Parliament defy the delay on the meaningful vote and simply vote on it?Why did the UK not have any post-EU exit deals agreed prior to June 2016?How did Theresa May remain PM after her Brexit deal was rejected?What will happen if Parliament votes “no” on each of the Brexit-related votes to be held on the 12th, 13th and 14th of March?Can an Article 50 extension take effect pending approval from national states?

What is under these four white covers on the upper part of the Orion capsule?

Running a subshell from the middle of the current command

Can the damage from a Talisman of Pure Good (or Ultimate Evil) be non-lethal?

Why do Australian milk farmers need to protest supermarkets' milk price?

Why does Deadpool say "You're welcome, Canada," after shooting Ryan Reynolds in the end credits?

At what level can a dragon innately cast its spells?

What to do when during a meeting client's people start to (physically) fight with each other?

Cultural lunch issues

Plot a function of two variables equal 0

What is IP squat space

Is having access to past exams cheating and, if yes, could it be proven just by a good grade?

Upper bound for the number of solutions of a Diophantine equation

SQL Server Primary Login Restrictions

An Accountant Seeks the Help of a Mathematician

Bastion server: use TCP forwarding VS placing private key on server

Possible Leak In Concrete

How to make healing in an exploration game interesting

Define different actions for the same operator depending on the nature of its arguments

Prove that this set in the metric space is open

I need to drive a 7/16" nut but am unsure how to use the socket I bought for my screwdriver

Why doesn't the EU now just force the UK to choose between referendum and no-deal?

If Invisibility ends because the original caster casts a non-concentration spell, does Invisibility also end on other targets of the original casting?

Could the Saturn V actually have launched astronauts around Venus?

How could a female member of a species produce eggs unto death?



Brexit - No Deal Rejection


What political motivations were provided by Brexit proponents besides these?Why is immigration control considered to be the first Brexit priority?Brexit deal 'Meaningful vote' battle between House of Lords and House of CommonsWhat would be the subject of a second Brexit Referendum?What are the main reasons for why negotiating a proper Brexit deal has been so hard?Could the UK Parliament defy the delay on the meaningful vote and simply vote on it?Why did the UK not have any post-EU exit deals agreed prior to June 2016?How did Theresa May remain PM after her Brexit deal was rejected?What will happen if Parliament votes “no” on each of the Brexit-related votes to be held on the 12th, 13th and 14th of March?Can an Article 50 extension take effect pending approval from national states?













10















As you might know, last night at 19:00 MPs voted on whether or not we would leave the EU without a deal. Needless to say, it was rejected. However, if the outcome of that vote is not legally binding and leaving the EU without a deal is still the default, what was the point?



Surely if it is not legally binding & still the default that therefor means if they decide to leave without a deal there is nothing we can do about it - so why did we hold that vote in the first place?










share|improve this question







New contributor




J.J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 6





    Don't forget that the Brexit referendum itself wasn't legally binding either. Just because it's not legally binding doesn't mean that it's not going to be respected.

    – UKMonkey
    5 hours ago















10















As you might know, last night at 19:00 MPs voted on whether or not we would leave the EU without a deal. Needless to say, it was rejected. However, if the outcome of that vote is not legally binding and leaving the EU without a deal is still the default, what was the point?



Surely if it is not legally binding & still the default that therefor means if they decide to leave without a deal there is nothing we can do about it - so why did we hold that vote in the first place?










share|improve this question







New contributor




J.J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 6





    Don't forget that the Brexit referendum itself wasn't legally binding either. Just because it's not legally binding doesn't mean that it's not going to be respected.

    – UKMonkey
    5 hours ago













10












10








10








As you might know, last night at 19:00 MPs voted on whether or not we would leave the EU without a deal. Needless to say, it was rejected. However, if the outcome of that vote is not legally binding and leaving the EU without a deal is still the default, what was the point?



Surely if it is not legally binding & still the default that therefor means if they decide to leave without a deal there is nothing we can do about it - so why did we hold that vote in the first place?










share|improve this question







New contributor




J.J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












As you might know, last night at 19:00 MPs voted on whether or not we would leave the EU without a deal. Needless to say, it was rejected. However, if the outcome of that vote is not legally binding and leaving the EU without a deal is still the default, what was the point?



Surely if it is not legally binding & still the default that therefor means if they decide to leave without a deal there is nothing we can do about it - so why did we hold that vote in the first place?







united-kingdom brexit






share|improve this question







New contributor




J.J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




J.J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




J.J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 6 hours ago









J.JJ.J

1515




1515




New contributor




J.J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





J.J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






J.J is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 6





    Don't forget that the Brexit referendum itself wasn't legally binding either. Just because it's not legally binding doesn't mean that it's not going to be respected.

    – UKMonkey
    5 hours ago












  • 6





    Don't forget that the Brexit referendum itself wasn't legally binding either. Just because it's not legally binding doesn't mean that it's not going to be respected.

    – UKMonkey
    5 hours ago







6




6





Don't forget that the Brexit referendum itself wasn't legally binding either. Just because it's not legally binding doesn't mean that it's not going to be respected.

– UKMonkey
5 hours ago





Don't forget that the Brexit referendum itself wasn't legally binding either. Just because it's not legally binding doesn't mean that it's not going to be respected.

– UKMonkey
5 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















18















so why did we hold that vote in the first place?




Mainly for the following two reasons:



For some, to put pressure on the government to ensure that there is either a deal or no Brexit



For others, so they can blame it all on the government even though they know full well they've done nothing to actually prevent it, by saying 'look, we voted against no deal'.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    I think the Spelman amendment put pressure on the Government, but the original bill was brought by the Government, so it is difficult to see how that would have been a pressure move in the first place.

    – Jontia
    6 hours ago






  • 1





    Hmm, but if two deals have already been rejected what the hell do they think more pressure will do? She cannot get anything through parliament so I don't see their logic. I guess that leaves one thing; no Brexit.

