Facing opposition, UK's May will bring Brexit deal back to parliament

[webfact]

Facing opposition, UK's May will bring Brexit deal back to parliament

By Kylie MacLellan and Elizabeth Piper

 

Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May leaves 10 Downing Steet in London, Britain, December 17, 2018. REUTERS/Toby Melville

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Theresa May said on Monday she would bring her Brexit deal back to parliament for a mid-January vote, pledging to get assurances from the European Union before then to break a deadlock over Britain's fraught efforts to quit the bloc.

 

With just over 100 days until Britain is due to leave the EU, May faced accusations from some lawmakers that she was trying to force a deeply divided parliament into backing her deal by running the clock down to exit day.

 

A mid-January vote could oblige lawmakers to make a decision between her deal or leaving without one on March 29, a nightmare scenario for many businesses.

 

May is pressing on with her deal to leave the EU, rejecting calls for a second referendum or to test support for different Brexit options in parliament, despite hardening opposition to the agreement to maintain close ties.

 

May said parliament would debate the deal in January, before a vote in the week beginning Jan. 14 - more than a month after an original Dec. 11 vote which she cancelled after admitting she faced a significant defeat.

 

After a tumultuous week in which she survived a confidence vote within her Conservative Party and sought last-minute changes to the Brexit agreement reached with Brussels last month, May said again that the alternatives to her deal were leaving without an agreement or no Brexit at all.

 

"I know this is not everyone’s perfect deal. It is a compromise. But if we let the perfect be the enemy of the good then we risk leaving the EU with no deal," she told lawmakers, her speech punctuated by loud shouts of protest.

 

"Avoiding no deal is only possible if we can reach an agreement or if we abandon Brexit entirely."

 

She said the EU had offered "further clarification" on the most contentious aspects of the withdrawal agreement and her government was seeking "further political and legal assurances".

 

The leader of the opposition Labour Party sought to turn up the pressure by lodging a motion of no confidence in May for not quickly re-scheduling the vote by lawmakers on her Brexit plan that she delayed last week.

 

"This is unacceptable in any way whatsoever," Jeremy Corbyn said in the House of Commons.

 

But the result of a no-confidence vote in May as prime minister would be non-binding and, if it takes place, there were signs that Labour would struggle to embarrass May.

 

Some Conservative Party lawmakers, who want a more definitive break from Brussels and challenged her leadership last week, said they would not support Labour's vote. Similarly, a Northern Irish party which props up May but opposes her Brexit plans said it would not back it.

 

A government source said Downing Street would not allow time in parliament for "a stunt" and if Labour was serious it should attempt a full vote of no confidence in the government, which would bring it down if backed by parliament.

 

'NO REPLAY'

With the EU unlikely to offer concessions that would win over lawmakers, more politicians are backing a second referendum - something some of May's ministers say could be avoided if the government tested Brexit scenarios in parliamentary votes.

 

"What is irresponsible is delaying a vote on her agreement, not because she is going to get any changes to it but because she wants to run down the clock and try and intimidate MPs (Members of Parliament) into supporting it to avoid no deal," opposition Labour lawmaker Liz Kendall said in parliament.

 

Parliament is deeply divided, with factions pressing for different options for future ties, exiting without a deal or remaining in the EU.

 

May and her ministers have repeatedly ruled out a replay of the referendum, saying it would deepen rifts and betray voters who backed Brexit by 52 percent to 48 percent in 2016.

 

That increases the risk of a no-deal Brexit, a scenario some businesses fear would be catastrophic for the world's fifth largest economy.

 

The political and economic uncertainty over Brexit is having an impact, with data on Monday showing a drop in consumer spending, falling house prices and growing pessimism in household finances.

 

Labour's Corbyn said May was the architect of a constitutional crisis, "leading the most shambolic and chaotic government in modern British history".

 

Several ministers, including Education Minister Damian Hinds, have said they are open to putting the range of options to parliament to see if there is a majority for any of them.

 

Asked if he would rule out a so-called indicative vote, May's spokesman said: "There are no plans to hold one."

