People’s Vote campaign asked Labour not to back a second referendum!
The earlier vote, proposing a ‘second referendum’ was voted down! The amendment put down by former Tory MP Sarah Wollaston It was defeated by 334 votes to 85, a majority of 249.
The call was put in an amendment by former Tory now Independent Group MP Sarah Wollaston.
The fate of the amendment was sealed after the People’s Vote campaign asked MPs who back the referendum not to back it and Labour said it would abstain.
The master of spin, Alastair Campbell, a leading figure in the so called ‘People’s Vote’ campaign, claimed it was “wrong to press a people’s vote amendment today when the issue is article 50 extension”.
He said a second referendum was “a possible solution to the current crisis, not an option within it” and that there would be more opportunities ahead when other options to solve the Brexit crisis had been exhausted.
Not trusting the People’s vote 25 Labour remain MPs broke the party whip and voted for a second referendum
Parliament also narrowly rejected a plan for backbench MPs to seize control of the Brexit process from the government by 314 votes to 312.
MPs vote by majority of 210 to extend article 50 and delay Brexit
Delay must be approved by EU, spokesperson reiterates
An EU Commission Spokesperson has reiterated that any delay to the Brexit process must be approved by all 27 member states.
Full statement here:
We take note of tonight’s votes. A request for an extension of Article 50 requires the unanimous agreement of all 27 Member States. It will be for the European Council (Article 50) to consider such a request, giving priority to the need to ensure the functioning of the EU institutions and taking into account the reasons for and duration of a possible extension. President Juncker is in constant contact with all leaders.
The vote leaves open whether the delay will allow time to implement the existing deal or to find a new course of action.
Commons voted in favour of delaying Brexit day beyond March 29, either to give time to implement a deal or to give time for an alternative course of action.
MPs voted by 412 to 202 (a majority of 210) in favour of a government motion that Theresa May was effectively forced into laying before the house after parliament voted Wednesday night to rule out a no-deal Brexit.
The motion sets out two scenarios for extending the Article 50 negotiation period. In the first, the House of Commons approves the prime minister’s deal by Wednesday March 20. She then goes to the European Council summit the following day requesting an extension until June 30 simply to get technical Brexit legislation through parliament.
May is expected to bring her deal back for a third meaningful vote on Monday or Tuesday next week to try and make this happen.
The second scenario deals with no approval for her deal by March 20. In that case, May will still go to the European Council seeking the extension. But the motion also notes that the EU would be “highly likely” to require a “clear purpose” for an extension, and that any extension beyond June 30 “would require the United Kingdom to hold European Parliament elections in May 2019.”
The latter element, simply stating the legal position that British MEPs will need to sit in the new European Parliament if the U.K. is a member when it is formed, appears to be aimed at spooking Brexiteers into voting for May’s deal to prevent such a scenario.
PLEASE HELP US KEEP GOING AD-FREE
This is a "Pay as You Feel" website.
Hey there! Thanks for stopping by. If you've enjoyed reading the articles on Labour Heartlands so far, We would be incredibly grateful if you could consider making a small donation. Labour Heathlands is not your typical news outlet. We are not here to simply regurgitate the daily news cycle, that's for the rest of them. Our focus is on delving deeper, uncovering the untold stories and shedding light on the issues that the mainstream media chooses to ignore.
Our unwavering commitment to journalistic integrity means that we are not influenced by any external forces. We are not beholden to PR companies, advertisers or press barons, and we refuse to let anyone dictate what we report on. Our editorial independence is sacrosanct, and our only allegiance is to the truth.
While we do not align ourselves with any particular political party, we stand firmly against corruption, injustice and the erosion of truth and the rule of law. We believe that accurate information is the lifeblood of a democracy and that facts are not up for debate.
Once again, thank you for your support – We truly couldn't do this without you!