Ignore reality or ignore democracy? We are heading towards one or the other

After a second devastating defeat of Theresa May’s deal, the question on everyone’s mind is: where next? The answer? British politics is now stepping into the unknown, and into the extreme.

May set out a plan of three important votes this week; on her deal, on No Deal, and on extending Article 50. Although there are murmurs that May will look for a third meaningful vote on her deal, it looks more likely that the decision on Brexit will now be a choice of two: No Deal or Remain.

You might ask: why isn’t an extension of Article 50 on the cards? The EU have stated that there needs to be a suitable reason for extending and all EU27 nations will need to agree on an extension. From the way things have gone so far (May unwilling to budge and substantially change her deal), this is highly unlikely.

What is most concerning is how the next two votes will affect our direction. We’ve previously seen that there is no majority in Parliament for a No Deal Brexit – there are potentially 40 Conservative MPs who are against the idea. Alongside this, we’ve seen the devastating reports concerning what a No Deal Brexit would look like. Quite frankly, a No Deal Brexit is a kamikaze move – MPs would never be forgiven.

However, knowing the state of British politics, knowing the predictions that we would remain in the EU in June 2016, there’s always a small concern that a No Deal will be pushed through. If so, Britain will be plunged into a time of uncertainty, anger and extended division.

However, let’s say a No Deal Brexit is rejected. We move on to the next and, some might say, most crucial vote of all three – the vote to extend Article 50.

What if MPs vote for an extension? Well, as previously stated, the EU27 nations would have to really consider this in detail. What benefit does it have to them? Would they allow it if Theresa May shifted her red lines? Would they accept it if there is a proposed referendum? There are so many options on the table, and so much uncertainty around both the Conservatives’ and Labour’s motives that it’s why I believe we are being led into a black hole. No one has shown their true colours; the video of May pre-referendum on the benefits of staying in the EU has recently resurfaced, so there’s little trust on what her exact motives are. On the other side, Corbyn has shied away from last week’s declaration that Labour would support a second referendum.

Should MPs vote against an extension the country would be left in limbo. All options have been rejected and could this signal a turn towards revoking Article 50. In the event of revoking Article 50, this, again, would leave many across the country devastated and angered.

So what’s the solution?

I have concerns that a second referendum might be pushed through. Whilst this might give us more time to discuss the issues at hand, it just extends the process. Brexit has gone on for far too long now, destroying the everyday politics we usually see and splintering our parties and our population into tribal groupings. We cannot rewrite the June 2016 referendum. But whilst a second referendum might not do this with the type of question presented, a second referendum might reignite the toxicity of the Murdoch media empire and the lies which were spread through Vote Leave. This cannot go ahead. We might have more facts, more clarity since June 2016. But we’ve also had more fake news since June 2016. To take Brexit down this dangerous road a second time would be a national travesty.

Would you rather the UK was led down a path of lies, creating further divisions through fake news, or would you, perhaps, rather tackle the concerning, pressing issues which need resolving as soon as possible?

Instead, revoking Article 50 would be ideal. We know that any sort of Brexit will leave us worse off, and we know that the negotiation process has been a calamity.

Now is the time to graciously admit that the entire process, from David Cameron’s announcement of a referendum, has been completely mishandled. We are now so connected as a world that isolation cannot be completed simply – something which other EU countries with tendencies to leave the bloc now need to consider.

Now is not the time to leave the EU. Let’s listen to the population’s concerns and tackle them together as a nation and as a united Europe.

Labour voters back move to support People’s Vote if Labour’s deal isn’t delivered

A recent poll has estimated Labour voters back Labour’s move to support a People’s Vote if they cannot get their own Brexit deal through Parliament. However, the majority of voters believe they were wrong to do so.

Labour voters backed the move 58/23 but when taking the whole electorate into consideration voters were 37/42 against. Voters below 50 also supported the move with 18-24s backing the move 47/31 and 24-49-year-olds backing it 43/28.

Only 64% of remainers endorse the move with leavers are against it 75/10. 12% of Conservative voters back the move and 63% of Liberal Democrats.

The worry for Labour is the regional balance of the support. Only voters living in Scotland and London support the move. With it being most unpopular in the Midlands and Wales, only 32% of voters backed the move from these regions.

