Today’s motion shows that May’s zombie Deal is coming back

1. notes the resolutions of the House of 12 and 13 March, and accordingly agrees the Government will seek to agree with the European Union an extension of the period specified in Article 50(3). 

2. agrees that if the House has passed a resolution approving the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement and the framework for the future relationship for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 by 20 March 2019 then the Government will seek to agree with the European Union a one-off extension of the period specified in Article 50(3) for a period ending on 30 June 2019 for the purpose of passing the necessary EU exit legislation; and 

3. notes that if the House has not passed a resolution approving the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement and the framework for the future relationship ... then it is highly likely the European Council at its meeting the following day would require a clear purpose for any extension, not least to determine its length and any extension beyond 30 June 2019 would require the United Kingdom to hold European Parliament elections in May 2019.

So by voting against no deal they’ve effectively guaranteed no deal because we know we won’t get the extension?

Won’t she try to get something out of the EU because of the spectre of the EU elections and the agitation of the loonies everyone wants to avoid? As in, she asks for an extension to Art 50, they say you can only have it for ref2 or MV3. She says aha I can only get MV3 thru if you offer something and you have to do that to avoid the EU elections. The EU then tells her to fvck off. Correctly.

She’s patently mad of course, and should be removed for her own safety.

ffs it's getting silly now. Most people just want a "no deal" anyway. We've tried. Now let's get on with it.

Who knows?

Given, thanks to Miller, that we needed legislation to invoke Art. 50, would we not also need legislation to ask for an extension? We certainly would need legislation to revoke? And how quickly could legislation be completed including Royal Assent (given political will and full cooperation at all stages from all parties. Yeah right that’s going to happen)?

A likely possibility now is that they will vote for an extension to the end of 2019 in order to hold a referendum between May’s deal and Remain. Which the EU allows (unless Spain, where there are national elections in April) throws a complete wobbly over Gibraltar. In my view it’s a lousy solution: better just be honest and vote now to revoke. But it’s not up to me. 

It would give the DUP a conundrum. They don’t mind Remain, but won’t want to risk a border in the Irish Sea.( and Direct Rule from London under yesterday’s plans)  They could end confidence and supply and bring down the Government. But that risks a Jeremy ‘IRAhugger’ Corbyn government. And in the event of a General Election who knows what would be in the parties’ manifestos? Who would win? Would anyone get a majority? Would they keep to their manifesto?  Etc etc

But they can have their cake and eat it by letting the referendum take it course. If Remain wins, that’s ok. If the Withdrawal Agreement wins, bring the Givernment down before the legislation is passed (Not that I’d trust May to refuse to prorogue Parliament until the legislation was through)

I'd support a border in the Irish Sea as the answer to all this. But then I'm pretty sympathetic to a United Ireland so...

ffs it's getting silly now. Most people just want a "no deal" anyway. We've tried. Now let's get on with it.

That is simply not true - there is no way in the world a majority of the population want no deal.   Allowing the UK to  leave on no deal when the government itself has warned of the devastating impact that would have on our economy would be the most irresponsible act by a UK government of all time - in knowingly acting against the national interest it would be close to treason.

Guy, dux is just trolling when he claims that, it’s part of his remit to disrupt and confuse any locals he can. Before he gets shot for treason. 

Most people just want a "no deal" anyway. 

No they don't, you lunatic. 

That said the BBC seem to be determined to give voice to every educationally sub-normal shouty idiot in the country who thinks we should "just get on with it" and tell the EU to sling their hook.

The BBC is painfully out of touch

Apart from Maitlis. 

So they dont want no deal-  they don't like TMPM's deal, the EU have said it is TMPM's deal or nothing.

We cant have an extention past the 21st May ( if all 27 EU members agree that is to an extention)  unless we field MEPs for the EU election- and if we get an extensipon there has to be something offered ( REF2 ) to make this viable- 

So MPs have to vote for the deal that is on the table or we are out with no deal

Have I got this right?

