UK PM May defeated in parliament, lawmakers create new obstacle to no-deal Brexit

[webfact]

UK PM May defeated in parliament, lawmakers create new obstacle to no-deal Brexit

By William James

 

An Anti-Brexit demonstrator is seen outside the Houses of Parliament in London, Britain, January 8, 2019. REUTERS/Henry Nicholls

 

LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Theresa May's government suffered a defeat in parliament on Tuesday when lawmakers who oppose leaving the European Union without an accord won a vote that created a new obstacle to a no-deal Brexit.

 

The 303 to 296 defeat means that the government needs explicit parliamentary approval to leave the EU without a deal before it can use certain powers relating to taxation law.

 

The defeat highlights May's weak position as leader of a minority government, a divided party, and a critical parliament just days before she is due to hold a pivotal vote on whether to approve the Brexit deal she has negotiated with the EU.

 

"This vote is an important step to prevent a no-deal Brexit. It shows that there is no majority in Parliament, the Cabinet or the country for crashing out of the EU without an agreement," opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn of the Labour Party said.

 

The government downplayed the significance of its defeat.

 

"This amendment does not change the fact that the UK is leaving the EU on the 29 March, and it will not stop the government from collecting tax," a spokesman said.

 

"We will work with Parliament to make sure that the tax system works smoothly in all Brexit scenarios."

 

With less than three months until Britain leaves the EU, May is struggling to win approval for her Brexit deal.

 

A no-deal exit is the default scenario if May's deal is rejected, and the prospect of possible supply chain disruption, medicine shortage and blocked ports has in recent weeks pushed companies and the government to ramp up contingency planning.

 

Some Brexit supporters say a no-deal exit is the only way to truly leave the bloc and that warnings of the economic consequences have been overblown to drum up support for May's plan.

 

But, a majority of lawmakers from across the political spectrum opposed to a no-deal exit have now established their political significance and promised to keep making it harder for the government to leave without a deal.

 

Opposition lawmaker Yvette Cooper said it showed the strength of concern about the dangers a no-deal Brexitcould pose to manufacturers, jobs, food prices, policing and security.

 

"It is a warning to the Government not to drift into No Deal at the end of March by accident or through brinkmanship," she said.

 

"Whilst this amendment only applies to the Finance Bill, and whilst there are still a wide range of different views on the best way forward, it shows that enough MPs (lawmakers) are ready to come together in a sensible way to oppose a chaotic No Deal."

 

The amendment to legislation implementing last year's budget states that powers to amend tax laws to make them work after Brexit could only be used if a deal was agreed, Brexit was cancelled, or, if the government had parliamentary approval to proceed with a no-deal exit.

 

Effectively this constrains the government's ability to act to keep its taxation system working smoothly if it pursues a no-deal Brexit against the wishes of a majority in parliament.

 

It is not an absolute block to leaving the EU without a deal because it does not negate the legislation already in place stating that Britain will leave the EU on March 29.

 

But it is a politically important victory for those opposed to no-deal, demonstrating that they have the ability to defeat the government.

 

With a raft of other legislation still needing to be approved before Brexit day, that signals further difficulties for the government if it pursues a no-deal exit.

 

One member of May's party who co-signed the amendment said he hoped similar tactics would be used on other pieces of legislation - a sentiment endorsed by others in the debate.

 

(Additional reporting by Paul Sandle, Editing by Angus MacSwan)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-01-09

[Chomper Higgot]

Not good news for the Brexit zealots.

 

[KiChakayan]

Britains's designs are unfathomable.

[alant]

The anti democracy rulers will do anything to keep their EU power base.

[alant]

46 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Brexit zealots.

Really!

What would you call the aggressive Remain lobby that refuse to accept the wishes expressed in the referendum vote?

[whatsupdoc]

1 minute ago, alant said:

Really!

What would you call the aggressive Remain lobby that refuse to accept the wishes expressed in the referendum vote?

Realistic and pragmatic?

[Spidey]

Yvette Cooper isn't a lawmaker, she's an MP. What's with the lawmakers? Where did that crap come from? Did it float across the Atlantic like a turd? We've had MPs in the UK for hundreds of years, why the sudden change?

[Henryford]

So the MPs don't want May's deal, they don't want No Deal. What's left, revoke Article 50 by a vote in Parliament before the 29th March. That would have massive consequences on what is left of democracy in Britain.

[Grouse]

25 minutes ago, alant said:

The anti democracy rulers will do anything to keep their EU power base.

What tosh!

[Grouse]

22 minutes ago, alant said:

Really!

What would you call the aggressive Remain lobby that refuse to accept the wishes expressed in the referendum vote?

Sensible?

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, Henryford said:

So the MPs don't want May's deal, they don't want No Deal. What's left, revoke Article 50 by a vote in Parliament before the 29th March. That would have massive consequences on what is left of democracy in Britain.

Apparently it's nothing to do with MPs, it's the lawmakers, whoever they are.

[brewsterbudgen]

So the MPs don't want May's deal, they don't want No Deal. What's left, revoke Article 50 by a vote in Parliament before the 29th March. That would have massive consequences on what is left of democracy in Britain.

For me, those would be good consequences. The future of the country is at stake.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Grouse]

2 minutes ago, Henryford said:

So the MPs don't want May's deal, they don't want No Deal. What's left, revoke Article 50 by a vote in Parliament before the 29th March. That would have massive consequences on what is left of democracy in Britain.

You clearly do not understand representative democracy or that parliament is sovereign!

[StreetCowboy]

9 minutes ago, Grouse said:

What tosh!

The sovereignty of parliament is past. 