Corbyn annouced on Monday that the Labour Party would back a second referendum Commons vote if the Party’s own alternative Brexit plan fails to get a majority vote on Wednesday, leaving the only other option for Brexit being a “damaging Tory Brexit”. However, the Party leader hasn’t included a possibility of a second referendum on the amendment to the Tory Brexit bill due to be released on Wednesday.

Corbyn has also confirmed that the party will support a cross-party amendment focused on ruling out the possibility of the United kingdom leaving the European Union under a no-deal scenario.

David Lammy, prolific supporter of the People’s Vote campaign, said in response to the Party’s move that it is “welcome news” that the Party will now “accept the principle of giving the public the final say on Brexit”.

However, an estimated 70 Labour MPs have stated that they would vote to stop a second referendum, highlighting the deep divides in the Party on the issue currently, leading many to speculate that the Labour Leader doesn’t intend to follow through with the promise, and is instead hoping that the amended deal is accepted by Parliament on Wednesday.

Jeremy Corbyn today wrote to Conservative and DUP MPs to urge them to support Labour’s amendment to make its credible alternative plan the UK’s Brexit negotiating position.

Chaos as Tory MP sacked hours after Home secretary backs his amendment

A new amendment tabled by Alberto Costa that seeks to guarantee EU citizens’ rights post Brexit has caused chaos within the Tory Party.

Theresa May originally described the amendment as unworkable but just hours later the Home Secretary said the party would be supporting it.

Alberto Costa was then sacked from his role as parliamentary private secretary to the Scottish secretary, David Mundell. It is unclear at present if the Tories will back the amendment.

Labour have announced they will back the amendment which already has the support of 130 MPs including 60 Tories, including some euro skeptics such as Jacob Rees Mogg.

The amendment seeks to guarantee the rights of all British nationals in the EU and EU nationals in the UK even in the event of a No Deal Brexit.
It calls on May to seek at “the earliest opportunity a joint UK-EU commitment to adopt part two of the withdrawal agreement on citizens’ rights and ensure its implementation prior to the UK’s exiting the European Union, whatever the outcome of negotiations on other aspects of the withdrawal agreement”.

“This is not about the single market or the customs union, this is about the rights of innocent people, most of whom did not have a say in the referendum, including British nationals in the EU,”

Alberto Costa

Despite Costa being sacked, Sajid Javid said there was “nothing wrong” with the amendment and believed the government had been supporting it from the start.

“I’m perfectly happy with that amendment. What Mr Costa is doing with this amendment is trying to find more ways for parliament to give that reassurance, This is a backbench amendment and the government supports the amendment in that it sets out to achieve the principles we all agree on.”

Sajid Javid

As well as having Labour’s backing the amendment is backed by prominent MPs such as Iain Duncan Smith, Dominic Raab, Nigel Evans, Zac Goldsmith, Craig Mackinlay, Anna Soubry and Justine Greening.

If put to a vote the amendment is expected to pass comfortably.

Diane Abbott MP, Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary, commenting on the sacking of Conservative MP Alberto Costa, said:

“The sacking of Alberto Costa for supporting citizens’ rights prolongs the anxiety and uncertainty that over 5 million people have faced for two and a half years. Alberto Costa’s amendment was a sensible measure trying to protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK and our own British citizens in the EU.”

A few stubborn and isolated MPs, or a future political party? What could The Independent Group become?

The landscape of British Politics took a massive turn when seven Labour MPs decided to resign their party whip and start up their own party group in the Commons called The Independent Group. Their main reasons for leaving were; antisemitism, toxicity and entryism within the Labour Party alongside their opposition to Jeremy Corbyn’s acceptance of Brexit as an inevitability. Other reasons likely include their different economic and social views, with most of these MPs being from the political centre of the party.

The next day, these seven ex-Labour MPs were joined by three Conservative MPs, with similar albeit different reasons for defecting. These reasons being; isolation from the party leadership over Brexit, toxicity of the party due to entryism and being held ransom by the European Research Group (ERG- a group of right-wing Tories) and the Vote Leave campaign. They were also joined on that day by another ex-Labour MP, totalling them now at 11: the same number of MPs as the Liberal Democrats.

They all left for similar reasons, but do they actually have similar political views?

As The Independent Group regularly says: they are neither an official party (yet) nor contesting elections. Therefore they do not yet have a manifesto or any concrete policies- which is logical because they aren’t an established party- although it does play into the ‘centrists don’t actually have any policies’ myth. So far though, we can see a few rough themes forming which could plant the basis of a future political party.