In fairness to 3Dix, he's only going by his briefing. Dmitri and Viktor were very insistent.

basically, yeah

The BBC really do need to stop doing those fucking vox pops though

It is starting to look like they may be a legal route to avoid electing new MEPs even with a long extension - such as having the existing ones carry on.  As ever, if there is a political will, the law will bend to it. 


MPs vote for delay

EU says FTFO

May tables vote for third time

MPs vote for it as is only way to avoid no deal and everyone is losing the will to live

which was probably the plan all along

Perhaps there isn’t enthusiasm for a referendum ...

From Guido:

As things stand Labour have only tabled an amendment which takes out the condition in May’s delay motion that she will only seek an extension if the deal hasn’t passed by next Wednesday. The lonely Lib Dems have tabled a second referendum amendment. As of this morning no Labour MPs had even put their names to it…

Meanwhile a huge group of cross-party MPs have tabled an amendment which rejects a second referendum, with over 100 signatories already and Labour MPs John Mann, Gareth Snell and Caroline Flint as leading co-signatories. Labour will surely have to whip against it, but there are many Labour frontbenchers who will be seriously unhappy voting against it. After last night’s utter farce with 29 MPs on the Government payroll defying a three-line whip without consequences, could Labour suffer the same humiliation tonight?

MPs who vote against official Labour party policy and the wishes of the vast majority of the membership will do so at their peril.

And a veritable cornucopia of amendments: 

From the Guardian:

On Thursday afternoon, MPs will vote yet again on Brexit, this time on a government motion proposing to ask the EU for a delay to the departure date. There are eight amendments tabled by MPs to the motion. The Speaker, John Bercow, will not select all of them for votes.

A. Plaid Cymru amendment

This amendment, signed by Plaid’s four MPs, calls for a delay to Brexit until 2021, and a second referendum at the end of this.

B. Ruling out a second referendum

Signed by more than 100 MPs, mainly Conservative but also Labour’s Caroline Flint and Gareth Snell, this states that “the result of the 2016 EU referendum should be respected and that a second EU referendum would be divisive and expensive, and therefore should not take place”.

C. Revoke article 50

Put forward by the SNP’s Angus Brendan MacNeil and Tory remainer Ken Clarke, and signed by about 30 other MPs, this calls for the entire Brexit process to be cancelled.

D. Lib Dem second referendum plan

Tabled by the the Lib Dems’ 11 MPs, this also calls for a Brexit delay and a second referendum.

E. Labour amendment

Led by Jeremy Corbyn, this notes the rejection by parliament of May’s Brexit plan, and of no deal, and says the government should “provide parliamentary time for this house to find a majority for a different approach”.

G. The Chope amendment

Tabled by Conservative Brexiter and regular malcontent Christopher Chope – and signed only by him – it says Brexit should be delayed for two months “for the specific purpose of replacing the UK negotiating team”.

F. SNP/Plaid second referendum plan

Yet another extension/second referendum amendment, this also calls for remain to be an option in the referendum, and for the revocation of article 50 to be possible in the interim.

H. Cross-party request for second referendum

Tabled by ex-Tory Sarah Wollaston, now of the Independent Group, and signed by around 30 MPs, this seeks a delay for a new referendum, which would have remain as an option. Could be selected by Bercow.

Amendment B is the hardest to call.  Clearly a vote for a 2nd ref will not pass today but if amendment B fails (which it may very well do), a referendum is looking likely.    I suspect May may be secretly encouraging backbenchers to vote against amendment B to scare the head-bangers.

I don't really understand E.  Does this mean parliamentary time in the next couple of days?


The Labour MP Chris Bryant has tabled a manuscript amendment to today’s motion that would stop Theresa May putting her deal to a vote again

I think it is time to rise up and actually overthrow this shower of shit with a proper rebellion. 

Just. So. Embarrassing. 



What a fucking shambles. We are a joke of a country. 

Our political system is broke. 



Fucking state of Chope.

He wants to send another "team" over to Brussels to get their arses handed to them?

