Can someone please explain to me what just happened with the vote??

[FFSFFSFFS]

I am beyond relieved that it means No Deal?

But can anyone explain in very simple language what the vote was about??

(the newspapers can't seem to explain it clearly enough for my teeny mind...)

No deal is off the table, but the interesting bit is the next vote.

The vote that just passed was advisory rather than binding, so the government doesn’t have to listen to it. The main vote is coming after the Malthouse amendment. That’s the one that needs to pass for a no-deal Brexit to be off the table (for now).

I can't belive 308 idiots voted to support leaving with no deal. Well 307 self serving disaster spectators and one moron! Role on revocation of A.50, please!

Currently, the default option, if nothing is agreed to leave on WTO terms. If the Spelman amendment (that's not called that any more) is not passed, there will still be the default option of leaving without a deal.

So it's interesting constitutionally if MPs don't vote to amend, as they'll have both rejected and facilitated no dea. So it's not over just yet!

The amendment vote that just happened doesn't change the current legal standpoint of leaving the E.U. on the 29th, either by way of WA or no deal.

Further legal instruments will need to go through the house to prevent a no deal. That is still the legal default.

In addition we will need to work with the E.U. to figure out an extension (or revoke) if the WA doesn't some how get voted through (which I can't see happening)

So, now the main vote has gone through and because it was amended it means that MPs have voted against a no-deal Brexit whenever (if ever) the UK leaves the EU, not just if it leaves on 29th March.

The legal default is still a no-deal Brexit on 29th March, due to UK and EU law. The same options add still there: no Brexit, Withdrawal Agreement, different agreement, no-deal Brexit (default).

So - the vote was against "no deal" if there is no WA. And the WA has now been voted down?

HOWEVER - it is not within the gift of the HOC to decide this because legally the UK has given the section 50 notice already and now avoiding No Deal depends on the EU agreeing to an extension?

Am I close?

Getting an extension agreed or I guess the alternative is that we revoke art 50 for now (we can do the unilaterally) and then decide whether / when to exercise it again.

No deal is off the table. She committed to pass into legislation whatever was voted for tonight, she can't back track or she will be held in contempt of parliament.

So thr two options are agree a deal. Or revoke and stay in.

There is no third option. That's it.

This might lead to a general election as Teresa May whipped her MPs to vote against rejecting no deal, and 17 broke the whip, inc 4 cabinet ministers, she is supposed to fire them if they do not resign. Two already resigned,

So what's next is yet to be seen, but tonight means it's either a deal or it's revoke. And in between time possible a general election or a second referendum.

What an utter shit show.

I’m so confused. Why did the second motion pass with a bigger majority than the first. What’s the difference between them?

Pile of fucking donkeys. I despair.

Revoke now please.

She committed to pass into legislation whatever was voted for tonight, she can't back track or she will be held in contempt of parliament.

Will that bother her?

Out of interest, can the EU excommunicate a member state?

Out of interest, can the EU excommunicate a member state?

Haha.

They can tell us no extension and if we can’t agree a deal we’re crashing out on the 29th.

But we can't unilaterally revoke Art 50 can we? i.e. would we need the EU's approval to do this.

It is beyond a shit show.

So if we don’t extend and we don’t agree a deal... we will still end up with no deal anyway? I’m so confused

They can tell us no extension and if we can’t agree a deal we’re crashing out on the 29th.

But, apart from that, could the EU turn around and say “actually, we’re sick of your shit, off you pop”?

(I know this would never happen, just wondering hypothetically).

Totally confused.
We can’t agree a deal.
But can’t leave without one.
EU will not give an extension.

What’s happening?

could the EU turn around and say “actually, we’re sick of your shit, off you pop”?

Nope, not if we revoke. We can do that and they can't do anything about that even if they're sick of us to the back teeth.

Does this mean the only option is revoke? Please say yes

Will that bother her?

She would be held in contempt of parliament if she did. It honour it.

However she is clearly going to honour it from her speech after wards

.But we can't unilaterally revoke Art 50 can we

Yes we can revoke at any time up until 10.59 pm on the 29 th and we do not need eu approval to do so. But it's like the point above the au wants us to stay in so it's irrelevant, just like Teresa May being held in contempt of parliament, as she's already said she will honour it and confirmed it after the vote.

Does this mean the only option is revoke? Please say yes

No, I'm sorry, it's either a deal or revoke. It simply means we now can't crash out with no deal and will not leave on the 29th.

Honestly, revoke would be the grown up option here.

Although I can't pretend I wouldn't prefer the UK to remain, I was perfectly willing to accept May's deal. It's no deal I think is unjustifiably destructive.That needed to be nipped in the bud.