    – J.J
    6 hours ago







  • 2





    @J.J the pressure is against the no deal; indeed, for many no Brexit would be the preferred outcome altogether, and for the rest they prefer no Brexit to no deal

    – Orangesandlemons
    6 hours ago






  • 1





    Is it? I got the sense that she (and her party) are at this point building ammunition for justifying another Brexit public referendum, but I have no direct sources on that.

    – Onyz
    6 hours ago






  • 4





    @DevSolar one big issue with second referendum would be one of the main criticisms of the pro-EU brigade was the 'neverendum'. The mistake may have been to hold the referendum in the first place; now a second referendum could potentially have massive negative effects of its own.

    – Orangesandlemons
    5 hours ago


















7














The point of the votes on no deal and on an extension to the leaving date, is for Theresa May to pressure the Democratic Unionist Party (her 'confidence and supply' partners) and the European Research Group (hard brexit conservatives) to vote for her deal






share|improve this answer


















  • 9





    Then she's really living in a candy land given that she is now 1st & 4th place for biggest defeats in parliament IIRC.

    – J.J
    6 hours ago






  • 1





    @J.J Based on Tuesday night's defeat by 149, she needs to persuade 75 people to change their minds. It doesn't look likely

    – Dave Gremlin
    6 hours ago






  • 2





    at the current rate, she wins meaningful vote 4

    – Caleth
    6 hours ago






  • 3





    @J.J: only because parliament has so far been able to be against everything, and for nothing. If they're faced with an actual choice between the deal and some specific alternative, they may yet choose the deal.

    – RemcoGerlich
    5 hours ago











  • @J.J Defeat implies that government(or May) lost something. I mean, if we look at it from the position that the UK Government doesn't want any of what the EU is offering(aka no useful movement) (and the media have created an environment in which) it seems as if the UK always needs to be the group offering solutions, the Government essentially doesn't have to do anything but stall for time until the EU makes the no-deal decision itself. In the meantime the EU/anti-Brexit camp has to build up 'the sense' that it's the UK's fault that it has a negotiating partner that is unwilling to negotiate.

    – Giu Piete
    1 hour ago



















7














This is old-fashioned power politics of a type rarely seen in the UK, normally associated with times of extreme crisis. Normally Parliament is irrelevant: the Government produces a policy, whips the MPs to vote for it, and it always passes.



Until 2010, there was a strong guarantee that ensured a way forwards could always be found: the confidence vote. A vote could be declared a confidence vote so that voting it down would force fresh elections. The effect of that was that government MPs were extremely reluctant to vote against the government on a confidence vote given the high risk of losing their seats. Under this approach, either the deal would be approved or we would be having another election right now.



The Liberal Democrats broke that with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.



Now the government staggers on, having completely lost control of the process and being reduced to voting against its own motions. And yet May remains as PM, because who else is there? The Conservative Party failed to elect another leader. A no confidence vote was held in January and failed to remove the government. But at the same time there is no majority for doing anything specific. Achieving one will either (a) require the ERG and/or hard Brexit group and/or DUP to surrender (unlikely); (b) require enough of the Opposition to vote with the Government to back the deal (unlikely); (c) require May to give up on her Deal; or (d) require some other option to be assembled and members of the Government to break the whip to vote for it.



The votes are an opportunity for a coalition to assemble. If there's a majority for "not no deal", can that be turned into a deal / delay / rescind majority?






share|improve this answer






























    6














    Trying to force though "the deal"



    This is the main reason for this vote.



    The prime minster is hemmed in and is trying to show that there is no other option but to accept "her deal", as already negotiated with the EU. She knows that there is not a majority for "no deal" in the parliament. So the vote is a way to show to everyone that the majority of parliament do not want a no deal, vis a ve parliament (or more to the point the pro-brexit MPs) should accept her deal. It's trying to prove to the MPs that say "we should leave without a deal" that they are in the minority.



    Context



    This needs to be viewed in the context of what is currently happening. There are lots of factors at play here, some big ones include (not an exhaustive list we'd be here all day):



    • The current government is a minority government without an overall
      majority in the house, it is only in power currently because of a
      loose arrangement with the DUP. This is so loose that the DUP has
      voted against the government several times! So the government , even
      if it could force ("whip") all of it's MPs to vote with it, still
      cannot make parliament accept the current deal on the table on it's
      own.

    • The government has lost 2 major votes votes on it's main policy
      ("Brexit"). Under normal circumstances this would cause the
      collapse of the government and a general election.

    • Earlier last year, the Prime Minister has barely scrapped a no
      confidence vote.
      This has again highlighted that the government cannot produce a
      majority. Again, Under normal circumstances this would cause the
      collapse of the government and a general election.

    • The government tried to win a majority with it's snap election of
      2017.
      This tactic failed miserably resulting in the Conservative party
      losing it's majority. So the Conservative party really doesn't want
      an election because it's afraid it will loose it or it'll make
      matters even worse (again!).

    • The DUP could withdraw it's support to the government this would
      cause the collapse of the government and a general election. The
      DUP doesn't want an election though because it now has a lot of
      power.

    So at the moment the UK government is basically after something it can call a win in any shape or form, even if it's not binding at least it shows progress.



    You can see form above just how tentative the current governments grip on power is. The current state of affairs is totally unprecedented. At any other time this government would of collapsed a long time ago or at the very least the prime minister would of resigned. Why has none of this happened? Because there simply isn't enough time to hold elections, etc. before 29th March.



    The government never wanted to have this vote. It's been forced into by the circumstances. But without the government it's hard to make votes legally binding in the current circumstances. So the government is trapped by parliament and parliament is trapped by the government. Eventually (dear god hopefully soon!) one will have to give.



    A vote cannot rule out Brexit, legally



    The other thing here is that there is primary legislation(an act of parliament) that says the UK will leave the EU on the 29th March.



    The only way to revoke this is with more primary legislation. This vote is not primary legislation. Revoking article 50 would require a new Act of Parliament. The EU has said the UK can revoke article 50 whenever it wants, the UK act of parliament says this isn't possible. This was only a vote on the original Brexit bill.



