Brexit: Theresa May's deal is voted down in historic Commons defeat

Source

MPs voted by 432 votes to 202 to reject the deal, which sets out the terms of Britain's exit from the EU on 29 March.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has now tabled a vote of no confidence in the government, which could trigger a general election.

The confidence vote is expected to be held at about 1900 GMT on Wednesday.

The defeat is a huge blow for Mrs May, who has spent more than two years hammering out a deal with the EU.

The plan was aimed at bringing about an orderly departure from the EU on 29 March, and setting up a 21-month transition period to negotiate a free trade deal.

The vote was originally due to take place in December, but Mrs May delayed it to try and win the support of more MPs.

The UK is still on course to leave on 29 March but the defeat throws the manner of that departure - and the timing of it - into further doubt.

MPs who want either a further referendum, a softer version of the Brexit proposed by Mrs May, to stop Brexit altogether or to leave without a deal, will ramp up their efforts to get what they want, as a weakened PM offered to listen to their arguments.

Laura Kuenssberg: May's nightmare

History was made tonight with the scale of this defeat - a higher figure than the wildest of numbers that were gossiped about before the vote.

But the prime minister's dilemma is a more serious version of the same it's always been.

She has no majority of her own in Parliament to make her middle way through stick. And her many critics don't agree on the direction she should take - a more dramatic break with the EU, or a tighter, softer version.

Those two fundamental and clashing positions have always threatened to pull her and the government apart.

The Brexit debate has cut across traditional party lines.

Some 118 Conservative MPs - from both the Leave and Remain wings of her party - voted with the opposition parties against Mrs May's deal.

And three Labour MPs supported the prime minister's deal: Ian Austin (Dudley North), Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) and John Mann (Bassetlaw).

The most controversial sticking point was the issue of the Northern Irish backstop - the fallback plan to avoid any return to physical border checks between the country and Ireland.

Mrs May had hoped new assurances from EU leaders this week, saying the backstop would be temporary and, if triggered, would last for "the shortest possible period", would help her garner more support.

But in the debate leading up to the vote, members from all sides of the House said the move did not go far enough.

In normal times, such a crushing defeat on a key piece of government legislation would be expected to be followed by a prime ministerial resignation.

But Mrs May signalled her intention to carry on in a statement immediately after the vote.

"The House has spoken and this government will listen," she told MPs.

She offered cross-party talks to determine a way forward on Brexit, if she succeeded in winning the confidence vote.

Former foreign secretary and leading Brexiteer Boris Johnson said it was a "bigger defeat than people have been expecting" - and it meant Mrs May's deal was now "dead".

But he said it gave the prime minister a "massive mandate to go back to Brussels" to negotiate a better deal, without the controversial Northern Ireland backstop.

And he said he would back Mrs May in Wednesday's confidence vote.

Labour MP Chuka Umunna said that if his leader did not secure a general election, Mr Corbyn should do what the "overwhelming majority" of Labour members want and get behind a further EU referendum.

Lib Dem leader Sir Vince Cable, who also wants a second referendum, said Mrs May's defeat was "the beginning of the end of Brexit" - but conceded that campaigners would not get one without Mr Corbyn's backing.

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said Mrs May had suffered "a defeat of historic proportions" and called again for the Article 50 "clock to be stopped" in order for another referendum to take place.

"We have reached the point now where it would be unconscionable to kick the can any further down the road," she said.

However, government minister Rory Stewart said there was no majority in the Commons for any Brexit plan, including another referendum.

How a confidence motion works

By the BBC's head of political research Peter Barnes

Under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, UK general elections are only supposed to happen every five years. The next one is due in 2022.

But a vote of no confidence lets MPs decide on whether they want the government to continue. The motion must be worded: "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government."

If a majority of MPs vote for the motion then it starts a 14-day countdown.

If during that time the current government, or any other alternative government cannot win a new vote of confidence, then an early general election would be called.

That election cannot happen for at least 25 working days.

MPs are set to debate Labour's no confidence motion for about six hours following Prime Minister's Questions at 1200.