The movement is quite clearly pro-EU in all of its forms, from accepting EU regulations and environmental standards to accepting free movement of people. The only solid policy we can see that all of The Independent Group’s MPs support is a People’s Vote, with the goal of remaining in the EU. The group tends to favour multiculturalism and traditional feminism which could manifest itself into policies in the future.

Although some accepted that austerity was necessary during the recession whilst some don’t, they have a general consensus that they don’t want more austerity, as shown by ex-Conservative Heidi Allen admitting that the Tories have “deepened suffering” when they could have reduced it. Chuka summed up his view saying that the “circumstances of your birth [shouldn’t] dictate your future”. He has also said that they are “leaving old, tribal politics behind” and many, when asked about policy, have used words such as “evidence” and “expert[s]”, overall suggesting that when it comes to policy formulation, they will look at what policy works, is popular and overall benefits the most people, rather than what a party or certain ideology dictates.

This is further supported by Heidi Allen’s comments, that they will determine their support for policies “not in a right-left way…but [based off of] what’s actually going to work”. It seems so far that what they have in common would form the backbone of any future political party which they might evolve into: pro-EU, pro-migration, multicultural, compassionate, transparent and fiscally responsible.

What does the future of this group look like?

The MPs have have been subtly threatening their old parties that if they don’t change, more resignations could follow. This has been humoured more seriously by Tory MPs it seems than Labour ones, although it would be expected (based off the current defection numbers) that more Labour MPs are likely to join. From the Tories though, there are moderate MPs that feel isolated from the party due to its Brexit stance and internal toxicity. Soubry says that she received “smiles” and “waves” upon entering the Commons chamber and sitting on the opposition benches. She also admitted to receiving “lovely texts” from her former-colleagues.

Three likely defectors are Justine Greening, Dr Phillip Lee and Dominic Grieve; all threatening to leave the Conservative Party if they end up accepting no deal from the EU. Lee says that he “can’t guarantee” that he’ll stay and that there would be a “stampede” of MPs leaving the party if the government was to go ahead with a no-deal Brexit. Another moderate, Nicky Morgan, however has recently written an article on why moderates should stay in the party and fight rather than flee, which sounds very similar to what Ruth Smeeth has written, albeit for the Labour party. The Labour Party seems to have divided into four different takes on the split. Looking at these four different takes is a good way of differentiating between those who plan on keeping everything the same, those who seek to amend their errors and those that plan on leaving.

Take 1: tends to be a grassroots approach, seen a lot on Twitter from people with Twitter handles including JC4PM (Jeremy Corbyn for Prime Minister) and GTTO (Get The Tories Out). This take denies that there is an antisemitism problem within the party overall and takes the form of retweeting the likes of Galloway and Hatton. Take 2: this tends to be the more genuine Corbynite approach which is to acknowledge the problem, mentioning it and then taking no solid action on it. This is seen mainly in the Tweets, interviews and videos by Corbyn and his leadership team/close allies such as John McDonnell. Take 3: this is not just from the moderate MPs determined to fix their party, but from a wide range of Labour MPs: this take acknowledges that there is a problem and that they need to take firm action on it as soon as possible, an example of this is Tom Watson’s video statement and Barry Gardiner’s contribution to the antisemitism debate in the House of Commons. Take 4: threatening to leave the party if nothing changes, removing connections to the Labour Party on social media and retweeting/defending The Independent Group.

Very few, if any, of Labour’s current MPs have done the latter (threatened to leave in the same way as Greening, Lee and Grieve in the Conservative Party), but a few have been jumping to the defence of The Independent Group. Not many MPs fall into the Take 1 category. A few, mainly shadow cabinet, fall into Take 2. A majority fall into Take 3, even hard-core moderates and good friends of the defected MPs have doubled down on their support for the Labour Party and a dedication to right the wrongs from within. Moderates such as Alison Mcgovern, Tulip Siddiq (who said “I’m Labour to the core”), Peter Kyle, Neil Coyle, Dan Jarvis, Stephen Kinnock (saying “my dedication to my party is unconditional, my dedication to the leadership is conditional”) and John Mann all look like they are staying in the party. Hilary Benn hasn’t said much recently and Ben Bradshaw, although urging colleagues not to defect, says that the party is on the brink of being destroyed and that more MPs could break away. Owen Smith (who contested Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership back in 2016) said that he “might quit” back on the 7th of February, so he would probably be the bookies’ most likely to go next: but the general consensus is that there are more to come.

