MPs have given no majority to any of the eight Brexit alternatives considered on day one of the indicative vote process.
MPs voted against the motion demanding Brexit with no deal on April 12 by 160 votes to 400, majority 240.
READ MORE: DUP: We do not abstain on the Union
MPs voted against a cross-party motion proposing continued participation in the single market and a "comprehensive customs arrangement" with the EU - dubbed Common market 2.0 - by 283 votes to 188, majority 95.
MPs voted against a motion proposing remaining within the European Economic Area and rejoining the European Free Trade Association but staying outside the customs union by 377 votes to 65, majority 312.
MPs voted against a motion tabled by Tory grandee Ken Clarke calling for a "permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU" by 272 votes to 264, majority eight.
MPs voted against Labour's motion proposing an alternative plan for a comprehensive customs union and close alignment with the single market by 307 votes to 237, majority 70.
MPs voted against the motion to revoke Article 50 in order to avoid a no-deal Brexit by 293 votes to 184, majority 109.
READ MORE: Brexit latest: Results of indicative votes announced
MPs voted against the motion seeking a public vote before ratification of any Brexit deal by 295 votes to 268, majority 27.
Speaker John Bercow announced the results as follows for the indicative votes procedure:
The votes in full
Motion B) No deal - defeated by 400 votes to 160, majority 240.
Motion D) Common market 2.0 - defeated by 283 votes to 188, majority 95.
Motion H) Efta and EEA - defeated by 377 votes to 65, majority 312.
Motion J) Customs union - defeated by 272 votes to 264, majority eight.
Motion K) Labour's alternative plan - defeated by 307 votes to 237, majority 70.
Motion L) Revocation to avoid no-deal - defeated by 293 votes to 184, majority 109.
Motion M) Confirmatory public vote - defeated by 295 voted to 268, majority 27.
Motion O) Contingent preferential arrangements - defeated by 422 votes to 139, majority 283.
MPs voted against a motion tabled by Tory MPs including Marcus Fysh calling for the Government to seek preferential trade arrangements with the EU by 422 votes to 139, majority 283.
Brexit Secretary Steve Barclay said, with no majority for any of the options, MPs should now back Mrs May's deal "in the national interest".
He said: "The results of the process this House has gone through today strengthens our view that the deal the Government has negotiated is the best option.
"If you believe in delivering on the referendum result by leaving the EU with a deal, then it's necessary to back the Withdrawal Agreement - if we do not do that, then there are no guarantees about where this process will end.
"It's for that reason that I call on all members from across this House in the national interest to back the Prime Minister's deal."
Raising a point of order, Sir Oliver said: "It is, of course, a very great disappointment that the House has not chosen to find a majority for any proposition, however those of us who put this proposal forward as a way of proceeding predicted that we would not this evening reach a majority, and indeed for that very reason put forward a business of the House motion designed to allow the House to reconsider these matters on Monday."
To shouts of "no", he added: "And if on Monday the House is able to reach a majority view, I think that would be in the interests of our constituents, but I personally continue to harbour the hope that (MPs) will see fit to vote in favour of a Government motion between now and close of play on Friday. Which would obviate the necessity for a further set of votes on Monday."
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