BREXIT – 432 Vote Against May – Now What?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46885828

Brexit: Theresa May’s deal is voted down in historic Commons defeat

23 minutes ago

Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal has been rejected by 230 votes – the largest defeat for a sitting government in history.

MPs voted by 432 votes to 202 to reject the deal, which sets out the terms of Britain’s exit from the EU on 29 March.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has now tabled a vote of no confidence in the government, which could trigger a general election.

The confidence vote is expected to be held at about 1300 GMT on Wednesday.

So what next? I have no idea…

Can the UK “Suck it up” enough to realize they need to just escape this mess and strike out in the world as an independent people once again?

At this point, the EU is just an abusive spouse looking for some last slaps and intimidation. The best thing the UK can do now is just leave, as fast as possible. IMHO at least.

Subscribe to feed

Advertisements

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Political Current Events. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to BREXIT – 432 Vote Against May – Now What?

  1. spetzer86 says:

    Looks like the MPs just wanted to reject May’s plan so they could ultimately reject Brexit. Remainers seem to have the upper hand in the UK government and they largely disarmed the people long ago.

  2. Chuckles says:

    In a sense the ‘deal’ rejection is independent of ‘Leave’ or ‘Remain’ sentiments, as it was such a bad deal that nobody was in favour of it except Mrs. M and her flunkies, and of course, the EU. The ‘No’vote majority were both pro and anti brexit forces, they just hated the deal

    In the real world, the people of the UK just want to get out of the EU and seem quite happy to walk away with a ‘no deal’ result. Northern England is apparently polling at about 70% supporting a ‘lets just get out’ attitude.
    Parliament however is another story, with a big majority of our betters wanting to Remain in the EU…
    Quite how MPs who support remain expect to be re-elected in ‘Leave’ supporting constituencies escapes me.
    And we have a Motion of No Confidence tabled for tomorrow, which, if it were to pass, could trigger an election..

    And, as to what happens, anybodies guess, probably best to just ignore it till the noise stops..:)

  3. titan28 says:

    If I had to opine, I’d agree with spetzer86. Remainers, who joined with Brexiteers on the vote, want to keep UK in EU, and they’re doing everything in their seedy power to make it so.

    MPs even crafted some amendment which says any outcome, in or out, requires its specific authorization. Cute, that.The only right thing to do is to cut the cord, period. Gordian knot. The UK will more than survive, esp. with America’s help.

    I’d like to see some folks hanging from the lamp posts. The people voted to leave and May has been playing her game for two years, to leave-not leave. I’d like to see her government fall, but if Corbyn’s the replacement–well, be careful what you wish for.

  4. Pouncer says:

    Just for claification. In “American” a proposal that is “tabled” is basically de-prioritized, put aside, or postponed, sometimes indefinitely. One step short of being killed. (At which fatal point it is “taken off the table” and can never be discussed anymore. )

    I infer from the current reports that in “English” a proposal that is “tabled” is put forward, taken up right away, scheduled for immediate consideration. Is that correct?

    So what is it called, in “English” when the committee wants to bury an agenda item deep behind other business?

  5. Chuckles says:

    Pouncer, we’re at the ‘two peoples held apart by a common language’ stage again :)

    Under Roberts Rules, a motion can be proposed to ‘lay on the table’ e.g. in committee, which means to set the thing aside so that other things can be attended to. I think that is the sense you’re describing?
    There is also the sense of ‘Tabling a Motion’ in e.g. the House of Commons which means that you propose something for discussion/debate the following day, and in that sense, after losing today,the prime Minister essentially dared the leader of the Opposition to challenge her tomorrow, and said that she would make time for it in the schedule.

    At which point,the Leader of the Labour Party, being the official Opposition said, well, OK if you want that so badly, we’re happy to oblige and table a motion of no confidence for tomorrow.
    Whether it will actually take place, and what the vote will be is anybodies guess.

  6. Graeme No.3 says:

    Chuckles:
    “an astounding number of 118 Conservative politicians crossed the floor to join with 248 Labour MPs, the 10 DUP members, four Plaid Cymru, 11 Liberal Democrats and all 35 Scottish nationalists to reject Mrs May’s Brexit bill.
    Those who voted for the deal were 196 Tories, three Labour politicians and three independents”.

