
Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes - late
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47547887
======
pmyteh
The current BBC headline is "Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149
votes", which is a better summary of the situation.

For a variety of reasons (legal, procedural, and political) MPs can't simply
resolve to reject Brexit, and didn't do so today. What they can do is reject
the exit deal that May has negotiated.

Some of them have voted to do this because they want a 'softer' Brexit with a
closer ongoing relationship with the EU, or no Brexit at all. Others because
they think the deal is insufficiently 'hard', as it envisages some kind of
ongoing relationship and they'd rather see a clean break and then deal with
the consequences.

The upshot is that we leave at the end of the month with no deal unless
something happens, there's currently no majority in Parliament for _any_ of
the options, and we look like international idiots.

~~~
nkkollaw
Do you personally think that the UK will actually end up leaving the EU in 10
days? If yes, what are the chances of that happening?

~~~
pmyteh
I hope not; in addition to negotiating an exit deal, there's also a stack of
legislative changes that need to be made before exit (deal or otherwise) which
are stacked up and waiting. It's nearly impossible to see how that can be done
even partially adequately at this point, so any exit would very likely be (1)
with no deal (May's won't fly and there's no chance of negotiating another one
this month) and (2) totally ill-prepared.

My guess is an overwhelming (but utterly non-binding) rejection of 'no deal'
by Parliament tomorrow, followed by a large majority on Thursday asking for a
short-term extension of Article 50 to try to sort something out, followed by
the EU saying "a year or nothing", followed by public disagreements, followed
by an agreement for an extension of between two months and a year. Nobody
actually wants a chaotic exit except a few financiers, and we're doing enough
damage to ourselves that I doubt the EU wants to enforce a punishment beating
at a cost to their own member states' economies.

As for the final outcome, I'd guess:

* No deal (10%)

* May's deal (10%)

* New (softer) deal (40%)

* Second referendum (40%), with any option possible after that from no Brexit at all to the public saying 'sod you all' and demanding a no deal exit.

But anything's possible at this point; we're off the map and predictions on
the process I was much more confident on have already been wrong.

~~~
mehrdadn
Is a second referendum really that likely? I feel like the way they're
treating it it's a 5% likelihood.

~~~
nicoburns
What option do you think is more likely?

Any leave option has the Irish border question to sort (unless we remain in
the customs union I suppose), which is pretty intractable, and already causing
low-level violence to start up again in Ireland from what I hear.

And surely we won't choose to stay without a referendum.

~~~
mehrdadn
I don't keep up with British politics much so this is me just taking wild
guesses from nowhere but I feel like either they'll delay the exit or they'll
exit without a deal. If there is another referendum I just can't see it
happening the March 29 deadline.

~~~
nicoburns
I think a postponement is pretty likely at this point.

~~~
KSteffensen
Postponement doesn't solve any problems. The Irish border issue will remain
intractable.

And not leaving after all won't happen either, British pride and dreams of
Empire can't handle that humiliation.

My money is on the no deal exit, even though that implies the hard border to
Ireland.

~~~
nicoburns
> _Postponement doesn 't solve any problems._

It does solve one problem: that otherwise we crash out with no deal by
default.

> _And not leaving after all won 't happen either, British pride and dreams of
> Empire can't handle that humiliation._

That's not the only force in Britain though. Plenty of people, especially
young people, see themselves as European as much as British. And plenty of
people are ashamed of the empire too.

> _My money is on the no deal exit, even though that implies the hard border
> to Ireland._

It could happen, but I don't think anybody is keen to see a resurgence in
Irish terrorism, which is not unlikely in a No Deal scenario. And this is even
ignoring the significant downsides this would have for the British economy.

------
osrec
I think this just goes to show that maybe the entire Brexit option was not a
good one. I mean, why would Theresa May not try and get a good deal - she is
trying her level best, powering through defeat after defeat in the house! One
could conclude that, perhaps, there just isn't a good deal to be had.
Brexiteers seem to have this "it'll be alright on the night" attitude - as if
they want to leave without weighing up the pros and cons of both sides - their
staunchness confuses me and reminds me of this Charles Bukowski quote:

"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts,
while the stupid ones are full of confidence."

I can see this going to another referendum soon. May even trigger a general
election. Fun times!

