"In return, most of the rebels and Labour backed a compromise Government amendment to support Mrs May's pledge to invoke Article 50 to start Brexit before 31 March 2017.

MPs held two votes, with the first to add the Government amendment to the original Labour motion approved by 461 votes to 89, majority 372.

This was opposed by 23 Labour MPs and one Conservative in the form of Mr Clarke.

Mr Clarke was the sole Conservative to vote against the motion."

http://news.sky.com/story/mps-vote-t...le-50-10687026

What happened to all these Tories that were going to rebel then?

Everybody knew Parliament wouldn't block article 50. Well everybody but a few Brexit loons who use Mail/Express as their source of information. What this has done has stopped Theresa May being able to make her ridiculous statements. It's over to her to produce the goods and stop fighting phoney wars.

Theresa May caved in and said government would support Labour motion to provide Brexit plan prior to article 50 being triggered.

I think you're misunderstanding something here.

Labour has laid out 5 tests that May's published plan has to pass. Should it fail then the motion is redundant. One of the tests is staying in the CU.

There is a huge majority re CU in Parliament so no getting around that.

There is obviously also a hell of a difference between a non-binding motion and an Act of Parliament which has to pass both houses.

There was nothing to rebel against lol. No one wants to block A50 but have Parliament vote on the deal terms which requires being told what the plan is. The motion ticked all boxes.

You do realise it doesn't actually matter what she says, my personal feelings is she shouldn't say anything.

As for the UK's plan for leaving the EU it isn't really up to us it doesn't matter what our plan is or how many MPs agree with it it is up to the EU negotiators and what they expect to happen.

Also it is a bit like poker you wouldn't show your hand to your opponent would you it would be madness.

So whatever our MPs agree we may never get it they can agree anything they like.

But we will leave the EU.

I could be wrong, but I thought both Miller and Dos Santos voted Leave?

You are falling for Theresa May stalling tactic. It's complete nonsense to say that the 27 European states will know the British position in negotiations before UK Parliament and indeed British people. Do you really think it is acceptable that it gets discussed in Europe and we have to pick it up second hand?

I'm concerned that our politicians would accept a deal that still gave the EU even the tiniest power to interfere in our affairs.


Errrr that's what I said, that a few people raised it, in many because they want to thwart the Brexit process. I asked a question, twice, a couple of days ago, "Had the use of the Royal Prerogative been included in the referendum question, would you have accepted it as the means of triggering Article50?"

I live in a very rural area and can confirm there is no shortage of either.

Farmers are the poorest, hardest done by sector. I know, I live amongst them and they're always telling me until I point to their top of the range Range Rover or the £7000 saddle on their horse.

You're fully falling for May's bluff.

There is no poker game and there are no cards to be held close to her chest. The EU's red lines are openly available to anyone.

The UK has not many choices.

a. It's out completely and WTO - not an option due to CU and passport
b. It's out of EU and EEA but in CU - feasible depending on damage on services
c. It's EEA and CU - feasible but much worse deal than EU
d. It's EEA and no CU - not feasible
e. It's Switzerland - feasible but a problem re FoM
d. It's Canada - solves customs issues for most goods, doesn't solve services but does solve FoM
f. It's a mix of e & d plus some extra CU provisions because we have something to offer in regards to security and military and may agree to pay in a bit more in return for provisions on services, at the same time we could apply an emergency brake on FoM for 10 years plus.

There is a lovely white paper available from the House of Lords library explaining those options and coming to the conclusion that really only b and f could be achieved without alienating voters and damaging services.

The existence of that white paper alone should give you an idea of what the Lords expect, regardless of the Commons. Add last night's motion into the mix and you can see exactly where we are heading.

Patronising and insulting .....again

No based on factual evidence built up over the last few months.

They voted for whatever they tell you they voted for, you just have to rely on believing them.

I have to laugh at the newspapers calling the 89 who voted against little more than traitors, how many of them are in constituencies where the vote was remain.

Conversely how many voted for where their constituents voted remain?

You can't have 'will of the people' both ways.

Some think 23rd June installed a dictatorship.

For everybody who still doesn't understand the actual impact of yesterday here is a nice summary:

The motion envisages a plan, full scrutiny of it, and then A50 triggering according to timetable. If the Government fails to produce a proper plan or allow proper scrutiny, there can be no A50 trigger according to timetable.

So the real value of yesterday's motion goes to Labour's pro-activeness (for once).

Still no mention of the Vote on the front page of the BBC news site.

Yes, you could be wrong.

Not a surprise. If the court judgement goes the way they want this will fill the space instead.

It has been caused by establishment politicians who didn't like the result creating a faux distinction in an attempt to overturn the will of a majority in a referendum.

Unless of course the Conservatives gird their loins and vote as a party, hence ensuring a majority. I except Thatcher's errand boy, Clarke.

It's not really big news. The court ruling won't be until January.

Well they won't, it's too big for that and it can't be whipped as that would open more doors to legal action.