Mr Corbyn said it would allow the House of Commons to "give its verdict on the sheer incompetence of this government".

But DUP leader Arlene Foster said her party, which keeps Mrs May in power, would be supporting her in Wednesday's confidence vote.

She told the BBC MPs had "acted in the best interests of the entire United Kingdom" by voting down the deal.

But she added: "We will give the government the space to set out a plan to secure a better deal."

n her statement to MPs, Mrs May said she planned to return to the Commons next Monday with an alternative plan - if she survives the confidence vote.

She said she would explore any ideas from cross-party talks with the EU, but she remained committed to delivering on the result of the 2016 referendum.

But European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said the risk of a disorderly Brexit had increased as a result of the deal being voted down.

He said the agreement was "the only way to ensure an orderly withdrawal" and that he and President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, had "demonstrated goodwill" with additional clarifications this week to put MPs minds at rest.

"I urge the United Kingdom to clarify its intentions as soon as possible," he said. "Time is almost up."

Mr Tusk said he regretted the outcome of the vote and later tweeted to ask "who will finally have the courage to say what the only positive solution is?"

A statement from the Irish government also said it regretted the decision and that it "continues to believe that ratification of this agreement is the best way to ensure an orderly withdrawal of the UK".

It also said it will "continue to intensify preparations" for a no deal Brexit.

After this humiliating defeat, that leaves the question of what happens next? It seems like there are few options left. Crashing out of the EU with no deal is one of them, but that seems to be by far the least desired of all outcomes, afaik only the extreme brexiteers want this. Other than that the only way to get a different deal is if Theresa May adjusts her red lines, but that also seems unlikely as she will likely lose support with a lot of her party members if she caves on FoM for example. A third option could be a second referendum to see if people still want to go ahead with Brexit. A fourth option could be a general election, but I'm not sure if there's enough time for this as the UK will officially leave the EU on 29/03, and the clock keeps ticking.

All in all this looks like a giant shitshow, and it seems no one has the slightest clue on what will happen next.

I still can't believe that of all the countries in the EU, they were the ones to leave.

Leaving the EU is like an old man leaving his wife because he thinks he can pick up 20 year old girls on tinder.

Brexit is not happening, predicted this the day I voted.

Just leave already. The voters have clearly spoken and they didn’t vote a deal, concessions, or negotiations - they voted LEAVE so do so. It’s the very nature of a democracy.

The more politicians talk, the more their constituents lose faith. Even if you voted remain, you should be upset by the bigger picture here.

The reason politicians don't want to just leave with no deal is because doing so would be catastrophic for their economy. Besides, the vote was on if they should leave, not in which manner or when. There is really no reason to believe that just because a majority support leaving that they also support leaving in any way possible, I'd wager most leave voters want some kind of deal to be made.

A relief in this mess that is Brexit.

@deeliman: Everyone conveniently forgets that Britexit has positives too. Some industries will flourish with EU quotas and restrictions removed, a tighter border, and curbed immigration that presently is draining social services - just to name a few.

Which industries will flourish according to you? Also, did you know that the UK was already able to curb immigration if they wanted to? They just chose not to do it. They haven't curbed immigration from countries outside of the EU, which they have full control over, and they also haven't curbed immigration from EU countries, which they have some control over. A lot of people seem to think that EU citizens can just go to the UK and sit on their ass and collect a welfare check, but that is not how that works. If an EU citizen wants to move to another EU country, they need to find a job within 3 months, otherwise the EU country they moved to has every right to deport them back to their own country. So no, EU citizens can't just come to the UK and drain their social services.

What a bunch of nonsense.

Leaving the EUS before it turned into EUS is the best thing the UK could do.

You mean the same experts who said it would be catastrophic for the economy if the UK did not vote for the Euro? EU members stand to lose billions if there is no deal, so while this deal is rejected, it´s in the EU´s own interest to secure a proper deal.

@Sevenizz: dude leaving EU is like your leg trying to leave your thigh and foot at the same time.

Some deal has to be made. None wants the conflict with Ireland to return again.

@Jacanuk: ha. You really think the EU needs Britain?

Ha no.

The issue here is about trade and all the jobs that depend on it. This literally cuts Britain from trading with all of Europe. After the countries of europe the nearest trade patner is over the Atlantic which would make trade even more expensive for Britain.

This is going to lead to a hard ression for Britain.

@Jacanuk: ok think for a moment. If Britain leave the EU....who is britain gping to trade with?

You do know that Britain is the third largest contributor after Germany, France right? That is a lot of money suddenly payable by the others.

So yes the EU does need Britan

Which is why they are trying to play hardball, they want that second referendum even though the people have already said twice they want to leave.

Who is the EU going to trade with? Germany alone stands to lose about 50% of their trade with the UK if they leave without a proper deal.

Britain is not building a wall and isolating themselves and saying "hey f Europe we want to be on our own"

Haha, spot on.

You don't even need to ask "the experts", the UK government's own assassment said that their GDP could shrink up to 9% in the event of no deal. And that is just the financial aspect of it. Food and medicine shortages are a really big concer as well.

It is within the EU's interest to secure a deal, yes, which is the one Theresa May presented to commons, and it got voted down by a very large majority. It is not, however, within it's interests to compromise the single market in order to secure this deal. The germany chamber of commerce has already come out and said that they prefer to have not extention made on article 50. Furthermore, the EU economy is many times larger than the UK's, so even if the EU loses more money in absolutely terms, if you look at it relative to the sizes of their economies, the UK stands to lose far more than the EU.

Yes, and the UK stands to lose about 50% of all their trade with 27 different nations, which adds up to about 25% of the entire UK's trade.

You sure misread a lot. The UK gov´s experts made a report where they based on various other assumptions made it clear that they could lose from as little as 0.1% to I think it was 12% but the max estimate was from very pro-EU sources and the min was for pro-Brexit sources.

Also, the food and medicine shortage is all worst case based on the time it will take to set everything up and get everything running, THe EU has to set up customs and deal with the exports to the UK.

Also again yes the EU has as much to gain from securing a deal as the UK has, but so far the deal seems to be for a very soft exit which is in EU´s interest, not the UK´s, so no wonder it was turned down. You don´t break 25% up with your GF and start to live in the doorway to her flat. Oh, and I love that you assume that EU is one big country and have a common economy.

No EU does not have a common economy and if Sweden or Poland stands to lose x-amount of billion it´s them who lose it, not the EU. Same goes for Germany if they lose 50% of their annual trade of around 90billion $, that will hurt them a lot plus they have to together with the other countries have to make up for the 14% of the EU budget. Sure the EU can go in and provide some relief but that is like peeing in your pants, a short joy and then the negatives come back 10 fold.

You;re the one who misread the report it seems. They could only lose as little as 0.1% in the even of an EEA type scenario. Actually, I did misread the report as well. In a no deal brexit (wto) scenario, they estimate that they 5% - 11/12% of their GDP. Look at page 17 of the report, the one that's in the black box with the letters HMG is the government's assassment. HMG stand for Her Majesty's Government.

Not only the EU has to set up customs you know, the UK has to as well. And they are woefully unprepared.

So no, the UK definately has more to lose than the EU. I also never said the EU is one big country, but the UK is going up against 27 different countries. All of those countries will lose a lot of trade with 1 country. The UK is going to lose a lot of trade with 27 countries. Tell me, what hurts more? Surely even you can't deny the obvious fact that losing a lot of trade with 27 countries is significantly worse than losing a lot of trade with 1 country?

As for your point about the budget, yes it will hurt a bit but it's nothing the EU can't handle. If I take the budget for 2019 as an example, that is €165.8 billion. 14% of that would be €23.2 billion. On average EU countries will have to pay about €859 million more every year, hardly anything that would cause serious trouble.

Well, report or no report it´s all speculations and we could argue from here until next Christmas about the times the experts have said something wrong, All EU countries who turned down the EURO was told they faced their own demise and doom, and in the end who ended up the winnings, the country´s who stayed out.