 

The prime minister used her statement in parliament on Monday to reject the idea of a second referendum and to again argue that her agreement to keep close economic ties with the EU after Brexit is the only one on offer.

 

"Let us not break faith with the British people by trying to stage another referendum," May said.

 

(Additional reporting by Alistair Smout and William Schomberg; Editing by William Maclean/Mark Heinrich)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-12-18

[ukrules]

At this stage I suspect a 'no deal brexit' is the way forward. Any deal can be worked out after the end of March.

 

No deal, no problem and no need to rush.

[bkkcanuck8]

12 minutes ago, ukrules said:

At this stage I suspect a 'no deal brexit' is the way forward. Any deal can be worked out after the end of March.

 

No deal, no problem and no need to rush.

So you are saying two major restructurings of the economy rather than one... It may be the only way, but it is a very bad way to do things.

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, ukrules said:

At this stage I suspect a 'no deal brexit' is the way forward. Any deal can be worked out after the end of March.

No deal, no problem and no need to rush.

'No deal' cannot get through Parliament. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

5 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

'No deal' cannot get through Parliament. 

No deal is the default. If parliament cannot agree on May’s deal, then it’s no deal, as there is nothing else on the table. 

 

Or can parliament decide calling the whole thing off, or another referendum?

[Grouse]

How about a no confidence vote in Corbyn?

[SheungWan]

22 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

No deal is the default. If parliament cannot agree on May’s deal, then it’s no deal, as there is nothing else on the table. 

Or can parliament decide calling the whole thing off, or another referendum?

Parliament can decide to suspend withdrawal in anticipation of no deal.

[SheungWan]

6 minutes ago, Grouse said:

How about a no confidence vote in Corbyn?

Its been done.

[TopDeadSenter]

33 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

'No deal' cannot get through Parliament. 

Well that will be a great shame. Thwarting the express will of the people as per their once in a lifetime referendum will result in scenes on the street that make the gilet jaunes look like a kiddies garden tea party. We voted, Brexit was the result, now give it to us.

[SheungWan]

1 minute ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Well that will be a great shame. Thwarting the express will of the people as per their once in a lifetime referendum will result in scenes on the street that make the gilet jaunes look like a kiddies garden tea party. We voted, Brexit was the result, give it to us, or else...

The only scenes we are going to see in the street are the winter sales.

[SheungWan]

2 hours ago, ukrules said:

At this stage I suspect a 'no deal brexit' is the way forward. Any deal can be worked out after the end of March.

No deal, no problem and no need to rush.

The maybe this, maybe that corner.

[terryw]

No Deal is the legal default. It can only be stopped if our useless politicians vote through an alternative solution which at the moment seems unlikely.

[Jip99]

5 minutes ago, terryw said:

No Deal is the legal default. It can only be stopped if our useless politicians vote through an alternative solution which at the moment seems unlikely.

 

 

IMO the politicians won’t let no deal happen.

[JAG]

37 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Parliament can decide to suspend withdrawal in anticipation of no deal.

Surely that path will require the agreement of the EU? 

Will they agree to suspension (I rather suspect not) or will they agree to rescinding withdrawal - and if they were to do so what will be the conditions? I somehow doubt that, if they decide to allow the UK remaining in the EU, it will be on the same terms as before we triggered article 50...

[brewsterbudgen]

No deal is the default. If parliament cannot agree on May’s deal, then it’s no deal, as there is nothing else on the table. 
 
Or can parliament decide calling the whole thing off, or another referendum?

Exactly. If there is no deal, Mrs May has made it very clear, there will be no Brexit.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[SheungWan]

3 minutes ago, JAG said:

Surely that path will require the agreement of the EU? 

Will they agree to suspension (I rather suspect not) or will they agree to rescinding withdrawal - and if they were to do so what will be the conditions? I somehow doubt that, if they decide to allow the UK remaining in the EU, it will be on the same terms as before we triggered article 50...

Yes and Yes. 

