PARLIAMENT rejected all Brexit alternatives last night with MPs failing to back any of the four options put in front of them.
The Government indicated that given the lack of consensus on any way forward they would now look to bring Theresa May’s Brexit deal before MPs for a fourth time.
READ MORE: This is how the SNP voted tonight over the Brexit options
But Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn said if it was good enough for the Prime Minister to have three chances at her deal it was only right MPs had another attempt at indicative votes on Wednesday.
In a point of order after the result, the SNP’s Ian Blackford pointed out that the majority of Scottish MPs had voted for all four options, and yet despite that, Scotland could still crash out of the EU with no deal.
He told MPs: “Fundamentally, from us that represent seats in Scotland, we voted to remain in the European Union, and tonight a vast majority of Scottish MPs have voted to revoke Article 50.
“A vast majority of Scottish MPs have voted for a People’s Vote.
“A vast majority of Scottish MPs have voted to stay within the single market and customs union.
“It is crystal clear to us from Scotland that our votes in this House are disrespected and it’s becoming increasingly clear to the people of Scotland that if we want to secure our future as a European nation then we’re going to have to take our own responsibilities.
“Sovereignty rests with the people of Scotland, not with this house. The day is coming when we will determine our own future and it will be as an independent country.”
READ MORE: The Conservatives have only just learned what a customs union is
The option that came closest was Ken Clarke’s plan for a customs union, which was defeated by 276 to 273.
Clarke called on the politicians who had either abstained or rejected his proposal to think again. Five LibDems voted against, while the SNP abstained.
The proposal for the so-called Common Market 2.0, described as a Norway-plus Brexit, was defeated by 282 votes to 261, despite being supported by Labour and the SNP.
It proposed UK membership of the European Free Trade Association and European Economic Area, which would mean remaining in the single market and a comprehensive customs arrangement with the EU.
In the minutes after the result, despite gaining 72 votes since last week, Nick Boles, the MP who tabled the motion, resigned from the Tories.
“I’ve given everything in an attempt to find a compromise,” he told MPs. “I accept I have failed. I have failed chiefly because my party refuses to compromise. I regret therefore to announce I can no longer sit for this party.”
MPs also rejected SNP MP Joanna Cherry’s call for Brexit to be cancelled if the UK appears to be on course to crash out of the EU without a deal.
Cherry was furious with Labour after the party told its MPs to abstain on her motion.
Corbyn had whipped his backbenchers to vote in favour of all motions bar the SNP’s. Despite a sizeable rebellion – 121 of his MPs backed the proposal, including most Scottish Labour MPs – it was defeated by 292 to 191.
Speaking during the debate Cherry said she was “really extremely puzzled” by the Labour frontbench decision.
“We all have to compromise today,” she told the party’s shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer.
Cherry asked Starmer what he thought the reaction would be of working-class voters “if by the Labour frontbench’s failure to support this motion tonight we crash out with no deal a week on Friday”.
Starmer defended his party’s decision, saying last night was not the right time to rule out a hard Brexit. “We have always said we will take whatever means are necessary to stop no deal,” he said. “The exercise we’re involved in at the moment is to break the impasse and find a way through on the indicative process. I accept if that fails there will have to be a an insurance exercise, but we’re not at that stage yet. I’m not rejecting the principle.”
Labour MP Peter Kyle’s demand of a confirmatory referendum that would see any deal put to the public was defeated by 292 to 280. The SNP’s Pete Wishart, who believes the precedent of a confirmatory referendum is problematic for independence campaigners, abstained.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel