British parliament rejects Brexit deal again, this time by 149 votes

Originally published at:



Hmm, what if she said, “A parliamentary vote is not sufficiently democratic. We must put this to the people directly.”


She said the EU would need to know what use any extension would be put to.

A second referendum is the only answer the EU should accept, and while I hope they would for everyone’s sake I can understand why they wouldn’t after all this stupid douchebaggery on the part of the Leavers and the Tories.



For our British members… I’m so sorry. This must be never-ending hell.

[ETA] I’m exhausted just hearing about it, so I can’t imagine what it’s like to be living through it…




Given how much of the excuse and campaigning for this shit was based around purported unilateral EU dictates on very British subjects like pints of beer, jam, and situational homosexuality in boarding schools. I think the EU demanding a new vote would backfire badly.

The best they can probably do at this point is call Corbin’s bluff by granting an extension to allow for that referendum he’s demanding now that it’s too late to pull one off. With a looser deadline Labor is effectively stuck following that up, David Cameron style. But given how things are going I dunno if any of the other factions will get on board

1 Like

Given the staggering defeat these bills have suffered in the Parliament I’m not sure an extension would make sense. It’s just dragging out the inevitable at this point. Better to just let it happen and try to pick up the pieces afterward. The only way an extension makes sense is if they hold a second referendum where the options are “Stay in the EU / Brexit” with a second question of “If Brexit, then: Accept May’s plan / Hard Brexit”.

They can dust off the famous NHS Tax Bus to advertise the options to the people.


I don’t see how a second referendum could possibly do anything. The EU has a vested interest in making sure nobody else tries this kind of nonsense.


Remember kids, when things don’t go your way just double down until you can no longer double down and then blame someone else for not pointing out it was a bad idea in the first place.


It wouldn’t be the EU demanding a new vote. It would be the UK coming to them and begging them for another 3-4 months and the EU saying “we will, but it has to be a for a good reason”, and the UK realising there’s only one good reason. That allows plenty of room for the UK to formulate whatever ballot questions it likes, or to shrug and say “nah, we’ll take hard Brexit on 29 March and see what happens.”

It wouldn’t be a bad move on the part of the hard Brexit Tories, given how useless and irresponsible Corbyn has been in this mess. That played-out old socialist would probably tank the People’s Referendum, too, as long as it helped bring back his utopia of the UK in 1974 (including, apparently, a return of The Troubles).


Oh it’s almost certainly headed to a hard Brexit mess. But if the EU wanted to maximize the chance of a new vote along with the chances of it going stay/no Brexit. The only way they can really do that is an extension. They may be able to increase the likely hood of a referendum actually happening without impacting the vote by tying the extension to a new vote, rather than a deadline.

But like I said, Labor might be on the hook because of Corbin’s recent call for a new referendum. But they aren’t running the show, and noone else in parliament has that hanging over their heads.

So we should expect Reign of Fire any day now.



So about 200 years more of Groundhog Brexit before they decide trying to make the best of the situation?


I live in Ireland and let me assure you: a hard border/no-deal brexit will result in a return to paramilitary violence.


Referendums are just a means of getting a current sense of what the electorate would like to refer; they are meant to be non-binding and ephemeral. So consider that more information has come in, or even more voters are available to get their opinion, or the data may’ve been poorly collected the first time. Yes there are very loud (well funded) voices which would be afraid of a new canvasing of opinion - and they ought to be thoroughly asked why they’re so afraid of running the experiment again. Why, it could even be said that some consortium of ‘lesser’ parties would fare well in the next elections if they risked getting the current opinion of those they represent …and so on and so forth [enter Pratchett’s version of DEATH to tap me on the shoulder]




When are they gonna admit this Brexit thing was just a big stupid isolationist bit of nonsense to begin with?


They admitted that a long time ago, but at the same time they have to admit that a majority of voting Britons think that’s a good idea and they happen to live in a representative democracy.

They can’t just ignore the results of the referendum without basically telling 51% of the voters that their opinions don’t matter. It would be a bloodbath.

1 Like

Just in case anyone wondered how long you would have to wait Speculation here about who the unfortunates will be that are willing to staff a border post.