MPs have voted to reject a no-deal Brexit in any circumstance after rejecting a no-deal Brexit at any time and under any circumstances by 321 votes to 278
MPs dramatically rejected crashing out of the European Union without a deal at any time and under any circumstances.
17 Conservatives are understood to have voted against the Government.
Earlier, MPs voted by 312 to 308 to approve an amendment proposed by Conservative MP Dame Caroline Spelman and Labour MP Jack Dromey to stop the UK leaving the European Union without a deal in any circumstance.
READ MORE: Philip Hammond: 'Scotland gets its fair share, and precious little thanks we get for it'
Dame Caroline attempted to withdraw the amendment, but it was moved by fellow signatory Yvette Cooper and won the support of a majority of MPs during a string of crunch Brexit votes on Wednesday evening.
The amendment, which is not legally binding, was added to a Government motion tabled by Theresa May which would have rejected no-deal on the scheduled Brexit date of March 29 but left it on the table for other times.
It clears the way for the Prime Minister to bring forward a motion for debate on Thursday on whether Parliament wants her to seek a delay to Brexit by requesting an extension to the two-year Article 50 negotiation period.
However no-deal remains the default option unless an extension is agreed with the 27 other EU states, or a deal is passed before the end of the month.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said that Parliament must now take control of the Brexit process and his party will work across the House of Commons to seek a compromise solution.
To avoid a walkout by Cabinet ministers who oppose a no-deal Brexit, Mrs May initially gave Tories a free vote on the Government motion.
But this was transformed into a three-line whip to oppose the amended motion.
Opposition MPs blamed strong-arm tactics by Tory whips as Dame Caroline tried to pull her amendment before it came to a vote.
The former Tory chairman told the Commons that Mrs May's motion offered a greater opportunity than hers for obtaining a "really large majority" against a no-deal Brexit.
But Speaker John Bercow told her it was not possible for her to withdraw the amendment, as one of its other signatories could move it to a vote.
Independent Group MP Anna Soubry told the Commons: "It's a shameful carry-on when a former chairman of the Conservative Party is whipped against to the extent she will not push that amendment to the vote."
READ MORE: Watch and dare to hope as fools take over the asylum
Following the vote an EU Commission spokesperson: “There are only two ways to leave the EU: with or without a deal. The EU is prepared for both. To take no deal off the table, it is not enough to vote against no deal.
"You have to agree to a deal. We have agreed a deal with the Prime Minister and the EU is ready to sign it.”
Following the vote, Sarah Newton has resigned as a minister at the Department for Work and Pensions over the Brexit vote, a DWP source said.
This called for a "standstill" agreement lasting as late as the end of 2021, during which the UK would observe EU rules and pay into Brussels budgets while a full trade deal is negotiated.
The EU has already rejected the idea, which it views as amounting to a transition period without a formal Withdrawal Agreement.
An extension to Article 50 can only be granted by unanimity among the 27 remaining EU member states, and Brussels has made clear they will do so only if the UK presents a "credible" justification for being given more time.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel