The interesting amendment will be Bryant. This will effectively prevent May from bringing back her zombie withdrawal agreement yet again.
Too early to tell yet.
Ayes - 302
Noes - 318
Labour fails and Bryant is not moved.
That’s great, thanks!
So, nine conservatives vote to add the Spelman amendment to the motion, including Spelman herself who had turned against it and seen it tabled against her objections. Then seventeen conservatives voted to pass the motion with the amendment, but Spelman isn’t listed under Ayes or Noes, so she abstained?
You said yesterday that only Sarah Newton had voted against the whip. I do see that she has resigned over it. She’s one of the seventeen, but not one of the nine. What did she do differently from the others?
The Bryant amendment wasn’t moved. “Not necessary.”
This may be because Bercow now feels he can block May’s WA from coming back without it. There is ample precedent, anyway. If it failed to pass, Bercow might have found it difficult to block the WA again.
Ah, ok. I missed the rationale. Makes sense.
IIRC she was the only govt payroll MP to vote against the whip?
Ayes - 412
Noes - 202
Motion passed
So does that mean that UK is officially requesting an extension? How soon for the EU to respond?
Mynd you, ämëndments kan be pretti nasti…
My understanding is yes, May will now go to the EU and request an extension until the end of June. Not sure when the EU needs to respond.
There is a European Council meeting on March 21. It will probably be considered then.
Did Labour’s abstention protect the idea of a second ref or is that dead now?
It’s very much alive, and will hopefully be debated and voted on next week.
Meaningful Vote 3 next week then. Can we be so sure which way that will go? My inkling is that is still fails…just.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I doubt it. Bercow has ample precedent going back centuries to block it from coming back again. A bill which has once been rejected can’t be considered again in the same session of parliament - at least without significant modification.
When asked yesterday Bercow said, “There are historical precedents for the way in such matters are regarded. I do not need to treat of them now and no ruling is required now. … A ruling would be made about that matter at the appropriate time …”
There seemed to be a cheerful and knowing look between Bercow and Bryant when Bryant withdrew his amendment.
Ok, I thought I heard a point of order? where someone suggested that just as it would be incorrect to revote on a previously failed motion, it would be incorrect to revote on a second ref.
Yes, but that statement was made by a rabid Brexiteer, and it was plain wrong. 
If I remember correctly, nobody even bothered to respond. It didn’t even merit an answer.
The vote on the amendment certainly doesn’t prevent voting on a second referendum as a main motion. If fact, the whole reason that Labour didn’t back the amendment was so that a) it wouldn’t muddy the waters of an extension to A50, and b) it wouldn’t undermine a proper debate and vote on a second referendum.
Jesus. Bercow would be right to do so but imagine the outrage.
Isn’t he retiring later this year too?
An ämëndment once bit my sister… No realli!