    Unless a deal is agreed by the 29th March, then the legal default is no deal, no matter how many votes in parliament say that it's not true, the law says no.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Liam is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.















    • 4





      I suspect one of the reasons May is still the PM is because nobody else wants to be stuck in the hot seat (and catch the blame and responsibility) when the whole house of cards collapses.

      – Shadur
      3 hours ago






    • 1





      Also the FTPA allows this situation to exist by not forcing a government that can't pass bills to collapse and hold fresh elections.

      – pjc50
      3 hours ago










    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "475"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );






    J.J is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39423%2fbrexit-no-deal-rejection%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    18















    so why did we hold that vote in the first place?




    Mainly for the following two reasons:



    For some, to put pressure on the government to ensure that there is either a deal or no Brexit



    For others, so they can blame it all on the government even though they know full well they've done nothing to actually prevent it, by saying 'look, we voted against no deal'.






    share|improve this answer




















    • 1





      I think the Spelman amendment put pressure on the Government, but the original bill was brought by the Government, so it is difficult to see how that would have been a pressure move in the first place.

      – Jontia
      6 hours ago






    • 1





      Hmm, but if two deals have already been rejected what the hell do they think more pressure will do? She cannot get anything through parliament so I don't see their logic. I guess that leaves one thing; no Brexit.

      – J.J
      6 hours ago







    • 2





      @J.J the pressure is against the no deal; indeed, for many no Brexit would be the preferred outcome altogether, and for the rest they prefer no Brexit to no deal

      – Orangesandlemons
      6 hours ago






    • 1





      Is it? I got the sense that she (and her party) are at this point building ammunition for justifying another Brexit public referendum, but I have no direct sources on that.

      – Onyz
      6 hours ago






    • 4





      @DevSolar one big issue with second referendum would be one of the main criticisms of the pro-EU brigade was the 'neverendum'. The mistake may have been to hold the referendum in the first place; now a second referendum could potentially have massive negative effects of its own.

      – Orangesandlemons
      5 hours ago















    18















    so why did we hold that vote in the first place?




    Mainly for the following two reasons:



    For some, to put pressure on the government to ensure that there is either a deal or no Brexit



    For others, so they can blame it all on the government even though they know full well they've done nothing to actually prevent it, by saying 'look, we voted against no deal'.






    share|improve this answer




















    • 1





      I think the Spelman amendment put pressure on the Government, but the original bill was brought by the Government, so it is difficult to see how that would have been a pressure move in the first place.

      – Jontia
      6 hours ago






    • 1





      Hmm, but if two deals have already been rejected what the hell do they think more pressure will do? She cannot get anything through parliament so I don't see their logic. I guess that leaves one thing; no Brexit.

      – J.J
      6 hours ago







    • 2





      @J.J the pressure is against the no deal; indeed, for many no Brexit would be the preferred outcome altogether, and for the rest they prefer no Brexit to no deal

      – Orangesandlemons
      6 hours ago






    • 1





      Is it? I got the sense that she (and her party) are at this point building ammunition for justifying another Brexit public referendum, but I have no direct sources on that.

      – Onyz
      6 hours ago






    • 4





      @DevSolar one big issue with second referendum would be one of the main criticisms of the pro-EU brigade was the 'neverendum'. The mistake may have been to hold the referendum in the first place; now a second referendum could potentially have massive negative effects of its own.

      – Orangesandlemons
      5 hours ago













    18












    18








    18








    so why did we hold that vote in the first place?




    Mainly for the following two reasons:



    For some, to put pressure on the government to ensure that there is either a deal or no Brexit



    For others, so they can blame it all on the government even though they know full well they've done nothing to actually prevent it, by saying 'look, we voted against no deal'.






    share|improve this answer
















    so why did we hold that vote in the first place?




    Mainly for the following two reasons:



    For some, to put pressure on the government to ensure that there is either a deal or no Brexit



    For others, so they can blame it all on the government even though they know full well they've done nothing to actually prevent it, by saying 'look, we voted against no deal'.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 4 hours ago









    Federico

    3,75232748




    3,75232748










    answered 6 hours ago









    OrangesandlemonsOrangesandlemons

    2,042520




    2,042520







    • 1





      I think the Spelman amendment put pressure on the Government, but the original bill was brought by the Government, so it is difficult to see how that would have been a pressure move in the first place.

      – Jontia
      6 hours ago






    • 1





      Hmm, but if two deals have already been rejected what the hell do they think more pressure will do? She cannot get anything through parliament so I don't see their logic. I guess that leaves one thing; no Brexit.

      – J.J
      6 hours ago







    • 2





      @J.J the pressure is against the no deal; indeed, for many no Brexit would be the preferred outcome altogether, and for the rest they prefer no Brexit to no deal

      – Orangesandlemons
      6 hours ago






    • 1





      Is it? I got the sense that she (and her party) are at this point building ammunition for justifying another Brexit public referendum, but I have no direct sources on that.

      – Onyz
      6 hours ago






    • 4





      @DevSolar one big issue with second referendum would be one of the main criticisms of the pro-EU brigade was the 'neverendum'. The mistake may have been to hold the referendum in the first place; now a second referendum could potentially have massive negative effects of its own.

      – Orangesandlemons
      5 hours ago












    • 1





      I think the Spelman amendment put pressure on the Government, but the original bill was brought by the Government, so it is difficult to see how that would have been a pressure move in the first place.

      – Jontia
      6 hours ago






    • 1





      Hmm, but if two deals have already been rejected what the hell do they think more pressure will do? She cannot get anything through parliament so I don't see their logic. I guess that leaves one thing; no Brexit.

      – J.J
      6 hours ago







    • 2





      @J.J the pressure is against the no deal; indeed, for many no Brexit would be the preferred outcome altogether, and for the rest they prefer no Brexit to no deal

      – Orangesandlemons
      6 hours ago






    • 1





      Is it? I got the sense that she (and her party) are at this point building ammunition for justifying another Brexit public referendum, but I have no direct sources on that.