Edit: there is an overwhelming belief amongst Brexiteers that a second
referendum would be undemocratic. But how can it be? It represents the most up
to date public opinion. If they're so confident that it's what the people
want, why will it make a difference? If anything, it'll just help quell any
uncertainty. What is truly undemocratic is manipulation of the electorate.
Manipulation happened on a large scale during the referendum, and there is a
fair bit of proof to back up this claim, including blatant lies, social media
and other advertising campaigns.

~~~
mrec
> _I mean, why would Theresa May not try and get a good deal_

May has two contradictory goals. She doesn't want to _really_ leave the EU - I
think absolutely everything about her staff picks, negotiating non-strategy
and Cabinet management supports that - but she's a genuine Tory loyalist who
needs to maintain enough of a fig-leaf of Leaving that her party doesn't get
utterly obliterated by irate voters at the next election. That's a tough
needle to thread, and she's completely failed to thread it. She's achieved her
first goal by abandoning her second.

> _as if they want to leave without weighing up the pros and cons of both
> sides - their staunchness confuses me_

I don't think "staunchness" is quite the word. They want to leave, and they
don't see the WA as leaving. (Nor does the general population; I think the
last poll showed only 12% thought the WA respected the referendum result.) The
talking point being pushed hard by No 10 has been "don't make the perfect the
enemy of the good", implying that the ERG etc are blocking the WA because they
think, unrealistically, that they can get a harder exit by holding out. That
may be true for some. But I think many genuinely do believe that the WA
(effectively non-voting membership with no safeguards and no way out) is worse
than staying in the EU (as a voting member with the option of going Article 50
again). Many have said so. Some observers may dismiss that as rhetorical, but
I don't think it is.

~~~
osrec
Sorry, for my ignorance - what does WA stand for?

Edit: worked it out - Withdrawal agreement

------
weinzierl
> MPs voted down her deal by 391 to 242 - a smaller defeat than when they
> rejected it in January.

> The PM said MPs will now get a vote on whether the UK should leave without a
> deal on 29 March and, if that fails, on whether Brexit should be delayed.

What happens if they vote "No" three times in a row (no deal, no _no-deal_ ,
no postponement)?

If this wasn't politics I'd say: See if you can simplify this function, bonus
points if you can avoid error conditions too:

    
    
        func brexit(){
           if(deal){
                exit(deal);
            } else {
                if(!deal) {
                    exit(null);
                } else {
                    if(postpone){
                        wait(TIME);
                        brexit();
                    } else { 
                       throw new handsInTheAir();
                    }
                }
            }
        }

~~~
berbec
There actually is a similar flowchart in a linked article.
[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/08/the-
brexit-...](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/08/the-brexit-state-
of-play-a-guide-to-next-weeks-crucial-votes)

~~~
berbec

      void choices()
      {
        if(uk_MPs_yes_vote(12_march))
        {
          brexit(29_march[current_deal]);
        }
        else if(uk_MPs_yes_vote(13_march))
        {
          brexit(29_march[no_deal]);
        }
        else if(uk_MPs_yes_vote(14_march))
        {
          if(EU_yes_vote(21_march))
          {
            brexit(extension_date);
          }
        }
        else if(uk_MPs_yes_vote(22_to_29_march))
        {
          brexit(29_march[current_deal]);
        }
        else
        {
          brexit(1/0);
        }
      }

------
robin_reala
Timeline for the next days is at
[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/08/the-
brexit-...](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/08/the-brexit-state-
of-play-a-guide-to-next-weeks-crucial-votes)

------
SolaceQuantum
I've said this before so I'll ask this again- I'm an American and I'm entirely
ignorant on UK politics. I've followed the headlines and I am still confused
why Brexit is happening. It seems no one wants Brexit as it has been suggested
by the political leadership of UK, and the majority want to avoid no deal at
all.

I do not understand why not call the entire Brexit thing off; why is that
political suicide?

~~~
LeonM
Well, it's a democracy, they let the people vote, and the people voted in
favor of leaving the EU.

It's the same for me as a non-American looking at the whole Trump situation.
The people chose him as their president, yet I get the impression (again, I'm
an outsider) that very few people like him as a president.

~~~
philk10
he lost the popular vote but thanks to the Electoral College won the
presidency

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Because, of course, he campaigned to the Electoral College (put advertising
effort where the most Electoral College votes could be leveraged). Why the
Democrats didn't do this is appalling.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Because, of course, he campaigned to the Electoral College

Regardless of the validity of this argument as to _Constitutional_ legitimacy,
it's inapplicable to th claim made upthread which is that “the people chose
him as their President”. They did not.

------
dotdi
I'm a bit confused as to why politicians always bring up ‘ignoring the will of
the people’ when it's been shown that ‘the people’ have been lied to on a
grand scale and there is evidence that Cambridge Analytica had worked pro-
Brexit.

I guess nowadays you cannot convince people with facts anymore. You can only
convince them with covert, subliminal ads on their social media feeds.

~~~
atombender
As recently as one year ago [1], polls indicated that sentiment in favour of
Brexit was still strong enough that another referendum might have resulted in
another "leave" vote. A more recent poll [2] shows that this is now much less
likely, but there's still strong support among a huge portion of the
population.

As much as I agree that the Brexit leave campaign was fraudulent and the whole
referendum tainted, I don't think it's as clear-cut as you want. At what point
do decide a vote that was made through a legal process should be rejected? You
can't run the "will of the people" through some kind of legitimacy filter to
weed out the ones that have been unduly influenced by political forces.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-
interactive/2018/jan...](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-
interactive/2018/jan/26/guardian-icm-brexit-poll-full-results)

[2] [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/06/britons-would-now-vote-to-
st...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/06/britons-would-now-vote-to-stay-in-eu-
want-second-referendum---poll.html)

~~~
dotdi
> At what point do decide a vote that was made through a legal process should
> be rejected?

When it's fundamental premises are shown to be fraudulent. As you said.

Also, don't ignore the fact that the wording of the vote had a big impact. It
was `remain` vs. `literally everything else with the only constraint being
"not in the EU"`.

------
TicklishTiger
Why do politicians always seem so uncivilized to me?

Both sides of an argument always argue as if they believe the other side is
stupid and they know for sure they are right.

That is the biggest stupidity in itself.

Why are there no politicians that spend their time on trying to understand the
other side, rather then shouting out their own message? Those would be the
ones I would vote. But they simply do not exist.

~~~
antocv
How would you know that one party understands the other side?

Because they went silent? How would you know one party understands the other
side, and continues to talk about their own politics anyway? That would again
seem like they are just talking and not understanding each other.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
You'd know because they can explain the other side's position in terms that
the other side recognizes as accurate, rather than a strawman - and then
explain what they believe is mistaken about it.

If you're really right, you shouldn't have to strawman your opponent's
position in order to show that you're right.

~~~
antocv
> You'd know because they can explain the other side's position in terms that
> the other side recognizes as accurate,

If one side does that, by the public they will be perceived to be talking the
points of the other side, again losing out.

The whole point of politics, religion and marketing is to keep talking until
the other side gives up. The biggest loudest mouth wins. Not the most
understanding one.

------
KSteffensen
You have to admire May for being stubborn. I'd have thrown up my hands and
said 'OK, you figure it out then. Have fun!'

~~~
retrac98
Yeah, but she did nominate herself for the job after the vote.

Still, better than Cameron.

~~~
nkkollaw
I wonder why though, since she voted to stay..? I wouldn't be that excited
about carrying out my competitor's plans (unless of course I wanted to
sabotage them, which sometimes I wonder if she wanted to do).

~~~
retrac98
I’ve nominated myself for work stuff I really didn’t agree with in the past,
it was because I thought I could help said stuff not be a total disaster.

Leading a country through brexit is a hell of a sword to fall on though. :/

~~~
nkkollaw
I see.

Makes sense I guess :-)

------
ddebernardy
I followed the Commons debates during both votes. It's just surreal. It's as
if the UK was living in some kind of bubble where just about anything
happening outside of it had no existence let alone importance whatsoever. If I
were a UK voter I'd be extremely angry.

As an EU citizen I sincerely hope the outcome will be the UK ultimately
staying in -- if only because of the outright lies during the referendum and
the suspicion of Russian influence in the Leave vote.

On a positive note, May mentioned a People's Vote was an option tonight.
Insofar as I'm aware that's a first.

~~~
sparkling
> As an EU citizen I sincerely hope the outcome will be the UK ultimately
> staying in -- if only because of the outright lies during the referendum and
> the suspicion of Russian influence in the Leave vote.

What if i told you that crying "b-but the other side lied!" and talking about
"russian hackers" do not outweigh a fair, free, democratically held vote?
Imagine the vote was vice versa and the right-wing would be crying about
unfair campaign ads and Brussel influence, not one person would take them
seriously.

~~~
ddebernardy
> do not outweigh a fair, free, democratically held election

In case it needs reminding, those elections did occur, and May ended up
needing to go in bed with the DUP to stay in power.

Edit: ok, I see what you've done with your edit...

