31

As you might know on the night of 13th March at 19:00 British MPs voted on whether Britain would leave the EU without a deal. Needless to say, it was rejected. However, if the outcome of that vote is not legally binding and leaving the EU without a deal is still the default, what was the point?

Surely if it is not legally binding & still the default that therefore means if they decide to leave without a deal there is nothing that can be done about it - so why did they hold that vote in the first place?

  • 24
    Don't forget that the Brexit referendum itself wasn't legally binding either. Just because it's not legally binding doesn't mean that it's not going to be respected. – UKMonkey Mar 14 '19 at 13:40
  • 1
    Someone from the EU, might have been Barnier, I can't remember, seems to have the same question. The quote was roughly that you can't just say you don't want "no deal", you need to agree to an actual deal. – Eric Nolan Mar 15 '19 at 09:43
  • @EricNolan That's interesting - could you perhaps try and find a citation? –  Mar 15 '19 at 09:59
  • 2
    @J.J I found this - "To take no deal off the table, it is not enough to vote against no deal – you have to agree to a deal." When I was looking for that I found similar statements all the way back to January. Source: - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/13/eu-extend-brexit-talks-complete-barnier-brussels-assurance – Eric Nolan Mar 15 '19 at 10:23
  • @J.J I have suggested an edit to just remove the "or not" from the wording of the vote. The actual question was whether they would leave with no deal and this was rejected. Whether or not to leave isn't a yes or no question so it is unclear what rejected means. This might be clear to people who are following the issue but not to those who are just reading thsi without seeing a dozen news articles about it already this morning. :) – Eric Nolan Mar 15 '19 at 10:28
  • Likewise, why did they then hold a vote on requesting a delay? With both the deal and no-deal rejected, the only remaining option was to request a delay. Voting not to request a delay = voting for no-deal. But that was already rejected the previous day. – P Varga Mar 16 '19 at 04:25

5 Answers5

43

so why did we hold that vote in the first place?

Mainly for the following two reasons:

For some, to put pressure on the government to ensure that there is either a deal or no Brexit

For others, so they can blame it all on the government even though they know full well they've done nothing to actually prevent it, by saying 'look, we voted against no deal'.

Federico
  • 6,726
  • 4
  • 36
  • 58
  • 1
    I think the Spelman amendment put pressure on the Government, but the original bill was brought by the Government, so it is difficult to see how that would have been a pressure move in the first place. – Jontia Mar 14 '19 at 12:49
  • 3
    Hmm, but if two deals have already been rejected what the hell do they think more pressure will do? She cannot get anything through parliament so I don't see their logic. I guess that leaves one thing; no Brexit. –  Mar 14 '19 at 12:50
  • 2
    @J.J the pressure is against the no deal; indeed, for many no Brexit would be the preferred outcome altogether, and for the rest they prefer no Brexit to no deal –  Mar 14 '19 at 12:52
  • I don't know where I stand on this given that I feel not leaving now very much undermines democracy but at the same time this whole thing has been an entire abomination right from the start so I've got mixed feelings about this. –  Mar 14 '19 at 12:54
  • @Jontia the rejection of a no deal was not something the government wanted. Who brought the original bill was before the amendment is immaterial. –  Mar 14 '19 at 12:57
  • 1
    Is it? I got the sense that she (and her party) are at this point building ammunition for justifying another Brexit public referendum, but I have no direct sources on that. – Onyz Mar 14 '19 at 13:07
  • @J.J: or a complete change in the red lines the UK has in the negotiations, and a long delay to A50. – RemcoGerlich Mar 14 '19 at 13:37
  • 11
    @J.J: The falacy, IMHO, is that the Tories keep interpreting, and referring to, the 2016 referendum as instructive and binding. Those who voted "Leave" in 2016 were a collection of wishes for "no deal" and "candyland deal" (lots of Brexit myths that have unraveled since then). Right now it looks like the options available are "no deal exit", or "no exit". I find it disingenuous to deny people a vote on these actual options. Candyland is no longer on the table, and people have wisened up on many things. I seriously don't think a second referendum would uphold Leave on these terms. – DevSolar Mar 14 '19 at 13:44
  • 13
    @DevSolar one big issue with second referendum would be one of the main criticisms of the pro-EU brigade was the 'neverendum'. The mistake may have been to hold the referendum in the first place; now a second referendum could potentially have massive negative effects of its own. –  Mar 14 '19 at 13:48
  • 1
    @Orangesandlemons hardly more than the rest of the process has caused already, and is set to cause going forward if there's no shift in course. – Cubic Mar 14 '19 at 15:14
  • 1
    @Cubic I don't disagree that the way the government has handled it has been abysmal, and turned what was always going to be a tricky situation into a messy morass. –  Mar 14 '19 at 15:37
  • @Orangesandlemons my understanding was that the government did want to pass the original bill which blocked no-deal for the 29th March only, but following the Spelman amendment changed tack from offering a free vote to a 3 line whip against the motion. – Jontia Mar 15 '19 at 11:16
  • @Orangesandlemons maybe holding a referendum about the referendum? Something like "do you want to change the result of the previous referendum that voted on brexit?" – Braiam Mar 17 '19 at 03:47
19

Trying to force though "the deal"

This is the main reason for this vote.

The prime minster is hemmed in and is trying to show that there is no other option but to accept "her deal", as already negotiated with the EU. She knows that there is not a majority for "no deal" in the parliament. So the vote is a way to show to everyone that the majority of parliament do not want a no deal, vis a ve parliament (or more to the point the pro-brexit MPs) should accept her deal. It's trying to prove to the MPs that say "we should leave without a deal" that they are in the minority.

Context

This needs to be viewed in the context of what is currently happening. There are lots of factors at play here, some big ones include (not an exhaustive list or we'd be here all day):

  • The current government is a minority government without an overall majority in the house, it is only in power currently because of a loose arrangement with the DUP. This is so loose that the DUP has voted against the government several times! So the government, even if it could force ("whip") all of it's MPs to vote with it, still cannot make parliament accept the current deal on the table on its own.
  • The government has lost 2 major votes votes on its main policy ("Brexit"). Under normal circumstances this would cause the collapse of the government and a general election.
  • Earlier last year, the Prime Minister barely scrapped a no confidence vote. This has again highlighted that the government cannot produce a majority. Again, Under normal circumstances this would cause the collapse of the government and a general election.
  • The government tried increase its majority with its snap election of 2017. The idea being that if it had a larger majority it could better sideline the more extreme wings of the party (such as the ERG). This tactic failed miserably resulting in the Conservative party losing its majority. So the Conservative party really doesn't want an election because it's afraid it will lose it or it'll make matters even worse (again!).
  • The DUP could withdraw its support to the government; this would cause the collapse of the government and a general election. The DUP doesn't want an election though because it now has a lot of power. The DUP is a "Northen Ireland Unionist" party. It is usually a small player in wider UK politics but has a strong vested interest (obviously) in the border between northern and southern Ireland.

So at the moment the UK government is basically after something it can call a win in any shape or form, even if it's not binding at least it shows progress.

You can see form above just how tentative the current governments grip on power is. The current state of affairs is totally unprecedented. At any other time this government would have collapsed a long time ago or at the very least the prime minister would have resigned. Why has none of this happened? Because there simply isn't enough time to hold elections, etc. before 29th March.

The government never wanted to have this vote. It's been forced into by the circumstances. But without the government it's hard to make votes legally binding in the current circumstances. So the government is trapped by parliament and parliament is trapped by the government. Eventually (dear god hopefully soon!) one will have to give.

A vote cannot rule out Brexit, legally

The other thing here is that there is primary legislation(an act of parliament) that says the UK will leave the EU on the 29th March.

The only way to revoke this is with more primary legislation. This vote is not primary legislation. Revoking article 50 would require a new Act of Parliament. The EU has said the UK can revoke article 50 whenever it wants, the UK act of parliament says this isn't possible. This was only a vote on the original Brexit bill.

Unless a deal is agreed by the 29th March, then the legal default is no deal, no matter how many votes in parliament say that it's not true, the law says no.

SamB
  • 103
  • 3
  • 2
    Also the FTPA allows this situation to exist by not forcing a government that can't pass bills to collapse and hold fresh elections. – pjc50 Mar 14 '19 at 15:17
  • 6
    The UK can revoke A50 whenever it wants; it merely has to pass a single act to do so. That internal fighting is a barrier to making it happen isn't the EU's problem. The UK is the UK on this international stage, not its individual parties or even its individual politicians. – Nij Mar 15 '19 at 08:26
  • 1
    "UK act of parliament says this isn't possible" this statement is incomplete. Isn't possible without . Your statement makes it sound like it isn't possible at all, which is categorically untrue. – Jontia Mar 15 '19 at 16:19
  • Like I said, "The only way to revoke this is with more primary legislation" –  Mar 15 '19 at 16:22
  • 1
    Would of collapsed? Sorry, I wandered in from English Language SE. But still. – Michael Harvey Mar 15 '19 at 17:56
  • Can you be clearer how a "vote" of parlaiment cannot cause an "Act" of Parliament? That, at least, is what your bold title at the end of your answer implies. Your link does not clarify this; it merely states that primary legislation are the result of Votes in Parliament. – Yakk Mar 15 '19 at 18:09
  • (1) Please provide a citation (name of the Act) for "there is primary legislation(an act of parliament) that says the UK will leave the EU on the 29th March". The only two pieces of legislation I am aware of are the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Neither of those state what you claim, nor would it be logical for them to do so, since the exit date is determined by an international treaty. – JBentley Mar 16 '19 at 02:04
  • (2) Please provide a citation for "the only way to revoke this is with more primary legislation. Revoking article 50 would require a new Act of Parliament. The EU has said the UK can revoke article 50 whenever it wants, the UK act of parliament says this isn't possible.". R (Miller) v Secretary of State held that the EC Act 1972 had displaced the royal prerogative to exit the EU treaties; I am not sure that it follows that the PM lacks power to withdraw a notice; doing so would merely maintain the status quo in relation to the treaties and is thus not displaced by the 1972 Act. – JBentley Mar 16 '19 at 02:09
  • 1
    As an aside, I wish people and the media would stop referring to "revoking Article 50". You cannot revoke an article in an international treaty! You can either repeal Article 50 (i.e. delete the clause itself), which would require modifying the treaty and thus unanimous agreement of the Member States, or you can revoke the notice which was served in accordance with Article 50. A minor error, but terminology is important when we're discussing legal points. – JBentley Mar 16 '19 at 02:18
  • 2
    @JBentley The relevant Act is the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Section 1 repeals the European Communities Act 1972, which effects the withdrawal. That happens on "exit day" which Section 20 defines as 23:00 UK time on 29 March 2019 (ie, midnight Brussels time). As you say, the 1972 Act cannot be revoked by Royal Prerogative; the 2018 Act does that. – Andrew Leach Mar 16 '19 at 08:21
  • @pjc50 Governments that couldn’t pass bills were not forced to resign and call an election before the FTPA. Only losing a confidence vote could do that, and it’s the same now under the FTPA. The FTPA is blamed for a lot of things that have nothing to do with it. – Mike Scott Mar 16 '19 at 20:11
  • @AndrewLeach Ah yes, thanks. However, as I thought, this answer is wrong to claim that primary legislation is required to change the exit date. See s 20(4) - "A Minister of the Crown may by regulations (a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom". My point with regards to Royal Prerogative relates to submission/withdrawal of an Article 50 notice, rather than repealing the 1972 Act and/or withdrawing from the treaties. – JBentley Mar 17 '19 at 11:26
14

This is old-fashioned power politics of a type rarely seen in the UK, normally associated with times of extreme crisis. Normally Parliament is irrelevant: the Government produces a policy, whips the MPs to vote for it, and it always passes.

Until 2010, there was a strong guarantee that ensured a way forward could always be found: the confidence vote. A vote could be declared a confidence vote so that voting it down would force fresh elections. The effect of that was that government MPs were extremely reluctant to vote against the government on a confidence vote given the high risk of losing their seats. Under this approach, either the deal would be approved or we would be having another election right now.

The Liberal Democrats broke that with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.

Now the government staggers on, having completely lost control of the process and being reduced to voting against its own motions. And yet May remains as PM, because who else is there? The Conservative Party failed to elect another leader. A no confidence vote was held in January and failed to remove the government. But at the same time there is no majority for doing anything specific. Achieving one will either (a) require the ERG and/or hard Brexit group and/or DUP to surrender (unlikely); (b) require enough of the Opposition to vote with the Government to back the deal (unlikely); (c) require May to give up on her Deal; or (d) require some other option to be assembled and members of the Government to break the whip to vote for it.

The votes are an opportunity for a coalition to assemble. If there's a majority for "not no deal", can that be turned into a deal / delay / rescind majority?

JJJ
  • 39,094
  • 10
  • 121
  • 182
pjc50
  • 22,106
  • 3
  • 52
  • 85
  • The FTPA has made no difference. Confidence votes can still be held, and losing one still forces a new election. The only difference is a two week delay between the loss of the confidence vote and the calling of the election, to give some time for a new government to be formed that has the confidence of Parliament (or for the existing government to regain it). – Mike Scott Mar 16 '19 at 20:14
  • 1
    @MikeScott: The difference is that a confidence vote now must take a prescribed format. You can't simply point to a random piece of (hopefully important) legislation and say "That's a confidence motion" any more. – Kevin Mar 17 '19 at 02:52
  • @Kevin Yes, but only the government could do that before, and it was never obliged to do so (except perhaps for passing the Budget). May could have made her deal a confidence issue to try to get it through, but she would have been ill-advised to do so and so probably wouldn’t. – Mike Scott Mar 17 '19 at 06:09
8

The point of the votes on no deal and on an extension to the leaving date, is for Theresa May to pressure the Democratic Unionist Party (her 'confidence and supply' partners) and the European Research Group (hard Brexit conservatives) to vote for her deal.