      – Onyz
      6 hours ago






    • 4





      @DevSolar one big issue with second referendum would be one of the main criticisms of the pro-EU brigade was the 'neverendum'. The mistake may have been to hold the referendum in the first place; now a second referendum could potentially have massive negative effects of its own.

      – Orangesandlemons
      5 hours ago







    1




    1





    I think the Spelman amendment put pressure on the Government, but the original bill was brought by the Government, so it is difficult to see how that would have been a pressure move in the first place.

    – Jontia
    6 hours ago





    I think the Spelman amendment put pressure on the Government, but the original bill was brought by the Government, so it is difficult to see how that would have been a pressure move in the first place.

    – Jontia
    6 hours ago




    1




    1





    Hmm, but if two deals have already been rejected what the hell do they think more pressure will do? She cannot get anything through parliament so I don't see their logic. I guess that leaves one thing; no Brexit.

    – J.J
    6 hours ago






    Hmm, but if two deals have already been rejected what the hell do they think more pressure will do? She cannot get anything through parliament so I don't see their logic. I guess that leaves one thing; no Brexit.

    – J.J
    6 hours ago





    2




    2





    @J.J the pressure is against the no deal; indeed, for many no Brexit would be the preferred outcome altogether, and for the rest they prefer no Brexit to no deal

    – Orangesandlemons
    6 hours ago





    @J.J the pressure is against the no deal; indeed, for many no Brexit would be the preferred outcome altogether, and for the rest they prefer no Brexit to no deal

    – Orangesandlemons
    6 hours ago




    1




    1





    Is it? I got the sense that she (and her party) are at this point building ammunition for justifying another Brexit public referendum, but I have no direct sources on that.

    – Onyz
    6 hours ago





    Is it? I got the sense that she (and her party) are at this point building ammunition for justifying another Brexit public referendum, but I have no direct sources on that.

    – Onyz
    6 hours ago




    4




    4





    @DevSolar one big issue with second referendum would be one of the main criticisms of the pro-EU brigade was the 'neverendum'. The mistake may have been to hold the referendum in the first place; now a second referendum could potentially have massive negative effects of its own.

    – Orangesandlemons
    5 hours ago





    @DevSolar one big issue with second referendum would be one of the main criticisms of the pro-EU brigade was the 'neverendum'. The mistake may have been to hold the referendum in the first place; now a second referendum could potentially have massive negative effects of its own.

    – Orangesandlemons
    5 hours ago











    7














    The point of the votes on no deal and on an extension to the leaving date, is for Theresa May to pressure the Democratic Unionist Party (her 'confidence and supply' partners) and the European Research Group (hard brexit conservatives) to vote for her deal






    share|improve this answer


















    • 9





      Then she's really living in a candy land given that she is now 1st & 4th place for biggest defeats in parliament IIRC.

      – J.J
      6 hours ago






    • 1





      @J.J Based on Tuesday night's defeat by 149, she needs to persuade 75 people to change their minds. It doesn't look likely

      – Dave Gremlin
      6 hours ago






    • 2





      at the current rate, she wins meaningful vote 4

      – Caleth
      6 hours ago






    • 3





      @J.J: only because parliament has so far been able to be against everything, and for nothing. If they're faced with an actual choice between the deal and some specific alternative, they may yet choose the deal.

      – RemcoGerlich
      5 hours ago











    • @J.J Defeat implies that government(or May) lost something. I mean, if we look at it from the position that the UK Government doesn't want any of what the EU is offering(aka no useful movement) (and the media have created an environment in which) it seems as if the UK always needs to be the group offering solutions, the Government essentially doesn't have to do anything but stall for time until the EU makes the no-deal decision itself. In the meantime the EU/anti-Brexit camp has to build up 'the sense' that it's the UK's fault that it has a negotiating partner that is unwilling to negotiate.

      – Giu Piete
      1 hour ago
















    7














    The point of the votes on no deal and on an extension to the leaving date, is for Theresa May to pressure the Democratic Unionist Party (her 'confidence and supply' partners) and the European Research Group (hard brexit conservatives) to vote for her deal






    share|improve this answer


















    • 9





      Then she's really living in a candy land given that she is now 1st & 4th place for biggest defeats in parliament IIRC.

      – J.J
      6 hours ago






    • 1





      @J.J Based on Tuesday night's defeat by 149, she needs to persuade 75 people to change their minds. It doesn't look likely

      – Dave Gremlin
      6 hours ago






    • 2





      at the current rate, she wins meaningful vote 4

      – Caleth
      6 hours ago






    • 3





      @J.J: only because parliament has so far been able to be against everything, and for nothing. If they're faced with an actual choice between the deal and some specific alternative, they may yet choose the deal.

      – RemcoGerlich
      5 hours ago











    • @J.J Defeat implies that government(or May) lost something. I mean, if we look at it from the position that the UK Government doesn't want any of what the EU is offering(aka no useful movement) (and the media have created an environment in which) it seems as if the UK always needs to be the group offering solutions, the Government essentially doesn't have to do anything but stall for time until the EU makes the no-deal decision itself. In the meantime the EU/anti-Brexit camp has to build up 'the sense' that it's the UK's fault that it has a negotiating partner that is unwilling to negotiate.

      – Giu Piete
      1 hour ago














    7












    7








    7







    The point of the votes on no deal and on an extension to the leaving date, is for Theresa May to pressure the Democratic Unionist Party (her 'confidence and supply' partners) and the European Research Group (hard brexit conservatives) to vote for her deal






    share|improve this answer













    The point of the votes on no deal and on an extension to the leaving date, is for Theresa May to pressure the Democratic Unionist Party (her 'confidence and supply' partners) and the European Research Group (hard brexit conservatives) to vote for her deal







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 6 hours ago









    Dave GremlinDave Gremlin

    2344




    2344







    • 9





      Then she's really living in a candy land given that she is now 1st & 4th place for biggest defeats in parliament IIRC.

      – J.J
      6 hours ago






    • 1





      @J.J Based on Tuesday night's defeat by 149, she needs to persuade 75 people to change their minds. It doesn't look likely

      – Dave Gremlin
      6 hours ago






    • 2





      at the current rate, she wins meaningful vote 4

      – Caleth
      6 hours ago






    • 3





      @J.J: only because parliament has so far been able to be against everything, and for nothing. If they're faced with an actual choice between the deal and some specific alternative, they may yet choose the deal.

      – RemcoGerlich
      5 hours ago











    • @J.J Defeat implies that government(or May) lost something. I mean, if we look at it from the position that the UK Government doesn't want any of what the EU is offering(aka no useful movement) (and the media have created an environment in which) it seems as if the UK always needs to be the group offering solutions, the Government essentially doesn't have to do anything but stall for time until the EU makes the no-deal decision itself. In the meantime the EU/anti-Brexit camp has to build up 'the sense' that it's the UK's fault that it has a negotiating partner that is unwilling to negotiate.

      – Giu Piete
      1 hour ago













    • 9





      Then she's really living in a candy land given that she is now 1st & 4th place for biggest defeats in parliament IIRC.

      – J.J
      6 hours ago






    • 1





      @J.J Based on Tuesday night's defeat by 149, she needs to persuade 75 people to change their minds. It doesn't look likely

      – Dave Gremlin
      6 hours ago






    • 2





      at the current rate, she wins meaningful vote 4

      – Caleth
      6 hours ago






    • 3





      @J.J: only because parliament has so far been able to be against everything, and for nothing. If they're faced with an actual choice between the deal and some specific alternative, they may yet choose the deal.

      – RemcoGerlich
      5 hours ago











    • @J.J Defeat implies that government(or May) lost something. I mean, if we look at it from the position that the UK Government doesn't want any of what the EU is offering(aka no useful movement) (and the media have created an environment in which) it seems as if the UK always needs to be the group offering solutions, the Government essentially doesn't have to do anything but stall for time until the EU makes the no-deal decision itself. In the meantime the EU/anti-Brexit camp has to build up 'the sense' that it's the UK's fault that it has a negotiating partner that is unwilling to negotiate.

      – Giu Piete
      1 hour ago








    9




    9





    Then she's really living in a candy land given that she is now 1st & 4th place for biggest defeats in parliament IIRC.

    – J.J
    6 hours ago





    Then she's really living in a candy land given that she is now 1st & 4th place for biggest defeats in parliament IIRC.

    – J.J
    6 hours ago




    1




    1





    @J.J Based on Tuesday night's defeat by 149, she needs to persuade 75 people to change their minds. It doesn't look likely

    – Dave Gremlin
    6 hours ago





    @J.J Based on Tuesday night's defeat by 149, she needs to persuade 75 people to change their minds. It doesn't look likely

    – Dave Gremlin
    6 hours ago




    2




    2





    at the current rate, she wins meaningful vote 4

    – Caleth
    6 hours ago





    at the current rate, she wins meaningful vote 4

    – Caleth
    6 hours ago




    3




    3





    @J.J: only because parliament has so far been able to be against everything, and for nothing. If they're faced with an actual choice between the deal and some specific alternative, they may yet choose the deal.

    – RemcoGerlich
    5 hours ago





    @J.J: only because parliament has so far been able to be against everything, and for nothing. If they're faced with an actual choice between the deal and some specific alternative, they may yet choose the deal.

    – RemcoGerlich
    5 hours ago













    @J.J Defeat implies that government(or May) lost something. I mean, if we look at it from the position that the UK Government doesn't want any of what the EU is offering(aka no useful movement) (and the media have created an environment in which) it seems as if the UK always needs to be the group offering solutions, the Government essentially doesn't have to do anything but stall for time until the EU makes the no-deal decision itself. In the meantime the EU/anti-Brexit camp has to build up 'the sense' that it's the UK's fault that it has a negotiating partner that is unwilling to negotiate.

    – Giu Piete
    1 hour ago






    @J.J Defeat implies that government(or May) lost something. I mean, if we look at it from the position that the UK Government doesn't want any of what the EU is offering(aka no useful movement) (and the media have created an environment in which) it seems as if the UK always needs to be the group offering solutions, the Government essentially doesn't have to do anything but stall for time until the EU makes the no-deal decision itself. In the meantime the EU/anti-Brexit camp has to build up 'the sense' that it's the UK's fault that it has a negotiating partner that is unwilling to negotiate.

    – Giu Piete
    1 hour ago












    7














    This is old-fashioned power politics of a type rarely seen in the UK, normally associated with times of extreme crisis. Normally Parliament is irrelevant: the Government produces a policy, whips the MPs to vote for it, and it always passes.



    Until 2010, there was a strong guarantee that ensured a way forwards could always be found: the confidence vote. A vote could be declared a confidence vote so that voting it down would force fresh elections. The effect of that was that government MPs were extremely reluctant to vote against the government on a confidence vote given the high risk of losing their seats. Under this approach, either the deal would be approved or we would be having another election right now.



    The Liberal Democrats broke that with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.



    Now the government staggers on, having completely lost control of the process and being reduced to voting against its own motions. And yet May remains as PM, because who else is there? The Conservative Party failed to elect another leader. A no confidence vote was held in January and failed to remove the government. But at the same time there is no majority for doing anything specific. Achieving one will either (a) require the ERG and/or hard Brexit group and/or DUP to surrender (unlikely); (b) require enough of the Opposition to vote with the Government to back the deal (unlikely); (c) require May to give up on her Deal; or (d) require some other option to be assembled and members of the Government to break the whip to vote for it.



    The votes are an opportunity for a coalition to assemble. If there's a majority for "not no deal", can that be turned into a deal / delay / rescind majority?






    share|improve this answer



























      7














      This is old-fashioned power politics of a type rarely seen in the UK, normally associated with times of extreme crisis. Normally Parliament is irrelevant: the Government produces a policy, whips the MPs to vote for it, and it always passes.



