No Deal Brexit Remains in Play after Latest Parliamentary Theatre

A couple of weeks ago I published an article about the deception surrounding a prospective ‘no deal‘ Brexit outcome, and how political figureheads and campaigners who support a second referendum are also advocating for a ‘hard‘ Brexit option on a future ballot paper.

Whilst nothing has changed on this front, what has developed is the gradual process of elimination in regards to alternatives to a second vote. This week in parliament MP’s tabled seven amendments in the wake of Prime Minister Theresa May’s meaningful vote defeat a fortnight ago. Five of these were voted down, including one by Labour MP Yvette Cooper and Conservative Nick Boles which called for Article 50 to be extended for up to nine months and for the prevention of a no deal exit. A separate amendment put forward by Labour’s Rachel Reeves that championed an extension to Article 50 in the event of no agreement on a deal was also rejected.

Two amendments gained majority support. The first was from Conservative MP Graham Brady’s, who called for the Irish backstop to be eliminated from the withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU, and for ‘alternative arrangements‘ to be made instead. The second was tabled by Conservative Caroline Spelman, which stated that the UK should not leave the EU without a deal.

Let’s quickly address each one in turn and weigh up how both may ultimately benefit the likelihood of a second referendum.

Prior to and immediately after Graham Brady’s amendment was approved, the EU rejected all possibility of the withdrawal agreement that was finalised last year being reopened. Assuming their stance remains intransigent, the next two weeks will yield no progress on dropping the Irish backstop from the official text. This would mean Theresa May returning to parliament around Valentine’s Day to inform MP’s that no ‘alternative arrangements‘ have been agreed. In short, it is most likely a dead end.

Caroline Spelman’s amendment is more interesting. Whilst MP’s voted in favour of the UK remaining in the EU should no agreement be ratified, this was not binding on the government – meaning it was purely an advisory measure and carries no legislative force.

However, as pointed out by The Spectator:

The defeat demonstrates the possibility that, as the end of March approaches, parliamentary opposition to no deal could prove enough to prevent Britain crashing out of the EU.

What this suggests is that in the end MP’s will require a specific vehicle – one that can gain majority support – to prevent parliament sanctioning a no deal. It will not simply be enough for politicians to disavow the option.

At this stage readers should be aware that last week a proposed amendment that would have called for a second referendum on Brexit was withdrawn before a vote could take place. The reasoning given was that MP’s campaigning for another vote did not yet have sufficient cross party support to legislate for it. This, along with defeated amendments calling for Article 50 to be extended, were pounced upon by ‘leavers‘ as the death knell for any chances that a ‘People’s Vote‘ could be held. In my view this is premature.

Caroline Spelman’s amendment, whilst not binding, was the first indication from parliament that a majority does not support a no deal Brexit. Running counter to that is Brady’s amendment, which has created the false impression that a non-negotiable withdrawal agreement is in fact negotiable within a two week window. I believe what we are seeing now is the final vestiges of hope that the EU will back down and renege on an Irish back stop. When the realisation hits that they will not, a further avenue towards a deal will have been closed.

Had the amendment calling for a second referendum been carried, it would have been defeated. Right now, it remains the one alternative option that has yet to be explored in parliament. That moment will come. It is just a question of timing and under what circumstances it is brought to the commons.

As yet, a ‘people’s vote‘ is not the official policy of the opposition Labour party. I suspect that if this stance shifts in the next couple of weeks, the route towards a second referendum will open up. As all alternatives are gradually whittled away, it will soon come down to a straight choice. Back a second vote or allow the UK to leave the EU with no deal. A majority already supports not leaving without a deal.

This choice, however, is a false dichotomy. Should parliament end up legislating for another vote, it will be under the pretext that this is now the only option left to avoid a ‘cliff edge‘ no deal. Except, this is not true. If Theresa May’s deal is not put to the British public, the only alternative would be for leaving the EU on World Trade Organisation terms. In other words, the same no deal scenario that a majority of MP’s reject.

Even if May’s deal made it onto a ballot, it’s emphatic rejection in the House of Commons means that almost certainly a no deal option would also be included. Remember that proponents for a second referendum have gone on the record as supporting a hard Brexit choice.

Anti Brexit groups, such as Best for Britain and Our Future Our Choice, either fail to understand the psychology behind a ‘People’s Vote‘ or are deliberately deceiving people. Every day they promote how the only way to avoid no deal is to give the electorate the final say. Their fixation on securing a remain option on the ballot masks what a second vote has the ability to facilitate, which in essence is the ‘hard‘ Brexit they are opposed to.

And, crucially, how many are giving consideration into the role of central banks in the Brexit process? At Davos last week, the IMF took the opportunity to again warn about the dangers of a no deal exit. My feeling is that the next level of warnings against no deal will come in the midst of a referendum campaign. What was dismissed as ‘Project Fear‘ in 2016 would likely be dismissed again.

This is a sentiment I could support, were it not for the fact that given the prominent role of sterling throughout this process, the Bank of England and fellow globalist institutions would ultimately have full economic control of the fallout from the UK leaving the EU with no agreement.