So markets are markets and bacon still have to be sold and the EU countries who sell it can´t just find another place to sell it. Also, all the other countries are also unprepared when it comes to the possible custom situation, imagine the chaos at the tunnel and also the ferries to the mainland from the UK.

And again no, the UK does not have more to lose and also the UK is not going up against the EU, it´s funny that you like the EU muppethead Juncker seem to see this as adversaries but maybe it´s because you as well as the other EU leaders know that the only ones who actually benefit from the whole EU project are them and that if the UK steps out and does well, more will follow.

Also, UK have the world to deal with, they can make deals with Canada, Mexico, China, US or anyone else on their terms which can be far better than anything the EU could do. Not to mention a lot of annoying shit EU-taxes

You are also very wrong about the budget, Some countries have very good deals and have rebates which the UK btw had as well which is why they fell from the second largest contributor to the third. And the eu-memberstates with rebates are not going to give them up lightly and pick up the slack, especially not Italy where there is a very EU critic party in the government. Left are Germany and France and the yellow vests hopefully showed you that France is not going to just pick up the slack. Germany has Merkel as the lighthouse but she has already had very big defeats and has stepped down at the next election, so the Germans clearly don´t want to be the only ones who pay massive sums again (Greece is still fresh in peoples memories)

So yes there will be major problems and most countries will not just voluntarily pick up the slack of almost 860million (your estimate) Poland btw has already said they won´t

Which is what the EU leaders know and why they have asked for a one sum payment of 60billion € which can cover the shortfall for a few years UK has offered 40billion which is way way to much and probably why some mp´s said no.

@Jacanuk: yes they are. All the trade deals Britain has with any europe atate is within the EU. That ends and they lose all there trade deals with Europe. That is not what you are not getting. Germany wil just make trade with the next near by state in Europe. Britain would have to make new deals continents away.

@Jacanuk: no it does not. If you think it they don't need the EU you don't understand trade.

They have to sell the goods to someone. It they are the third biggest provider then that means a massive score of thing the make they sell out of country.....

If the leave the EU...who do they sell their goods to?

Think about it.

Imagine a store keeping out any local people to sell things to so they can sell thing to people who come in out of town..but there is no guarantees those people coming out side of town are coming...what do you think with happen to that store?

As I said before, the nearest people Britain can do trade with out side the EU in over the Atlantic. Which is much more expensive to ship to....which is no guarantee they will NY British goods.

Which is why brxit is dumb.

Lmao, this is great.

They don´t lose the trade because they have to go through customs, that is idiotic to believe and while there might be some loss, it´s only natural because of the barries and such, being completly independent does not equal no trade.

Again you are acting like the UK is building a wall and refusing to deal with the EU and the EU will refuse to deal with them.

Europe is not one single country and while there might not be deals, that does not mean all trade will stop, AGAIN and AGAIN, the top EU member countries have major trade with the UK and if they lose that, it will not just cost money, it will cost jobs.

So who will UK sell their goods to, the same countries they sold to before just with the slight difference they have to act as an independent country and abide by the EU regulations like any other non-EU country do.

Lastly, your analogy is completely false and you either did not read up on it or are of the assumption that EU is a single country and being a non-member state will suddenly mean a total ban on their services and goods,. which of course it doesn´t.

Finally Brexit is not a bad thing, it´s a clever thing and the reason why you see so massive resistance from career EU politicians like Juncker is because he knows that if the UK steps out and as expected it goes well, it will only fuel the already slow burning anti-EU fire all across the EU states, and considering his wish and Merkel and Macron is a EUS like we have the USA , it´s not a good thing that a massive country like the UK is stepping outside. Which also puts a pin in the wheels of the EU expansion bus.

A no-deal exit scenario would likely mean another Scottish independence referendum and who knows what in Northern Ireland.

@Jacanuk: dude you don't understand. They can't sell to thw countries they could before. If brxit happens all the trade deals they did end. Trade will stop legally. They have to do remake trade deal all over agein from scratch....at a disadvantage. That will take month to yeara to do. And top of that this opens thing for other places to take the place trade of those lost trade possibilities. Britain loses.