      Until 2010, there was a strong guarantee that ensured a way forwards could always be found: the confidence vote. A vote could be declared a confidence vote so that voting it down would force fresh elections. The effect of that was that government MPs were extremely reluctant to vote against the government on a confidence vote given the high risk of losing their seats. Under this approach, either the deal would be approved or we would be having another election right now.



      The Liberal Democrats broke that with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.



      Now the government staggers on, having completely lost control of the process and being reduced to voting against its own motions. And yet May remains as PM, because who else is there? The Conservative Party failed to elect another leader. A no confidence vote was held in January and failed to remove the government. But at the same time there is no majority for doing anything specific. Achieving one will either (a) require the ERG and/or hard Brexit group and/or DUP to surrender (unlikely); (b) require enough of the Opposition to vote with the Government to back the deal (unlikely); (c) require May to give up on her Deal; or (d) require some other option to be assembled and members of the Government to break the whip to vote for it.



      The votes are an opportunity for a coalition to assemble. If there's a majority for "not no deal", can that be turned into a deal / delay / rescind majority?






      share|improve this answer

























        7












        7








        7







        This is old-fashioned power politics of a type rarely seen in the UK, normally associated with times of extreme crisis. Normally Parliament is irrelevant: the Government produces a policy, whips the MPs to vote for it, and it always passes.



        Until 2010, there was a strong guarantee that ensured a way forwards could always be found: the confidence vote. A vote could be declared a confidence vote so that voting it down would force fresh elections. The effect of that was that government MPs were extremely reluctant to vote against the government on a confidence vote given the high risk of losing their seats. Under this approach, either the deal would be approved or we would be having another election right now.



        The Liberal Democrats broke that with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.



        Now the government staggers on, having completely lost control of the process and being reduced to voting against its own motions. And yet May remains as PM, because who else is there? The Conservative Party failed to elect another leader. A no confidence vote was held in January and failed to remove the government. But at the same time there is no majority for doing anything specific. Achieving one will either (a) require the ERG and/or hard Brexit group and/or DUP to surrender (unlikely); (b) require enough of the Opposition to vote with the Government to back the deal (unlikely); (c) require May to give up on her Deal; or (d) require some other option to be assembled and members of the Government to break the whip to vote for it.



        The votes are an opportunity for a coalition to assemble. If there's a majority for "not no deal", can that be turned into a deal / delay / rescind majority?






        share|improve this answer













        This is old-fashioned power politics of a type rarely seen in the UK, normally associated with times of extreme crisis. Normally Parliament is irrelevant: the Government produces a policy, whips the MPs to vote for it, and it always passes.



        Until 2010, there was a strong guarantee that ensured a way forwards could always be found: the confidence vote. A vote could be declared a confidence vote so that voting it down would force fresh elections. The effect of that was that government MPs were extremely reluctant to vote against the government on a confidence vote given the high risk of losing their seats. Under this approach, either the deal would be approved or we would be having another election right now.



        The Liberal Democrats broke that with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.



        Now the government staggers on, having completely lost control of the process and being reduced to voting against its own motions. And yet May remains as PM, because who else is there? The Conservative Party failed to elect another leader. A no confidence vote was held in January and failed to remove the government. But at the same time there is no majority for doing anything specific. Achieving one will either (a) require the ERG and/or hard Brexit group and/or DUP to surrender (unlikely); (b) require enough of the Opposition to vote with the Government to back the deal (unlikely); (c) require May to give up on her Deal; or (d) require some other option to be assembled and members of the Government to break the whip to vote for it.



        The votes are an opportunity for a coalition to assemble. If there's a majority for "not no deal", can that be turned into a deal / delay / rescind majority?







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 5 hours ago









        pjc50pjc50

        5,4431227




        5,4431227





















            6














            Trying to force though "the deal"



            This is the main reason for this vote.



            The prime minster is hemmed in and is trying to show that there is no other option but to accept "her deal", as already negotiated with the EU. She knows that there is not a majority for "no deal" in the parliament. So the vote is a way to show to everyone that the majority of parliament do not want a no deal, vis a ve parliament (or more to the point the pro-brexit MPs) should accept her deal. It's trying to prove to the MPs that say "we should leave without a deal" that they are in the minority.



            Context



            This needs to be viewed in the context of what is currently happening. There are lots of factors at play here, some big ones include (not an exhaustive list we'd be here all day):



            • The current government is a minority government without an overall
              majority in the house, it is only in power currently because of a
              loose arrangement with the DUP. This is so loose that the DUP has
              voted against the government several times! So the government , even
              if it could force ("whip") all of it's MPs to vote with it, still
              cannot make parliament accept the current deal on the table on it's
              own.

            • The government has lost 2 major votes votes on it's main policy
              ("Brexit"). Under normal circumstances this would cause the
              collapse of the government and a general election.

            • Earlier last year, the Prime Minister has barely scrapped a no
              confidence vote.
              This has again highlighted that the government cannot produce a
              majority. Again, Under normal circumstances this would cause the
              collapse of the government and a general election.

            • The government tried to win a majority with it's snap election of
              2017.
              This tactic failed miserably resulting in the Conservative party
              losing it's majority. So the Conservative party really doesn't want
              an election because it's afraid it will loose it or it'll make
              matters even worse (again!).

            • The DUP could withdraw it's support to the government this would
              cause the collapse of the government and a general election. The
              DUP doesn't want an election though because it now has a lot of
              power.

            So at the moment the UK government is basically after something it can call a win in any shape or form, even if it's not binding at least it shows progress.



            You can see form above just how tentative the current governments grip on power is. The current state of affairs is totally unprecedented. At any other time this government would of collapsed a long time ago or at the very least the prime minister would of resigned. Why has none of this happened? Because there simply isn't enough time to hold elections, etc. before 29th March.



            The government never wanted to have this vote. It's been forced into by the circumstances. But without the government it's hard to make votes legally binding in the current circumstances. So the government is trapped by parliament and parliament is trapped by the government. Eventually (dear god hopefully soon!) one will have to give.



