OK. Here's a message from Labour Say (if you support Labour and remain, why not join their support group/ sign up for their newsletters?):
This came by email almost immediately after the vote:
Quote:
I know that what's just happened in parliament seems weird, so I wanted to let you know what went down. Tonight parliament voted on three main things. The first of those was an amendment for a second referendum, the second was an amendment to provide something called 'indicative votes', and the third was the main motion, put forward by the Government, to support extending article 50. Here's what each of them meant.
Firstly – the second referendum amendment. This was not put forward by the people running the campaign for a public vote, but by a group of backbench MPs who became impatient. This is why the campaign recommended that MPs not vote for it, and it's part of why Labour decided to abstain on the vote. It's not necessarily because they don't want a People's Vote to happen, but because they believe that now is not the right time to push for a vote in parliament. That means that, while this motion may have fallen, the idea of a public vote is very much still alive.
Secondly – indicative votes. Put simply, this amendment would have provided an opportunity for MPs to show how they think Brexit should happen. What was crucial about this was that it could have been the start of the process for a People's Vote. The role that MPs can play here is to whittle down the options – no one wants a ballot paper with 40 different versions of Brexit – so MPs can make clear which of these choices they're willing to pass through parliament, be it Norway+, May's deal, Labour's deal, no-deal or whatever, and that could then be put back to the people. This amendment fell narrowly, by just 2 votes, which means that MPs have made the bizarre decision to decline to say what it is they are actually in favour of.
Thirdly – the main motion. This was a chance for MPs to prove that they are in favour of extending Article 50, having shown last night that they are against leaving the EU with no-deal. This passed easily. While this isn't legally binding, meaning it isn't now the default position of the government, it does show that parliament would rather extend the deadline than leave without a deal.
So, what does this all mean?
This means that, as we've known all along, there is only one way out of this – It's to put this back to the people for a final vote.
Unquote
What's happening is SO complicated that I think it's difficult to follow the nuances, so I'm finding these campaigners' explanations really helpful!