Aka Germany can trade with someone else Britain lost someone to trade with.

@Jacanuk: no they lose trade because they lose the legal allowance to trade with them out of the EU. All agreements and legal processing is with the EU regulation. They literally can not trade.

A hard Brexit will lead to capital flight, with Ireland as the chief beneficiary.

Perhaps the knee jerk reaction to leave the EU wasn't the correct decision. Funny how the guys championing it aren't around to help facilitate the departure. Suckers got sold a load of BS and now you have to eat it for dinner.

Hopefully this will be the poster child for unfounded, uneducated, and fear-mongering gone wrong, for future generations.

I predict Northern Ireland, if violence doesn't erupt again, will reunite with the Republic. We all know the Scot Nats and the Shinners are pushing for it.

For real, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be fuming if they get dragged out of the EU against their will.

@nintendoboy16: Also, spare a thought for poor Gibraltar. They were 99% in favour of remaining in the EU. Brexit is going to be the end of the UK.

Actually they can. UK would go back to the WTO rules on trade. However that would mean tariffs, so prices in the UK will go up and the EU can reject the UK made goods, because those may not meet EU standards. It would hurt the UK a hell of a lot more than the EU. The UK companies couldn't compete with the EU companies in the EU market. Many companies will most likely move their factories and offices from the UK to the EU, tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of jobs would be lost.

@Icarian: which still validates my point.

Brxit is so very very dumb.

The Brexiteers anthem

You are talking out of your behind here.

Legally the UK can trade like always as much as they want, as long as they abide by EU - NON-EU state trade laws and pay the tolls put on non-eu goods and on non-eu states

Not sure where you heard they should "not be legally allowed to trade" because that is simply not true and no one has ever said that.

@Jacanuk: they have to to though oversight first. For each country they trade to. They have to remake each deal.

"So markets are markets and bacon still have to be sold and the EU countries who sell it can´t just find another place to sell it."

"Also, UK have the world to deal with, they can make deals with Canada, Mexico, China, US or anyone else on their terms which can be far better than anything the EU could do."

So, EU countries won't find anywhere to sell their products that they used to sell to the UK, but the UK will have absolutely no problem whatsoever to find new places to sell their products? Why would that be the case? Also, why on god's green earth would countries like the US and China give the UK a better deal than they give the EU? The EU market dwarfs the UK market, if anything they are gonna give the UK a shit deal because they know they are desperate for any deal. Sorry but you're talking utter nonsense.

'What you said about the chaos at the tunnel supports my point of food and medicine shortages lol, where do you think the UK gets their food and medicine from?

As I've mentioned before, I feel really bad for May. She's a scapegoat as no one else wanted to be PM, she's going to get all the blame when in reality this situation is extremely complex. This is why sometimes a representative democracy is better than a full swing one, the whole referendum thing was stupid and now they're paying the consequences.

Who said EU countries would not continue their trade? I think you are either reading something else or you are just confused.

Let´s be absolutely clear here, All that happens with no deal is that the UK has to be dealt with like any other non-eu member without any deals that either make it cheaper/easier to trade. Which means Germany companies that deal with the UK have to abide by the customs laws and any toll the UK may have. And The UK will have to make sure their companies abide by EU legislation and can prove that any goods they send into the EU.

What some remainers are arguing and what most "experts" are saying will cost in trade, is the extra time and effort it will take to trade between UK <-> EU , Not that no deal will cost all trade.

It´s like if you have a shop 5 min from your house and one 1 hour away, most will use the one 5 min away even though the one an hour away may be bigger and have better prices and goods.

As to the chaos, well that is being worked on, major med-companies are building up stockpiles to deal with the no deal scenario and also the UK government has hired shipping companies to make sure they can get goods from the EU.

UK will still have to treat EU as one unit, not the individual countries.

Well, yes if they want to bypass some of the regulative trade blocks.

EU doesn't permit the individual countries to make their own deals... If I remember right.

That is correct, they negotiate as a bloc and have common tariff rates for trade with external countries.