[steve187]

16 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Exactly. If there is no deal, Mrs May has made it very clear, there will be no Brexit.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

can you give a link to that

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, SheungWan said:

Its been done.

But only amongst Labour MPs

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Well that will be a great shame. Thwarting the express will of the people as per their once in a lifetime referendum will result in scenes on the street that make the gilet jaunes look like a kiddies garden tea party. We voted, Brexit was the result, now give it to us.

No.

[KiChakayan]

2 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

So you are saying two major restructurings of the economy rather than one... It may be the only way, but it is a very bad way to do things.

How about, a no deal exit followed by a referendum on joining the EU? Would be highly democratic wouldn't it? ????

[JAG]

48 minutes ago, KiChakayan said:

How about, a no deal exit followed by a referendum on joining the EU? Would be highly democratic wouldn't it? ????

What's more, it would provide an opportunity to actually spell out what we would be joining, on what terms, and what the long term aims, intentions and aspirations of the organisation we will be joining are. They have never, in my opinion, been made clear nor honestly explained, going back as far as Mr Heath and his claims that we were only joining a trading bloc, a common market, and we were silly and short sighted to have concerns about surrendering sovereignty. That is one reason why many of us dislike and distrust the EU, and voted to leave, not because we were misled by the hubris of silly slogans on the side of a bus.

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Well that will be a great shame. Thwarting the express will of the people as per their once in a lifetime referendum will result in scenes on the street that make the gilet jaunes look like a kiddies garden tea party. We voted, Brexit was the result, now give it to us.

 

Nonsense. The 'express will of the people' - you mean a small majority of those who voted in an advisory referendum. And where was it ever stated in the legislation that it was a "once in a lifetime referendum", apart from in your imagination?

 

People on the streets - yeah right. I don't think so.

 

The vote was to leave the EU. Nothing was mentioned about under what terms, or when. And certainly nothing was mentioned about this being once in a lifetime never to be repeated no matter how much those who like the result want to pretend.

 

The sensible thing would be to withdraw Article 50, and then fight a general election in which voters could vote for the political parties based on their manifestos which would include details of their attitude towards EU membership; or withdraw Article 50 and hold another referendum after the electorate had been given real, truthful, factual information, not lies and propaganda. But the spineless self interest driven scallywags that call themselves politicians won't dare do this. They'd rather try and fudge a mess to save face and pretend they're not just self interested.

[Baerboxer]

14 minutes ago, JAG said:

What's more, it would provide an opportunity to actually spell out what we would be joining, on what terms, and what the long term aims, intentions and aspirations of the organisation we will be joining are. They have never, in my opinion, been made clear nor honestly explained, going back as far as Mr Heath and his claims that we were only joining a trading bloc, a common market, and we were silly and short sighted to have concerns about surrendering sovereignty. That is one reason why many of us dislike and distrust the EU, and voted to leave, not because we were misled by the hubris of silly slogans on the side of a bus.

 

Interesting point. The then French Foreign Minister called on the EU to spell out exactly what their vision, strategy and long term aims for the Union were. And that they should then put it to the people of the EU to ensure they were aligned with the wishes of the majority of citizens.

 

He was quickly silenced by his French leaders and Tusk, Juncker etc completely ignored him!

 

Sadly, the group of bureaucrats, thechnocrats and certain political party alliances that control the EU have decided how it will be. And have no intentions of allowing the electorate to change that goal. 

 

The EU certainly needs some serious reviewing and open accountability by and to the electorate. Britain, with it's long history of democracy, free press, tolerance, and independent justice system, should have been a key instigator and leader in the drive to bring those values to the EU. Instead, and worryingly, recent governments, have leaned more to trying to move Britain to the "we know best and you don't need your historical rights" scenario.

 

 

[Retiredandhappyhere]

3 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Exactly. If there is no deal, Mrs May has made it very clear, there will be no Brexit.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

She has done no such thing.  She has in fact said that there are only two options on the table......................either her deal OR no

deal.

[Retiredandhappyhere]

1 hour ago, JAG said:

What's more, it would provide an opportunity to actually spell out what we would be joining, on what terms, and what the long term aims, intentions and aspirations of the organisation we will be joining are. They have never, in my opinion, been made clear nor honestly explained, going back as far as Mr Heath and his claims that we were only joining a trading bloc, a common market, and we were silly and short sighted to have concerns about surrendering sovereignty. That is one reason why many of us dislike and distrust the EU, and voted to leave, not because we were misled by the hubris of silly slogans on the side of a bus.

The British people had over 40 years to experience what membership of the EU entailed and, when given the chance, they opted to LEAVE.  Had the EU remained basically a trading organisation, instead of getting involved so much in political matters, with gross interference in individual countries affairs, the UK would undoubtedly have voted to stay in.   As it is, they decided that some things were more important than just money, unlike many posters on here who seem to believe that is all that Brexit is about,

[Retiredandhappyhere]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Nonsense. The 'express will of the people' - you mean a small majority of those who voted in an advisory referendum. And where was it ever stated in the legislation that it was a "once in a lifetime referendum", apart from in your imagination?

 

People on the streets - yeah right. I don't think so.

 

The vote was to leave the EU. Nothing was mentioned about under what terms, or when. And certainly nothing was mentioned about this being once in a lifetime never to be repeated no matter how much those who like the result want to pretend.

 

The sensible thing would be to withdraw Article 50, and then fight a general election in which voters could vote for the political parties based on their manifestos which would include details of their attitude towards EU membership; or withdraw Article 50 and hold another referendum after the electorate had been given real, truthful, factual information, not lies and propaganda. But the spineless self interest driven scallywags that call themselves politicians won't dare do this. They'd rather try and fudge a mess to save face and pretend they're not just self interested.

I believe both the main parties in any UK general Election would be committed to LEAVING the EU.  The argument so far has not been about whether or not to leave but whether the terms of leaving are acceptable.  A general Election would therefore not prove anything about staying or leaving, but would merely open the door to Labour, with Jeremy Corbyn then having the opportunity to show us all the wisdom and ability he professes to have regarding re-negotiating the Brexit deal.

 

So far, he has produced nothing but waffle and extreme criticism of Theresa May's deal without offering any clear-cut alternatives.  In the unlikely event of being elected, he would no doubt achieve at best nothing more than May's deal, while ruining the country by applying Labour's usual policies of happily spending other peoples' money.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Nonsense. The 'express will of the people' - you mean a small majority of those who voted in an advisory referendum. And where was it ever stated in the legislation that it was a "once in a lifetime referendum", apart from in your imagination?

 

People on the streets - yeah right. I don't think so.

 

The vote was to leave the EU. Nothing was mentioned about under what terms, or when. And certainly nothing was mentioned about this being once in a lifetime never to be repeated no matter how much those who like the result want to pretend.

 

The sensible thing would be to withdraw Article 50, and then fight a general election in which voters could vote for the political parties based on their manifestos which would include details of their attitude towards EU membership; or withdraw Article 50 and hold another referendum after the electorate had been given real, truthful, factual information, not lies and propaganda. But the spineless self interest driven scallywags that call themselves politicians won't dare do this. They'd rather try and fudge a mess to save face and pretend they're not just self interested.

SINO - Sensible In Name Only 

 

We had a GE last year, remember? 

[Grouse]

49 minutes ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

The British people had over 40 years to experience what membership of the EU entailed and, when given the chance, they opted to LEAVE.  Had the EU remained basically a trading organisation, instead of getting involved so much in political matters, with gross interference in individual countries affairs, the UK would undoubtedly have voted to stay in.   As it is, they decided that some things were more important than just money, unlike many posters on here who seem to believe that is all that Brexit is about,

So you would be happy to stay in the single market and the customs union? OK let's talk 

[sawadee1947]

Seems as if all clowns are gathered in UK's parliament. 

[Jip99]

3 minutes ago, sawadee1947 said:

Seems as if all clowns are gathered in UK's parliament. 

 

Oh, don’t kid yourself that they are ONLY in there....