Voters voted to exit the EU. Why did Parliament reject May’s plan? What does Parliament want? What happens if Parliament takes no action on this issue?
-
Because trade deals are horrendously complicated. The UK has been part of the EU for over 40 years, and its industries are all geared to open access to the EU. May’s deal is a compromise that doesn’t go far enough for the MPs who want a clean break, and doesn’t do enough for those MPs who worry that a clear break will cause major economic damage.
-
No-one knows. The parties in Parliament are badly divided. Even within May’s own Conservative party, there is no unity on this issue.
-
No-one knows. It’s highly unlikely (close to zero %) that any new U.K. Government could get a different deal from the EU at this stage. Does that mean the U.K. will stumble into a “hard Brexit”, going from a full member of the EU in March to a complete non-member in April? Seems likely.
There is a major thread in GD, if you’re interested.
The last GQ thread got shut down because it turned into a GD-Pit hybrid and Chronos whistled “Everyone out of the pool!” 
The complication is parliament doesn’t want one thing. There are very anti-Brexit MPs who don’t want a Brexit at all, so are voted against May’s deal. There are very pro-Brexit MPs who think Theresa May’s deal is not Brexity enough. Finally there are MPs from opposition parties who are just opposed to Theresa May for political reasons.
If parliament doesn’t agree on any anything at all, the you have a no deal brexit, which only the hard-core brexiteers want (and everyone else agrees would be a disaster).
In short, the voters at large, in the referendum, said that they wanted the UK to leave. They didn’t say precisely how to leave; it’s Parliament’s job to figure out all of the details. But Parliament can’t agree on all of the details, and some of the details that the voters want, it isn’t even in Parliament’s hands: They need agreement from the rest of the EU, too, which the rest of the EU is not even remotely inclined to grant.
This is the problem with democracy (especially by referendum). Almost half of us said we didn’t want to leave, and 90% of us were unqualified to make the decision.
I admit I am 100% influenced by the media reports, but my understanding is that May’s “deal” is only a temporary transition deal (for another 2 years or so?) to allow the UK time to negotiate the complete final deal.
Keeping the certainty of roughly the status quo in place for a couple more years seems to me a 100% reasonable approach to the situation. (As opposed to having no final trade deal or relationship in place in a month.)
Clearly, I’m not getting something about why there is such opposition to a temporary deal.
There was a great Brexit inspired Tweet-chain that I think sums up Brexit:
The latest comments suggest the EU will be willing to compromise to some extent since a no-deal Brexit is also very bad for the EU.
The Irish backstop (which includes Britain being in a customs union with the EU and Northern Ireland maintaining lots of single market regulations) is not temporary: it remains until there is a completed deal (no time limit). And since it is very hard to see what kind of final deal (other than a single market/customs union approach) would satisfy the EU requirements for maintaining an open border between Ireland and Northern Ireland lots of PMs feel this backstop will turn out to be permanent. May of course suggests high-tech solutions–but everyone except the Tories considers this to be comparable to unicorns.
Thanks PastTense -
I’ve read about the Irish backstop issue & kind of understand it, but why didn’t May or the EU make that portion of the deal temporary too?
I’ve only seen the quote from Juncker, saying the EU is preparing for a no-deal Brexit:
And Tusk saying that if there’s no deal, Britain should stay in the EU:
Classic “Bon cop, Bad cop” routine. 
But I’ve not seen any comments that they’re willing to change the Withdrawal Agreement?
Because the open border in Ireland is protected by another treaty between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, and is considered essential to maintaining the peace in Ireland.
EU position has always been that they are willing to change the Withdrawal Agreement if UK can reconsider or modify its “red lines” - statements of what the UK insists must be done, which effectively act as parameters limiting the scope of the Withdrawal Agreement.
At this point, however, even if the UK were to modify its red lines, there is very little time left within which to negotiate a new Withdrawal Agreement. The EU position, broadly, is that since the Withdrawal Agreement is only an interim measure anyway, even if the UK were to modify its negotiating position so as to open up possibilities that are currently closed, the best way of pursuing matters would probably be to ratify the Withdrawal Agreement as is, and focus on addressing the new possibilities in the long-term future relationship arrangements which are to supersede the Withdrawal Agreement.
It is temporary. It lasts until a stated event (or one of a number of stated events) occurs, rather than until a stated date, but that’s still temporary, not permanent.
A date-limited backstop makes no sense. The point of the backstop is to ensure that, whatever happens, the Irish border remains open. The backstop sets out agreed arrangements for keeping the border open which are to prevail until supersded by other, long-term, agreed arrangements for keeping the border open. If the backstop simply elapsed after a fixed period, before long-term arrangements might have been agreed, it would fail in its purpose, which is to keep the border open until the long-term arrangements are agreed.
Continuing the cheese submarine metaphor to include the results of the “meaningful vote”. The key point is that you have a weird two-way Spoiler Effect.
You had three groups…
A - Those that were OK with the shit cheese submarine May built.
B - Those that thought the idea of a cheese submarine was bonkers and wanted nothing to with any cheese submarine
C - Those that didn’t like the shit cheese submarine as it didn’t have a nuclear reactor and hot tub
Groups B&C, even though diametrically opposed to each other were enough to massively vote down group A and May’s shit cheese submarine (band name idea!). Someone commented on the Guardian site that the two groups of pro and anti brexit protesters shouting at each outside parliament would actually be voting for the same side if they were MPs.
The problem now is the most likely option is the one only the most deluded cheese submarine supporters believe in. Lets just jump in North Sea and build a cheese submarine around us before we drown.
Is there evidence that any MP voted against the deal not on its merits, but simply because they are politically opposed to Theresa May? If so, which MPs are believed to have done this?
Well you can’t say for sure that anyone ONLY voted because they didn’t like Theresa May. but it is not believable that the possibility of bringing the tory government down wasn’t a factor.
I find it hard to believe Jeremy Corbyn’s opposition was entire due to him not liking the deal (he is at best lukewarm in opposing Brexit, and there is basically zero chance of getting a better deal at this point), versus the increasing the chances of an general election he might win.
Well - there is a confidence vote later today, so we will see if there are enough MPs who want to risk a general election to vote the government down. Those that voted the opposite way to their constituents might not think it worth the risk. In any case, Tory turkeys will not be voting for Christmas.
Basically Brexit will only work if there is a kind of Schrödinger’s Border, i.e. a hard border between the UK and the EU, but an invisible border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Quite how this will work is yet to be figured out, seeing as Northern Ireland is in the UK and the Republic is in the EU, but I’m sure somebody has a plan 
External EU border.
Or an M.C. Escher border.