 

We should listen to the mob now - it is the only form of true democracy.  And once the mob has spoken, it must be obeyed, regardless of any trepidation or faint-hearted equivocation on the part of the people.

[welovesundaysatspace]

9 minutes ago, Henryford said:

So the MPs don't want May's deal, they don't want No Deal. What's left, revoke Article 50 by a vote in Parliament before the 29th March. That would have massive consequences on what is left of democracy in Britain.

I’m also wondering what this actually means now for the UK. I might be wrong but my understanding is that 29 March has been set in stone on both sides and it is highly unlikely that parliament would vote to change the law that says the UK has to leave the EU. Assuming that this recent move will not pressure too many MPs into voting for May’s deal, doesn’t this mean that a no-deal Brexit will become even more severe?

[Spidey]

3 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I’m also wondering what this actually means now for the UK. I might be wrong but my understanding is that 29 March has been set in stone on both sides and it is highly unlikely that parliament would vote to change the law that says the UK has to leave the EU. Assuming that this recent move will not pressure too many MPs into voting for May’s deal, doesn’t this mean that a no-deal Brexit will become even more severe?

Hopefully it means that we'll stay and fight rather than run and hide. It's the British way.

 

"Better inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in."

[sammieuk1]

The face shooting continues as the UK welcomes hoards of newly form foreign  pound millionaires ????

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Yvette Cooper isn't a lawmaker, she's an MP. What's with the lawmakers? Where did that crap come from? Did it float across the Atlantic like a turd? We've had MPs in the UK for hundreds of years, why the sudden change?

News feeds are international, the use of the term ’Law Makers’ is widely understood as the ‘equivalent’ of ‘MP’s’, ‘Members of Congress’ etc.

 

You yourself understood who the term refers to, as did everyone else.

 

Focus on the good news.

 

Parliament exercising its sovereignty and halting rule by executive order.

[Spidey]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

News feeds are international, the use of the term ’Law Makers’ is widely understood as the ‘equivalent’ of ‘MP’s’, ‘Members of Congress’ etc.

It's a gross insult to the institute of British parliament. Yvette Cooper signs her name, "Yvette Cooper MP" not "Yvette Cooper Lawmaker". Is the media now lowering it's ability to use the English language to pander to simpletons?

 

In the words of the immortal Vern Unsworth, "You can stick your lawmaker where the sun don't shine".

[welovesundaysatspace]

8 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Hopefully it means that we'll stay and fight rather than run and hide. It's the British way.

 

"Better inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in."

Hopes aside, my question

remains how it changed the situation:

- Did it change the likelihood of a no-deal? Maybe a tiny bit.  

- Didn’t it make a no-deal (should it happen) even more severe (because on top of all the mess there would now also be this issue)?

[AGareth2]

32 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Yvette Cooper isn't a lawmaker, she's an MP. What's with the lawmakers? Where did that crap come from? Did it float across the Atlantic like a turd? We've had MPs in the UK for hundreds of years, why the sudden change?

parliament passes laws, enacts

she is an MP

therefore a law maker

[Spidey]

8 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

parliament passes laws, enacts

she is an MP

therefore a law maker

Not in the English English language. She's an MP. This term has recently migrated over from the US. Ergo, US English. Hamburgers I can accept, lawmaker is a bridge too far.

[Chomper Higgot]

19 minutes ago, Spidey said:

It's a gross insult to the institute of British parliament. Yvette Cooper signs her name, "Yvette Cooper MP" not "Yvette Cooper Lawmaker". Is the media now lowering it's ability to use the English language to pander to simpletons?

 

In the words of the immortal Vern Unsworth, "You can stick your lawmaker where the sun don't shine".

A tad sensitive this morning then.

[Spidey]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A tad sensitive this morning then.

No, I find it irksome when American words supplant English words, particularly when they are less appropriate.

 

When I go into McDonalds, in the UK, I order a beefburger, if I ordered a hamburger I would expect it to contain ham. A porkburger contains pork, a chickenburger contains chicken. Ergo I expect my MP to be referred to as an MP not a lawmaker.

[BritManToo]

4 minutes ago, Spidey said:

if I ordered a hamburger I would expect it to contain ham.

And you'd be wrong, as hamburger was named after the city of Hamburg where it originated, not the meat it contained.

[Thingamabob]

This is a disgrace. Shame on you Yvette Cooper. 

[Spidey]

23 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

And you'd be wrong, as hamburger was named after the city of Hamburg where it originated, not the meat it contained.

Yes I know that, but in the UK it's called a beefburger.

 

Although it was named after the city of Hamburg, the term "hamburger" was first used in the US.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

Yes I know that, but in the UK it's called a beefburger.

 

Although it was named after the city of Hamburg, the term "hamburger" was first used in the US.

I think I’ve solved your ‘wet trousers’ problem.

 

Try turning and facing the other way.

[Spidey]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I think I’ve solved your ‘wet trousers’ problem.

 

Try turning and facing the other way.

No wet trousers yet. Got news this morning that makes it look like I'm going to have to pack a bag and fly up to Nong Khai, in the next few days, to bounce some dirty paedophile out of his baan. I don't need this.

 

Some newsfeed perverting my language was the last straw.

[Enoon]

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I’m also wondering what this actually means now for the UK. I might be wrong but my understanding is that 29 March has been set in stone on both sides and it is highly unlikely that parliament would vote to change the law that says the UK has to leave the EU. Assuming that this recent move will not pressure too many MPs into voting for May’s deal, doesn’t this mean that a no-deal Brexit will become even more severe?

 

Anything is possible if the lawmakers (in both UK and EU) wish it so and have the will to make it so.

 

Claims that anything is definitely going to happen (from anxious spectators) are an expression of hope rather than certainty.