    The DUP has already signalled they will support the government over the confidence motion. Most of those crossing the floor won’t want to face an immediate election, nor really will many Labour members as the polls aren’t in their favour and they won’t have May running a lack lustre campaign against them. For that reason Labour will have tabled the Motion as it looks good to their supporters but there is little danger of it being passed.

    As for May renegotiating with the EU I cannot see any reason given that her attitude to date is – to paraphrase Winston Churchill – “we shall surrender on the beaches. we shall surrender in the fields and in the streets, and we shall surrender in the Hills”.

  7. jim2 says:

    Does a process exist to remove the MPs that don’t comply with the Brexit vote?

  8. jim2 says:

    What are the odds of the formation of a large army of Yellow Vests?

  9. philjourdan says:

    Saw one story this morning that said the worst case was a 226 vote loss. Guess it was worse than the worst, The UK needs a Trump – or a revolution.

  10. Steve C says:

    Well, this Brit has woken up this morning with a sense of mild relief at the 2:1 margin, at least – we know May’s “deal” amounted to abject surrender, but then that sort of minor detail hardly matters to the MPs voting on it, so yes, relief. The heart-skips-a-beat “Wow!” of the morning after the referendum succumbed to the politicians’ warped intent a long time ago, sadly.

    As for what happens now, I don’t think we have any better than observer status, same as you – the only difference is, we have to live under whatever these reptiles decide. Good to see that JC has actually tabled the no-confidence motion – pity he didn’t do it the day after May’s shabby accession to PM. She might even now survive, simply because all her detractors actually have an even more urgent priority: hang on to your £job£ until you absolutely have to go. Anything else is mere principle.

    It would become perhaps even more interesting if Jeremy were to win a subsequent election: the flak he has had to endure since day one shows us clearly that the Labour party are every bit as riven with internal hostilities as the Conservatives. The whole system is falling apart.

    The contrast between the confident, Britain-first government we need if we are to hit the ground running, and the meretricious rabble we actually have could hardly be greater. The resulting cynicism among us ordinary folk is higher than I’ve known it in half a century, and more and more of us are agreed among ourselves that the scale of the damage to the civilised society we had then is unbelievable and unforgivable. Other than my own enlightened dictatorship, I really can’t see how we’re going to get out of this: as the apocryphal Irishman said, “If I wanted to go there, I wouldn’t start from here …”.

    And jim2 … I’m off looking for a YV/GJ today. Dammit, I’m too old for revolutions …

  11. View from the Solent says:

    “jim2 says:
    16 January 2019 at 1:26 am
    Does a process exist to remove the MPs that don’t comply with the Brexit vote?”

    Theoretically, yes. It needs 10% of that MP’s electorate to sign a recall(?) petition calling for a byelection in the constituency. Unlikely.

  12. oldbrew says:

    If nobody can agree on anything, the clock runs down to March 29th and it’s no deal, aka WTO rules.

    This is claimed to be terrible, but ask why and the answers are mostly bluster. It looks the favourite at the moment.

  13. beththeserf says:

    Scourge of Globalism. PM May’s soft deal is no deal at all but capitulation to the Globalist Octopussy.
    https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/01/15/farage-happening-parliament-complete-betrayal-brexit/

  14. H.R. says:

    @oldbrew – This Yankee doesn’t know anything about Great Britain politics, but I do know politicians and they are the same the world over.

    I think you may have hit on the likely end scenario. The pollies will let the clock run out so the decision is made without them having to go on record. Then they can say anything about how they “would have voted for/against it if [make some cockamamie thing up] was included/excluded.” Typical. *Spit*

  15. E.M.Smith says:

    Sargon of Akkad has an Epic F-bomb Strewn Rant per the no deal “apocalypse”

  16. Another Ian says:

    Re previous discussion on the role the Queen might play

    “Activate the Queen: Govt May Call on Monarch to Block Anti-Brexit ‘Wrecking Bills’”

    https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/01/22/activate-queen-govt-may-call-monarch-block-anti-brexit-wrecking-bills/

  17. Another Ian says:

    Queen exercised her royal prerogative

    Queen sorts May out sharpish Here

    Via a comment at Jo Nova

  18. E.M.Smith says:

    @Another Ian:

    I especially like the little foot stamp toward the end ;-)

Comments are closed.