JJJ
  • 39,094
  • 10
  • 121
  • 182
Dave Gremlin
  • 3,152
  • 1
  • 17
  • 35
  • 13
    Then she's really living in a candy land given that she is now 1st & 4th place for biggest defeats in parliament IIRC. –  Mar 14 '19 at 12:49
  • 1
    @J.J Based on Tuesday night's defeat by 149, she needs to persuade 75 people to change their minds. It doesn't look likely – Dave Gremlin Mar 14 '19 at 12:53
  • 2
    at the current rate, she wins meaningful vote 4 – Caleth Mar 14 '19 at 12:54
  • 4
    @J.J: only because parliament has so far been able to be against everything, and for nothing. If they're faced with an actual choice between the deal and some specific alternative, they may yet choose the deal. – RemcoGerlich Mar 14 '19 at 13:39
  • 2
    @J.J Defeat implies that government(or May) lost something. I mean, if we look at it from the position that the UK Government doesn't want any of what the EU is offering(aka no useful movement) (and the media have created an environment in which) it seems as if the UK always needs to be the group offering solutions, the Government essentially doesn't have to do anything but stall for time until the EU makes the no-deal decision itself. In the meantime the EU/anti-Brexit camp has to build up 'the sense' that it's the UK's fault that it has a negotiating partner that is unwilling to negotiate. – Giu Piete Mar 14 '19 at 18:04
  • @GiuPiete I don't agree with your definition of defeat, but I understand the rest of your point. But, if you don't like my choice of the word "defeat" I'll use "biggest losses" instead. –  Mar 15 '19 at 10:01
  • @J.J Oh I don't really mind your terminology, it's not wrong in terms of any given vote, just..well..like a firm might take a loss on a product to get it back on insurance, hopefully the government we've elected are capable of seeing the forest for the trees. Just wanted to show that things aren't always black and white b/c...well, a lot of commentators seem to focus on the meaningless. – Giu Piete Mar 15 '19 at 10:08
  • @GiuPiete The scary thing is - I don't think they are. That is what bothers me so much about the whole thing. All we seem to be doing is rejecting things which isn't helping the situation, we need to agree or accept something. –  Mar 15 '19 at 10:10
  • @J.J Well, I disagree, the negotiations going into the EU were conducted mostly by un-elected bureaucrats who were effectively promised jobs for life and increased responsibility, not to mention that for many it was their ideological goal to tie the UK to the EU as strongly as possible to prevent any real option of leaving. Over the years that situation was only allowed to get worse, whilst the UK bankrolled the development of a French/German domination of European trade and diplomacy. The negotiating position is a bad one, but the EU needs the UK far more than the UK needs the EU, – Giu Piete Mar 15 '19 at 10:18
  • 1
    @GiuPiete I'm not arguing whether we need the EU or they need us, I'm arguing about our politicians ability to get the job done and personally I don't think they have the ability to do it. Whether that's because of poor negotiations, their own ego/agendas, I don't know. All I know is, I personally don't believe our MPs are capable of making a decision at all. –  Mar 15 '19 at 10:20
  • 1
    Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Giu Piete Mar 15 '19 at 10:21
4

Others have addressed the motivations, I'd like to explain how the UK Parliament works.

Normally only the government proposes legally binding votes. It is perfectly possible for other MPs to make legally binding amendments to government bills, but unless the government chooses to back them they are very rarely passed. So more often they are not binding and more of an advisory or statement of the will of parliament, which has a much greater chance of passing in the face of opposition from the government.

Non-binding motions are also much less damaging to the government if they are passed without its support, and MPs of the party of government tend not to want to damage their party for fear of losing power.

On Wednesday we saw a binding motion from Hilary Ben nearly pass, only failing by a mere 2 votes. The situation is precarious and Tory MPs don't want to bring the government down, while opposition MPs want to get their amendments passed by making them as palatable as possible to Tories by being non-binding. Even so, where there is apparent support, binding amendments are being put to the test.

JJJ
  • 39,094
  • 10
  • 121
  • 182
user
  • 17,667
  • 3
  • 41
  • 65