> Imagine the vote was vice versa and the right-wing would be crying about
> unfair campaign ads and Brussel influence, not one person would take them
> seriously.

Everyone would have correctly raised that it's horse shit, because the EC is
fairly transparent in what it does if you bother to take a look.

The real wtf in recent decades has been that Brussels is a perfect scapegoat:
as a national politician you can go to the European Council and promote what
have you; EC and EP pick it up and deliver; and then you can turn around and
tell voters "see it's Brussel's fault" because national newspapers aren't
reporting enough on what's going on in the EU.

And just to be clear, this is nothing new. It already was a problem 20 years
ago. And insofar as I've been made aware by the law teachers I had back then,
40 years ago as well.

~~~
sparkling
*vote, not election, pardon

------
samsonradu
The Brexit vote happened to precede a period of sustained global growth,
mostly throughout the year 2017, which overshadowed its economic implications.
Despite that, UK GDP growth lagged behind other developed countries but it was
not enough for the UK citizens opinion to change.

As soon as it starts biting people's pockets, which might happen pretty soon
according to Central banks/IMF economic forecasts, I believe a new referendum
will be called and the decision will be reversed.

There might not be time for that to happen though.

------
amriksohata
No deal looks increasingly on the table, what I fear most is it forces another
general election that brings a party like ukip back to the fore. It is in both
parties interests to vote for a deal, but their selfish bickering has already
seen a fracture in labour and you could see more splitters and divided
coalition parties building an alliance with ukip to get a majority

~~~
sparkie
It is in both parties interest to uphold the result of the referendum which
was held in 2016, and which they pledged to implement in their election
manifestos in 2017, because if new general election comes about, their
constituents will remember their betrayal, and then it will be no surprise
they will vote for somebody else.

May's deal is not what the people voted for, and so, the house of commons is
full of lying politicians who will have exhausted their careers on the gamble
that they could stop Brexit from happening.

~~~
dragonwriter
> It is in both parties interest to uphold the result of the referendum which
> was held in 2016, and which they pledged to implement in their election
> manifestos in 2017, because if new general election comes about, their
> constituents will remember their betrayal

If their constituents viewpoints have moved since 2016/2017, they won't view
it as a betrayal; more precisely the concern is that each major party is
concerned that their own Leave faction will be more likely to abandon them
than Remain-leaning voters outside will be to come over if their party is the
one that flips.

------
benj111
I liked the Jon Snow exchange on twitter

Jon Snow (British journalist): "A Lawyer contact tells me that the legal world
is aware that the Attorney General said NO last night to the validity of Mrs
May's 'new EU deal'...he been told to go away and find a way to say YES: A
cohort of lawyers has been summoned"

Attorney General: "Bollocks"

~~~
AnimalMuppet
"You know nothing, John Snow."

------
hacker_9
Oh wow, if we vote NO two more times this.. could all be over? Ia this real?
Could it truly finally end?

------
nkkollaw
I've had the feeling that the UK won't actually leave the EU for a while, now.

Does it look like that feeling is going to turn to be right, or we just don't
know..?

~~~
benj111
Well there seems to be a majority of MPs against no deal, theres a vote on
that tomorrow. So that would mean May going back to the EU to ask for an
extension. That would seem most likely to be until May, before the EU
elections. I can't see that being more than a temporary date though. Any other
option has to take more time than 2 ish months.

That's where my crystal ball goes cloudy.

------
napo
It's getting closer and closer to a no-deal, and yet the pound doesn't really
go down. Does anybody understand why?

~~~
rtkwe
I think the consensus is they will just extend instead of actually going
through a 100% no-deal Brexit. Seems like a fairly safe bet given the UK can
do it unilaterally and how bad it would be.

~~~
vkou
Why would the EU allow the UK to extend this one-foot-in-one-foot out
nonsense? It's not clear that any deal it is willing to offer will get
parliamentary assent.

~~~
benj111
Because European courts have decided that Article 50 can be unilaterally
retracted.

~~~
yongjik
I was under the impression that it can be only unilaterally "retracted" (i.e.,
cancel brexit), but extending the negotiation required EU's agreement, which
already stated that they wouldn't unless there's a concrete plan?

~~~
benj111
Yes. In practice the UK would have to ask the EU for an extension, or article
50 could be retracted and resubmitted, achieving the same thing. There would
be political barriers to doing that so the EU does have some bargaining power.

------
walrus01
I wonder how many currency speculators have just revised their positions
against the pound.