            A vote cannot rule out Brexit, legally



            The other thing here is that there is primary legislation(an act of parliament) that says the UK will leave the EU on the 29th March.



            The only way to revoke this is with more primary legislation. This vote is not primary legislation. Revoking article 50 would require a new Act of Parliament. The EU has said the UK can revoke article 50 whenever it wants, the UK act of parliament says this isn't possible. This was only a vote on the original Brexit bill.



            Unless a deal is agreed by the 29th March, then the legal default is no deal, no matter how many votes in parliament say that it's not true, the law says no.






            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            Liam is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.















            • 4





              I suspect one of the reasons May is still the PM is because nobody else wants to be stuck in the hot seat (and catch the blame and responsibility) when the whole house of cards collapses.

              – Shadur
              3 hours ago






            • 1





              Also the FTPA allows this situation to exist by not forcing a government that can't pass bills to collapse and hold fresh elections.

              – pjc50
              3 hours ago















            6














            Trying to force though "the deal"



            This is the main reason for this vote.



            The prime minster is hemmed in and is trying to show that there is no other option but to accept "her deal", as already negotiated with the EU. She knows that there is not a majority for "no deal" in the parliament. So the vote is a way to show to everyone that the majority of parliament do not want a no deal, vis a ve parliament (or more to the point the pro-brexit MPs) should accept her deal. It's trying to prove to the MPs that say "we should leave without a deal" that they are in the minority.



            Context



            This needs to be viewed in the context of what is currently happening. There are lots of factors at play here, some big ones include (not an exhaustive list we'd be here all day):



            • The current government is a minority government without an overall
              majority in the house, it is only in power currently because of a
              loose arrangement with the DUP. This is so loose that the DUP has
              voted against the government several times! So the government , even
              if it could force ("whip") all of it's MPs to vote with it, still
              cannot make parliament accept the current deal on the table on it's
              own.

            • The government has lost 2 major votes votes on it's main policy
              ("Brexit"). Under normal circumstances this would cause the
              collapse of the government and a general election.

            • Earlier last year, the Prime Minister has barely scrapped a no
              confidence vote.
              This has again highlighted that the government cannot produce a
              majority. Again, Under normal circumstances this would cause the
              collapse of the government and a general election.

            • The government tried to win a majority with it's snap election of
              2017.
              This tactic failed miserably resulting in the Conservative party
              losing it's majority. So the Conservative party really doesn't want
              an election because it's afraid it will loose it or it'll make
              matters even worse (again!).

            • The DUP could withdraw it's support to the government this would
              cause the collapse of the government and a general election. The
              DUP doesn't want an election though because it now has a lot of
              power.

            So at the moment the UK government is basically after something it can call a win in any shape or form, even if it's not binding at least it shows progress.



            You can see form above just how tentative the current governments grip on power is. The current state of affairs is totally unprecedented. At any other time this government would of collapsed a long time ago or at the very least the prime minister would of resigned. Why has none of this happened? Because there simply isn't enough time to hold elections, etc. before 29th March.



            The government never wanted to have this vote. It's been forced into by the circumstances. But without the government it's hard to make votes legally binding in the current circumstances. So the government is trapped by parliament and parliament is trapped by the government. Eventually (dear god hopefully soon!) one will have to give.



            A vote cannot rule out Brexit, legally



            The other thing here is that there is primary legislation(an act of parliament) that says the UK will leave the EU on the 29th March.



            The only way to revoke this is with more primary legislation. This vote is not primary legislation. Revoking article 50 would require a new Act of Parliament. The EU has said the UK can revoke article 50 whenever it wants, the UK act of parliament says this isn't possible. This was only a vote on the original Brexit bill.



            Unless a deal is agreed by the 29th March, then the legal default is no deal, no matter how many votes in parliament say that it's not true, the law says no.






            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            Liam is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.















            • 4





              I suspect one of the reasons May is still the PM is because nobody else wants to be stuck in the hot seat (and catch the blame and responsibility) when the whole house of cards collapses.

              – Shadur
              3 hours ago






            • 1





              Also the FTPA allows this situation to exist by not forcing a government that can't pass bills to collapse and hold fresh elections.

              – pjc50
              3 hours ago













            6












            6








            6







            Trying to force though "the deal"



            This is the main reason for this vote.



            The prime minster is hemmed in and is trying to show that there is no other option but to accept "her deal", as already negotiated with the EU. She knows that there is not a majority for "no deal" in the parliament. So the vote is a way to show to everyone that the majority of parliament do not want a no deal, vis a ve parliament (or more to the point the pro-brexit MPs) should accept her deal. It's trying to prove to the MPs that say "we should leave without a deal" that they are in the minority.



            Context



            This needs to be viewed in the context of what is currently happening. There are lots of factors at play here, some big ones include (not an exhaustive list we'd be here all day):



            • The current government is a minority government without an overall
              majority in the house, it is only in power currently because of a
              loose arrangement with the DUP. This is so loose that the DUP has
              voted against the government several times! So the government , even
              if it could force ("whip") all of it's MPs to vote with it, still
              cannot make parliament accept the current deal on the table on it's
              own.

            • The government has lost 2 major votes votes on it's main policy
              ("Brexit"). Under normal circumstances this would cause the
              collapse of the government and a general election.

            • Earlier last year, the Prime Minister has barely scrapped a no
              confidence vote.
              This has again highlighted that the government cannot produce a
              majority. Again, Under normal circumstances this would cause the
              collapse of the government and a general election.

            • The government tried to win a majority with it's snap election of
              2017.
              This tactic failed miserably resulting in the Conservative party
              losing it's majority. So the Conservative party really doesn't want
              an election because it's afraid it will loose it or it'll make
              matters even worse (again!).

            • The DUP could withdraw it's support to the government this would
              cause the collapse of the government and a general election. The
              DUP doesn't want an election though because it now has a lot of
              power.

            So at the moment the UK government is basically after something it can call a win in any shape or form, even if it's not binding at least it shows progress.



            You can see form above just how tentative the current governments grip on power is. The current state of affairs is totally unprecedented. At any other time this government would of collapsed a long time ago or at the very least the prime minister would of resigned. Why has none of this happened? Because there simply isn't enough time to hold elections, etc. before 29th March.



            The government never wanted to have this vote. It's been forced into by the circumstances. But without the government it's hard to make votes legally binding in the current circumstances. So the government is trapped by parliament and parliament is trapped by the government. Eventually (dear god hopefully soon!) one will have to give.



            A vote cannot rule out Brexit, legally



            The other thing here is that there is primary legislation(an act of parliament) that says the UK will leave the EU on the 29th March.



            The only way to revoke this is with more primary legislation. This vote is not primary legislation. Revoking article 50 would require a new Act of Parliament. The EU has said the UK can revoke article 50 whenever it wants, the UK act of parliament says this isn't possible. This was only a vote on the original Brexit bill.



            Unless a deal is agreed by the 29th March, then the legal default is no deal, no matter how many votes in parliament say that it's not true, the law says no.






            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            Liam is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.










            Trying to force though "the deal"



            This is the main reason for this vote.



            The prime minster is hemmed in and is trying to show that there is no other option but to accept "her deal", as already negotiated with the EU. She knows that there is not a majority for "no deal" in the parliament. So the vote is a way to show to everyone that the majority of parliament do not want a no deal, vis a ve parliament (or more to the point the pro-brexit MPs) should accept her deal. It's trying to prove to the MPs that say "we should leave without a deal" that they are in the minority.



            Context



            This needs to be viewed in the context of what is currently happening. There are lots of factors at play here, some big ones include (not an exhaustive list we'd be here all day):



            • The current government is a minority government without an overall
              majority in the house, it is only in power currently because of a
              loose arrangement with the DUP. This is so loose that the DUP has
              voted against the government several times! So the government , even
              if it could force ("whip") all of it's MPs to vote with it, still
              cannot make parliament accept the current deal on the table on it's
              own.

            • The government has lost 2 major votes votes on it's main policy
              ("Brexit"). Under normal circumstances this would cause the
              collapse of the government and a general election.

            • Earlier last year, the Prime Minister has barely scrapped a no
              confidence vote.
              This has again highlighted that the government cannot produce a
              majority. Again, Under normal circumstances this would cause the
              collapse of the government and a general election.

            • The government tried to win a majority with it's snap election of
              2017.
              This tactic failed miserably resulting in the Conservative party
              losing it's majority. So the Conservative party really doesn't want
              an election because it's afraid it will loose it or it'll make
              matters even worse (again!).

            • The DUP could withdraw it's support to the government this would
              cause the collapse of the government and a general election. The
              DUP doesn't want an election though because it now has a lot of
              power.

            So at the moment the UK government is basically after something it can call a win in any shape or form, even if it's not binding at least it shows progress.



            You can see form above just how tentative the current governments grip on power is. The current state of affairs is totally unprecedented. At any other time this government would of collapsed a long time ago or at the very least the prime minister would of resigned. Why has none of this happened? Because there simply isn't enough time to hold elections, etc. before 29th March.



            The government never wanted to have this vote. It's been forced into by the circumstances. But without the government it's hard to make votes legally binding in the current circumstances. So the government is trapped by parliament and parliament is trapped by the government. Eventually (dear god hopefully soon!) one will have to give.



            A vote cannot rule out Brexit, legally



            The other thing here is that there is primary legislation(an act of parliament) that says the UK will leave the EU on the 29th March.



            The only way to revoke this is with more primary legislation. This vote is not primary legislation. Revoking article 50 would require a new Act of Parliament. The EU has said the UK can revoke article 50 whenever it wants, the UK act of parliament says this isn't possible. This was only a vote on the original Brexit bill.



            Unless a deal is agreed by the 29th March, then the legal default is no deal, no matter how many votes in parliament say that it's not true, the law says no.







            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            Liam is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 3 hours ago





















            New contributor




            Liam is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            answered 4 hours ago









            LiamLiam

            1595




            1595




            New contributor




            Liam is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.





            New contributor





            Liam is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            Liam is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.







            • 4





              I suspect one of the reasons May is still the PM is because nobody else wants to be stuck in the hot seat (and catch the blame and responsibility) when the whole house of cards collapses.

              – Shadur
              3 hours ago






            • 1





              Also the FTPA allows this situation to exist by not forcing a government that can't pass bills to collapse and hold fresh elections.

              – pjc50
              3 hours ago












            • 4





              I suspect one of the reasons May is still the PM is because nobody else wants to be stuck in the hot seat (and catch the blame and responsibility) when the whole house of cards collapses.

              – Shadur
              3 hours ago






            • 1





              Also the FTPA allows this situation to exist by not forcing a government that can't pass bills to collapse and hold fresh elections.

              – pjc50
              3 hours ago







            4




            4





            I suspect one of the reasons May is still the PM is because nobody else wants to be stuck in the hot seat (and catch the blame and responsibility) when the whole house of cards collapses.

            – Shadur
            3 hours ago





            I suspect one of the reasons May is still the PM is because nobody else wants to be stuck in the hot seat (and catch the blame and responsibility) when the whole house of cards collapses.

            – Shadur
            3 hours ago




            1




            1





            Also the FTPA allows this situation to exist by not forcing a government that can't pass bills to collapse and hold fresh elections.

            – pjc50
            3 hours ago





            Also the FTPA allows this situation to exist by not forcing a government that can't pass bills to collapse and hold fresh elections.

            – pjc50
            3 hours ago










            J.J is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            J.J is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            J.J is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











            J.J is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














            Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39423%2fbrexit-no-deal-rejection%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Masuk log Menu navigasi

            16 Maret Daftar isi Peristiwa | Kelahiran | Meninggal | Hari raya dan peringatan | Menu navigasis

            ジョン・ファウルズ