Could be worse, I actually watched Leadsom's statement to the House last night (well the 5 or so SNP MPs that were still there) and thought, fucking hell, imagine if she had become PM?


Bercow calls four amendments, including one calling for a second referendum

John Bercow, the speaker, says he is calling four amendments, plus an amendment to an amendment.

They are:

1) Sarah Wollaston’s - calling for an extension to article 50 to allow for time for a referendum on Brexit.

2) Hilary Benn’s - saying next Wednesday should be set aside for a debate that would start the process of allowing MPs to hold indicative votes on Brexit alternatives. There is also an amendment to this amendment, from Labour’s Lucy Powell, changing the timing.

3) Labour’s - saying article 50 should be extended to allow time for MPs to find a majority for a different approach to Brexit.

4) Chris Bryant’s - saying Theresa May should not be allowed to put her deal to the Commons again.

How the fuck did the little cunt Bercow get this much power?!


I think it is increasingly clear what is going to happen now - Brexiteers are going to vote for the deal in exchange for May agreeing to step down and they will then get a head banger in to negotiate as hard a substantive deal as they can.   Hard to see how they can do this without a GE though.

I think what is clear from the past two years is that we will not be able to ever agree a substantive deal with the EU. 

Which is why May's deal is such a pile of poo. 

I can see ref 2 or just revoking art 50 happening and then seeing the right of the far right and a trump level of future UK politics. 


That is a good point wibble, really this withdrawal agreement doesn't say much at all and we cant agree it, how on earth are we going to agree on the substantive negotiations to come?  The majority in parliament is for a soft brexit and that also best reflects the overall opinion of the british people (taking into account views of the 48).   Surely that is where we will eventually end up?

Probably. that has always been my view. We will end up with a soft deal that in the end means no real difference to most people and businesses. 

 But have zero faith in any of them actually achieving anything that is not a total mess and they could so easily make things even worse. 

We will end up with a soft deal that in the end means no real difference to most people and businesses.

I get that this is a real possibility. 

It is just so stupid that to acheive that we will be foregoing what we have, which is better than that.  We are cutting our own leg off to satisfy a minority of the population whose grievances wont be cured by it.  (I am not including those who want to personally or ideologically benefit from brexit because they can go fvk themselves). 

It isn't just a real possibility, short of revocation or a hard brexit its now the only possibility.

Even if May's deal passes (and there isn't going to be a 'harder' deal passed) there are only three ways out of the backstop:

1. leprechauns riding unicorns enforcing a soft border that keeps the EU happy;

2. reunification of Ireland; or

3. the softest of all BRINO Brexits.

what Kimmy said

every time I read the news I start replaying the script from South Park the Movie in my head


Kimmy by saying that you're only demonstrating your own arrogance and that of the entire Peoples Vote camp IMO.

A soft Brexit keeps many benefits of what we have while also respecting the referendum result. The arrogance comes from the Remain camp thinking they were right and only a hard Remain will do. In that respect you're as fanatical as the ERG.

The middle ground is where this will be won. I think Parliament also agrees. Watch today's Peoples Vote amendment go down in flames.

Fred, wtf is "hard remain"?  Voting to remain in the EU in 2016 was voting to do nothing, to keep what we have.  Leaving the EU is detrimental to the UK.  It's not arrogant to state a fact.

I also don't see why the result of an illegally funded advisory referendum in which the population was fed false promises and lies should be respected.  That this is still being trumpeted 3 years later - when we all know it was bollox - as "the will of the people" is a travesty.

There is no such thing as a "hard" remain ffs.  Saying things like that makes you sound silly.

I don't disagree with the substance that a soft brexit is probably the most likely and best outcome now in terms of the country moving forward.   The only thing is it will mean far from taking back control we will have less control as rule takers.

There we go. Hard Brexit / hard remain. Both are outside the centre ground on this.

Also 'illegally funded', 'advisory', 'false promises', 'lies' etc etc etc. The PV need to come up with a positive vision for what they're trying to do. You don't have one.