Globalists are openly agitating to transform the global financial system, and history dictates that transformations on this scale require significant bouts of crisis to achieve what are predetermined goals. From their perspective, Brexit is a crisis that will not go to waste.


  1. Hi Steven,
    Having read this and your previous article on BREXIT I am still no wiser as to your thoughts on how T.May and the globalists are going to play this in order to prevent the UK leaving the EU.

    I think we both agree that politicians are being corallled down ever narrower paths and thereby have ever fewer options, thus the options for a real or hard BREXIT are being eliminated, if I am correct you are saying that even the Globalists are now, following Cooper’s ammendment failure, going to rely on the process ending by default leading to a second referendum where the Globalists will (even thought there will be an option to leave under WTO on the ballot paper) rely on “Project Fear” and just general ennui and frustration of the populace to vote remain(as the T.May freashly negotiated sttlement will amount to).

    This in my opinion is a very risky scenario, since even given the blanket mainstream media propaganda to remain and the ludicrous threats and scare stories propagated by them, the electorate seem to be further enraged more by the obvious betrayal of their wishes to leave being hijacked by Westminster.

    Perhaps I have got this all wrong, in which case could you please clarify???.



    • Hello Kevin,

      Thanks for taking the time to comment.

      My position over the past year or so has been that rather than seeking to prevent the UK from leaving the EU, globalists want it to happen. I have seen no hard evidence throughout this whole Brexit process that they are attempting to sabotage it. If the referendum result truly had been a surprise to them, then there’s been ample opportunity since to derail the UK’s exit. I very much doubt Article 50 would ever have been triggered were the intention to stop Brexit.

      I would disagree when you say the options for a real or hard Brexit are being eliminated. The one option that can provide for a no deal exit is a second referendum, which remains a possibility. Again, I’ve seen no evidence that globalists are losing control (a common misconception within alternative media) or panicking. I believe Project Fear works to their benefit, not their detriment.

      Have a look at some of my other posts on Brexit where I go into detail about how a no deal scenario benefits the central banking fraternity. If there’s one thing I’ve learnt since the original vote, it is that globalists tend to operate through the model of gradualism. Events and processes take time to play out. If a second referendum becomes a reality, then I’d say it was by design. The warning signs for one have been there since March 2018 when the People’s Vote campaign launched. And a growing band of politicians and figureheads within People’s Vote (Lord Kerr and Roland Rudd) are openly saying that a no deal option will likely be on the ballot.

      Ask yourself why these same people speak of disaster and ruin under such a scenario, yet appear content to allow an increasingly irritated public the chance to vote for no deal.

      A growing sense of betrayal and the feeling that the establishment are trying to screw over the first referendum result would I believe push a WTO exit over the line. The likes of Nigel Farage and others would again be utilised to create a fervour. ‘Let the Britannia Lion Roar’, ‘The Last Chance in Our Lifetimes to Take Back Control’. Whereas a remain campaign would likely fall into the trap of telling voters they were lied to and conned.

      We should know more next week about where things are heading.


      • Steven,

        I get your point, but why would the globalists want a hard BREXIT? What possible advantage is there for them in it(unless…see below)?

        It seems to me now there are two possible outcomes:

        1.T.May comes back from Europe waving the “new impproved” treaty, Neville Chamberlain style and presents it as the best possible outcome for the country(it will of course be virtually the same agreement with a few inconsequential tweaks,they pulled the same trick with the Irish and the Lisbon Treaty) the MP’s and all the mainstream media get behind it and push for acceptance, it would then be voted on by MP’s.

        2.T.May’s re-negotiated plan is put to the electorate in a second referendum along with a hard BREXIT option.

        It has always been a pet conspiracy of mine that a financial crisis would be engineered in order to force us to accept the Euro as part of a conditional bail out by the IMF that would then completely ensnare us to the EU and effectively prevent us leaving ever again, so what better opportunity than a hard BREXIT scenario in which to pull it off?.

        However if it were the intention of the globalists to have such a hard BREXIT via a second referendum, and then blame the populace for all the negative outcomes that would result – and also use it as the cause of the ensuing financial crisis – so severe that following the resultant collapse in sterling that it became necessary to adopt the Euro(think an IMF style bailout similar to that in 1974 to the then Labour government), they could have done that anytime after the first referendum and had the same result, why wait nearly three years and go through all these political machinations to achieve the same thing?

        This is what troubles me, up until Cooper and Gieve’s ammendments were defeated, it looked like a complex collusion to block hard BREXIT by MP’s, forcing them down ever narrower paths with the ultimate result beingn a fait accompli being presented to them then to accept the TMay plan which effectively keeps us in the EU with no option to leave any other way, game set and match as it were.

        If we remain via either the House of Commons accepting the “new improved” T.May.ver2.0 or via the second “peoples vote”, I think the Tory party is pretty much toast anyway, so for T.May it wil be a Pyhrric victory, she will have succeeded in selling out her country to the globalists but in doing so destroyed the Conservative Party, she will be remembered in history, but for all the wrong reasons.

        Therefore going to a second referendum makes no sense to me at all.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.