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...)

Leave being the ....going against the choice I imagine most leavers had good reason to.

"Easiest deal in history"...hmmm

its just said on the news Theresa May just said to the house of commons after the vote that as per law the UK is set to leave the EU in march without a deal or the house needs to agree a deal or face up to a long delay

idiots guide
Says no deal is not out, as it is the default

Why were they told to vote against their own motion? What even was "their own motion"?

They were not, they were told to vote against the amendment to their motion.

So they've got to leave or extend.

Well yes,that's what the vote was, they have voted we will not leave with not deal. So we either extend till we reach a deal or revoke.thats the whole point of it.

Just reading the guardian and the EU are saying the "removal" of no deal means nothing, stating it's like the Titanic voting for the iceberg to move.

So in order to leave. we have to leave with or without a deal, there is no leaving at all if there is "no deal"; we either leave with a deal (ha yeah right) or leave without a deal, so how is no deal being removed?

So take from that what you will, I know what I am taking from it.

No deal remains the legal default. But as Parliament has said they don't support no deal they either have to extend and reach a deal or revoke article 50 (change the law so we're not leaving)

Come someone explain the main motion? I thought Theresa May was going to vote for it but not whip for it. In the end , she votes against it. Or have I misunderstood?

I cannot believe rhe level of confusuon over something so so simple

Tonight parliament voted to stay in the eu unless we have a deal agreed,

Teresa May has commuted to pass this into legislation

As such the U.K. faces two options.

We either agree a deal

Or

We revoke.

The delay is nothing more than logistics to enable us to come to either of those conclusions.

It is that simple.

e1y1 - thanks for reiterating what I have been saying all along, all news is reproting the same thing. She doesn't have to enshrine this no-deal in law because it was not a binding vote. Theresa May has stated the options to the house of commons including no deal is still there.

The legal default is still there, parliament have just voted for their will but ultimately legally we can leave with no deal.

But they were told to vote against the amendment which was a very strong rejection of no deal. So all a bit woolly and back pedalling still. And clearly they didn't listen to her as no deal was rejected.

BBC just stated the vote in parliament in not legally binding that the legal default has not changed that we can still leave with no deal! FFS not even BBC News would broacast that much incorrect information.

So why is the bbc still saying no deal is not off the table.
I really do not think this is simple.

Come someone explain the main motion? I thought Theresa May was going to vote for it but not whip for it. In the end , she votes against it. Or have I misunderstood?

Yes you have misunderstood, her motion was not voted on. It was amended, so the amendment was voted on, and passed. She whipped against the amendment.

It's like the UK doesn't know wft it wants.
Funny to watch.

StealthPolarBear - because basically nothing has changed other than Parliament saying they don't want a no deal brexit and yet they also don't back the deal so basically trying to keep us in the EU. Remainer MPS still trying to keep us in the EU.

It's like the UK doesn't know wft it wants.
Funny to watch

It's like a tv disaster movie probably a bit dramatic, but how can any country take us serious after this shit show.

But bluntness is arguing the opposite

It changed from a free vote to a whipped vote because:

• the original motion put forward by the government was about not leaving without a deal on 29th March: free vote.

• the Spelman amendment passed by 4 votes, which amended the government’s motion to say that we shouldn’t leave without a deal at all.

• once that amendment had passed, it changed the game because it meant that even if there was an extension to Brexit, the options would be narrowed to take whatever deal the EU offers us or remain. So then it became a whipped vote because the government suddenly had to defeat its own motion to keep negotiating power on a possible extension.

Correct me if I’m wrong, fellow MNers.

Oh my,

No deal is not off the table until it is passed into to legislation. Until this happens it is the default option.

Tonight MPs voted against it. Teresa May has commuted to pass it into legislation. As she is prime minister she cannot renage on this without being in contempt of parliament,she has confirmed she will do it. There is no question.

Until she does it, it's the default option. But it's semantics. It will be passed into legislation in the coming days. So to all extents and purposes it's off the table. However until she does, technically it's not off the table.

The vote was only tonight, she cannot get it into legislation a couple of hours later.she needs a few days.

OP, this is the best explanation I've seen of what's going on (If I can understand it, anyone can )

Today was pretty fast moving and I wasn’t able to keep up. Thanks

The original motion was that if we would not leave on 29th March with no deal. After that time no deal would be back on the table (still have may bargaining power). The amendment said that no deal is permanently off the table, decreasing bargaining power. May didn't want folk to support the amended motion.

Thanks ThomasRichard that helps
And so who won? My understanding is we now have no deal off the table forever, is that right?