A soft brexit creates exactly the situation that the leave campaign said we already had.  It's fvcking stupid.

A hard Brexit is politically, socially and economically damaging in the short, medium and probably long term.  It's fvcking stupid.

"respect the result of the referendum" is a fvcking stupid idea. If there was a referendum on reducing all taxes to zero and increasing all benefits to £1m per year, and that passed, would we respect the result of that?  No.  Because its stupid.

Stop being stupid.

And the positive vision is blindingly fvcking obvious if you want to find it.

Sod whether lies were told, or the russians funded it.

At the time of the vote, people didn't know what the options really looked like.

Now they do.

It's a fundamental change of circumstance, and should lead to a revisit of the vote.

Not trolling. I just want a sensible soft Brexit that respects 17.4m voters to some degree while not ruining the economy. I think the PV crowd are way out on this one.

Err we still don't know what the options are LF. The first ref was a binary choice where leave was undefined. The public deserve leave by whatever flavour.

LF, it is fvcking stupid but we are a democracy and the people have proven that they are fvcking stupid.

Personally I would be worried a further vote would also end in leave and this would give the nutters enough clout to push through some a disastrous "clean break".  If we come out of this with Norway plus I am happy - yes its stupid, but nothing much will change save the UK will not get much say in the rules we take.  Given the country has lost its marbles from the top down that is not necessarily a bad thing.

So is "the public" entitled to whatever it votes for?  That makes it the right thing to do, is that our position?

Also, in a democracy, people are entitled to change their minds.

By way of example, they are allowed to change from a right leaning government to a left leaning government.

They are allowed to do so every five years, since 2011, but before that could do so more frequently, and would generally do so whenever the existing government had its arse handed to it.

Democracy is not a static thing, and cannot be used to underpin an argument against a second referendum.  You need to explain why a second referendum would be undemocratic if you want to try and rely on that point.

Here's a hint.

It wouldn't be.

LF, you're wasting your time. For some unknown reason that has never been explained the vote in June 2016 is sacrosanct. It must never be revisited. It is treated as being some sort of higher law that mere time and events must not be allowed to alter. Even if aliens landed and said, "Ha, ha, we rigged the vote. Only 12 people actually voted for Leave but we stuffed the ballot. Look, here's the proof", it would be irrelevant.

A lot of people (especially remainers) need to grow some balls and act responsibly.    

Ironically, the one thing that drives me into a state of unrelenting and utterly unreasonable rage, is unreasonableness.

and the crap coming from these two is utterly lacking in reason.

The point is a referendum isn't automatically the same as an election. There's no expectation people will be asked to vote again on essentially the same thing within 3/4 years for starters.

Then theres the fact the govt clearly promised to implement the result. Then the fact we had a general election where both major parties pledged to respect the referendum result.

But let's forget all that, because the voters were stupid.

One more thing. I would absolutely respect a referendum on whether to rejoin. That would be democratic as it's a ref on something that hasn't already been voted on. I'd also vote in favour if leaving doesn't work out.

'Today is not the day'.

Discretion is the better part of valour?

Put up or shut up?

HM's opposition are what they are

"The point is a referendum isn't automatically the same as an election. There's no expectation people will be asked to vote again on essentially the same thing within 3/4 years for starters.

Then theres the fact the govt clearly promised to implement the result. Then the fact we had a general election where both major parties pledged to respect the referendum result.

But let's forget all that, because the voters were stupid."

With the greatest respect:

1. No expectation either way.  On such a momentous issue, your point is an abject nothing.  Are you trying to establish some sort of estoppel by legitimate expectation issue?  It's a hopeless point, stop it.

2. Governments promise all sorts of crap and then come back and say "oops, isnt possible, sorry".  Contrary to point 1, this is expected.

3. Both parties promised it.  Well, there's you answer there, inherent in the question.  If the alternatives are between A & B, and A&B are both red, it doesn't really matter if someone wanted purple, does it?  That wasn't a single issue election, and by both making the same promise, they actually made brexit irrelevant to the outcome.

