A three-line whip is the strongest possible instruction by a party for their MPs to vote as directed. In normal times, going against that instruction would mean that a Minister resigns their position. A mere backbencher would likely lose the party whip altogether.
Thank you.
EDIT: Thanks to Baron Greenback too.
Government put forward a motion. Others put forward amendments. One of those amendments passed, so the final vote was on the govt motion as amended.
What?
“You will fall into line as do as we say! Which is, very specifically, clearly, and exactly, to reject what we said!”
The govt motion was amended in a way the govt did not like, basically.
An EU spokesperson just noted that even if Parliament rejects a “no deal” scenario, that doesn’t mean anything to the EU.
There are only two things other than a “no deal” Brexit as a possible unilateral outcome: they agree to the May deal that the UK government itself worked out with the EU and to which the EU has already agreed; or to withdraw Article 50.
Even the idea of “extending the deadline” isn’t unilateral, it would be subject to a veto by any member of the EU bloc. Why any such country would do that I don’t know, but it’s still something that Parliament cannot simply effect of their own power.
Does “Point of Order” mean something different in UK politics than it does in US politics? In my experience a Point of Order is only made when someone or the chair acts outside of parliamentary protocol. In the UK it seems to be a general bitching about Theresa May or Brexit or another member. Is it supposed to work like that? Why doesn’t Bercow interrupt and shut them down if so?
The motion proposed by the government said, basically, “we will not leave the EU without a deal on March 29th.” The amendment changed it to “we will never leave the EU without a deal.”
The government did not support the motion as amended and so whipped its MPs to vote against it. Many of these MPs voted in favour regardless.
Ah, I missed that detail. “Never” versus “on March 29th, 2019”.
OK, I see the difference in the two statements, but it’s still head-scratchingly illogical.
Because that is tantamount to saying that that there is something particularly inauspicious about March 29th, 2019 and that a No Deal Brexit scenario would be fine at another time - which by definition would be identical in every respect to a No Deal Brexit on any other date.
The odor of fear, cowardice, and pandering can be detected even from where I’m sitting in Manhattan, I’m afraid.
So just so I’m clear: because that second “never a no deal” amendment passed, despite a “triple whip” from the Tory Government headed by Theresa May, this means:
-
The “triple whip” was tantamount to Theresa May saying “No Deal is not tenable on March 29th but we must keep it as an option for the future”
(an illogical position, either No Deal is palatable or it isn’t, this is basically continuing the pattern of trying to make this Someone Else’s Problem Down The Road) -
This “whip” is meant to represent the leadership of the Tory party’s will
-
A significant number of Tory voters (MPs?) disregarded the triple whip
So, the Tory party is in chaos, the May government is untenable even within her own party, and in the end, … is it actually binding (yet) to forbid a No Deal Brexit?
If not, what else would need to happen to make that binding to Parliament?
And what would be the next step - requesting an extension of Article 50? Because now the idea of the “any one EU member country can veto” gets interesting; any veto = the only way the UK gets to fulfill Article 50 is to accept the May deal or to withdraw Article 50 entirely, as the “no deal” scenario would be disallowed.
Which two choices were exactly what the May government was aiming for, actually, wasn’t it?
So… WHY did they whip against that amendment, when it seems to be exactly what they wanted?
I am SO confused
Welcome to Brexit. I’m not being flippant either - this is all uncharted territory.
Sterling work Baron and PP. At the end of all that, do we know how many ministers will be expected/obliged to resign?
j
That’s the planned debate and vote(s) for tomorrow.
But this is what I’m confused about, in some sense
After I thought about it logically, the amendment to make it “no no-deal Brexit ever” should have been exactly what Theresa May’s government wanted, because that would result in a veto of an extension request to Article 50 to reduce the discussion down to
1 - Take the Theresa May deal for Brexit
2 - Withdraw Article 50 and Remain
Where (2) leaves open the option of re-submitting Article 50 in a second Brexit go round, if necessary, after the UK comes to a much clearer consensus on what they want from such an event, and what they are willing to accept as a consequence.
And frankly, from the EU side that has to be what they want also, so the veto should be automatic once the “never a no-deal Brexit” thing becomes firm.
That’s just simple game theory at work, isn’t it?
As for why May would want this, it’s literally the ONLY way she’d ever see her deal get accepted, if it were the only alternative to withdrawing Article 50, and if the Brexiter camp foresaw that they would never have another bite at this apple, so take this sour apple versus no apple at all.
I guess this is because she was trapped in her very own motto of “no deal is better than a bad deal”, except here, the options would effectively be reduced to HER OWN DEAL as the only possible deal on March 29th, so… she’s calling her own deal a bad deal?
It looks like only one actually voted against the whip, Sarah Newton. She has apparently resigned. There seems to have been a bunch who abstained, so technically they also broke the whip. But party discipline has pretty much broken down over this, and practically speaking the government doesn’t exactly have a deep backbench packed with talent to replace them with.
Yeah, I saw one flash by in the chaos but wasn’t sure if I had missed others. Thanks.
j
Assuming Parliament continues to twist and turn, voting down every deal that comes to a vote, what will happen on March 29? Does Britain stay in the EU? Does the rest of the EU get to decide whether they want to let Britain back in? Does Britain automatically separate from the EU without a single travel, trade, etc. agreement with any of the 27 nations that remain in the EU? Does the Chunnel close and the ferries stop running? Does someone build a wall between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic?
Or is this a case of “We haven’t planned for this”?
Meanwhile, the pound had a great day today, gaining 2 cents on the dollar to nearly its strongest position in a year. I’m not sure what to make of that. Chaos is better than Brexit?
Doesn’t have much to do with Brexit. The US dollar is way strong right now, and this might simply be a small correction (there should be more of this sort of thing in the future). At least that’s my quick take on it, FWIW. Nothing to do with Brexit, everything to do with a really (maybe overly) strong dollar.
This has been hashed out a few times already in this thread and others, but I’ll have a go at a summary.
Once Article 50 was invoked, by operation of the law, on the 29th March 2019 the UK leaves the EU without, as you say, any travel, trade etc agreement with the EU27*. Actually, as it turns out, with pretty much the whole rest of the world.
Unless one of these things happens:
-
A withdrawal agreement is agreed by both parties. There is one that is available , but the UK Parliament has overwhelmingly voted against it twice now
-
An extension to the Article 50 deadline is agreed with unanimous consent by each EU27 government
-
The UK government unilaterally revokes Article 50
- EU no-deal planning allows brief extensions for the UK in areas such as travel and transport of goods, but those are strictly time-limited