LF, I agree there is no reason to not have another referendum now we have more information.   The argument that putting this back to the people is "undemocratic" is palpable nonsense. 

My concern however is to get to the best outcome for this country.  I genuinely think there is a better than even chance that the country would vote leave again by an even bigger majority out of sheer bloody mindedness.  If that happens the true uber khunts like JRM and Boris will run the show and the country will be utterly shafted.  If remain win in a close vote there will be a huge populist right wing surge with consequences that are hard to imagine.  One things for sure the issue will poison our politics for decades to come.


 A Norway plus arrangement with not much change is in my mind a decent outcome in comparison, stupid or not.

Hang on.

A vote on something that has already been voted on is undemocratic?

Are you up in arms about Meaningful Vote 2, 3 and 4 then?

Or are you just a scrofulous dickbadger?

They're going to run the show anyway.

May is dead in the water in months, and there's at least two years, probably 4 years of negotiations to go on the future deal.

We cannot go into future negotiations with this shower of fcknuckles in charge.  Not only woudl the transition period end with no future deal (i.e. no-deal brexit), we would probably end up at fecking war.

No they are not LF, even if they take the Tory leadership parliament will stand up for a soft brexit.  However another leave win in a referendum and I fear soft brexit MPs, including the Labour Party,  would be cowed into submission

It's only "undemocratic" because they know they'll probably lose next time round.

Guy, on one view the best thing for the country will be to fall off a cliff, take the medicine of a no-deal Brexit then, once the reality kicks in, re-join the EU. It's the best way to cut out the cancer. It relegates the Eurosceptics back to the fringes where they belong. 

A compromise solution runs the risk of the argument Brexit was hi-jacked and "the people" were betrayed. This is the sort of shit populism breeds on.  

I should say I agreed with you right up until this week when I have changed my mind, so I really do see where you are coming from.

This entire mess is due to the iron fact that we either take EU rules or we screw the economy - everything else is window dressing for that conundrum.

"re-join the EU"

do you think they'd have us back? I'd bolt the door behind us

If only we'd listened to Trump!

"I’m surprised at how badly it has all gone from a stand point of negotiations but I gave the prime minister my ideas of how to negotiate it, she didn’t listen to that and that’s fine but it could have been negotiated in a different manner."

Jesus H Roosevelt Christ

Of course you will. The realities of demographics and globalisation make it inevitable.

It would only take one other country to veto us and that's it. And a lot of baby boomers are going to have to die before any attempt to rejoin and adopt the euro could ever be a possibility.

Which makes leaving ALL THE MORE FVKING STUPID. 

We are in the EU, outside the Euro and have various concessions.  We will NEVER be in such a good position again.

Never mind, lets throw it away and make it worse for EVERYONE, present and future. 

You'll re-join. They let the Eastern European basket cases in. Once there's a bit more humility within the UK you'll be allowed in. What better advertisement for the EU that a chastened UK with its tail between its legs applying to re-join.

I think everyone should have to declare now for leave or remain and then everyone gets a hard showing which camp they are in and leavers get to be last in line for rations and first in line for redundancies.

Plus, how very awkward it would be if more than 48% declared for remain.

Not cards. Dunce hats seem more appropriate.

Remainers to be allowed to kick one dunce in the balls each day.

"Once there's a bit more humility within the UK"

never gonna happen. Always been part of our problem, really, massive arrogance

I know, but the experience outside the EU will cool that arrogance down. Obviously, the country will still be arrogant, that's a given, but when you're East Germany to the EU's West Germany, good sense will prevail.

Sarah Wollaston's amendment lost: 

MPs have crushed the second referendum amendment, by 334 votes to 85 - a majority of 249.

Interesting that 12 MPs defied the Labour/Tory whip to vote for it, otherwise meaningless.

nobody, literally nobody thought this amendment would pass - not even those that proposed it.

85 tools did. 

I also meant ref 2 generally will not happen - this shows that its not an idea MPs will get behind. 


What headline would you suggest to tabloid sub-editors for Benn's amendment?