So is it just a group of disgruntled MPs or a future political party?

The Independent Group have put an emphasis on the fact that they desire to grow into a political party, saying how they want to be more than a group MPs in a committee room. They have already received thousands of small donations. However, the future for them is uncertain. The average majority for the group is 16,114 which is safe but contestable, especially if they are dropping their old party label, which can have a massive effect in places like Liverpool and Streatham.

Moreover, as shown earlier, a few of them are in leave-supporting areas and some have very slim majorities – such as Soubry and Smith. However, they seem to be doing well on the diversity front. Two-thirds of their MPs so far are women, which is the largest ever for any parliamentary party (discounting the Greens which naturally, with 1 MP, have 100% women). They have a decent mix (for their modest size) of minority representation in Berger and Umunna.

What is impressive though is their geographical diversity. Although they have no MPs from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, they do have commendable English diversity. From Liverpool, to Manchester, to Sheffield, to Nottingham to Cambridgeshire, to North London, to South London all the way down to Devon. English geographical diversity is not the only (usually overlooked) asset this group has: it also has a good diversity of opinion.

The main difference between the ex-Labour and ex-Conservative MPs are their varying views concerning Blair’s government compared to the coalition government. The ex-Labour MPs see Blair’s economic model as ideal (more government spending on public services through taxation) whereas the ex-Conservative MPs see the coalition’s economic policies as sound (less spending on public services and less taxation). However, it is this kind of difference in opinion, yet similar worldview, that they hope will form their party’s manifesto in the future. They seem to align on issues that they see as common sense: social policy such as civil rights, LGBT rights (with the historical exception of Shuker), feminism and multiculturalism but they disagree on issues that they see as less-contentious, such as economics, and therefore seem to have this smiley-harmony that no other group in the Commons possesses (other than maybe the Lib Dems who, like The Independent Group, have an advantage on the unity-front due to their modest size).


The Independent Group are definitely an interesting project and could provide the political shakeup that this Brexit stalemate needs. Don’t discount the power that small parties with 10 or more MPs can have in toppling or supporting governments. There have already been rumours about The Independent Group offering the Conservatives a majority through a confidence and supply agreement in exchange for a People’s Vote. These 11 MPs, along with the 11 Lib Dem MPs, could have a disproportionately large impact on the outcome of Brexit.

Wollaston has described them as a “third way” which is a phrase that has been used to describe Blair’s centrist agenda, although Umunna has made clear that they are “not the old tunes of the past” and he even rejected Blair’s “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” as he sees it as an out of date prescription. Heidi Allen summed up their movement best. She puts forward a vision for a party of confidence, collaboration and expert analysis with an emphasis on care, compassion and fairness. She says she wants it to be a party of the best minds, biggest hearts and made up of effective communicators.

There has been speculation about who would lead this party but Umunna showed the radical nature of this group when, in his Channel 4 interview, he said that they don’t want the “soap opera” and “hierarchy” of the normal political parties, although acknowledging that “you need a leadership team” and that he wants to “play the biggest role possible”. This project is very risky and in the current political climate, it could either prosper massively or flounder awfully. With Brexit hurtling towards us, if it is to go ahead, with or without a People’s Vote, then it is hard to see what the future of this party would be; if we leave anyway then they become pointless and if we remain then surely they become unnecessary – that is, at least, if they fail to reach out and become a broader political movement.

Overall, this is a highly ambitious political project and despite one’s political views one can acknowledge that it takes bravery to start said project at such a crucial time, especially for people that have been such long-standing members to their previous parties- and in some cases even governments. These MPs have most likely thrown their careers under the bus (mainly due to how our current electoral system works) because they have seen the potential to change the country for the better in a way that the two main parties have neglected for decades. The odds are stacked against them, but as Heidi Allen said; “We might fail, but isn’t the prize worth fighting for?”

A second Brexit referendum: great if it pays off, disastrous if it doesn’t

The following is a guest post by Ed Draper

“We need to have the people to break the log jam.” The words of Emily Thornberry to Krishnan Guru-Murthy on Channel 4 news tonight, hours after the news broke that the Labour Party would support a second referendum, in the event of Theresa Mayrejecting Labour’s Brexit plan.

A move that has been vaguely on the cards since September, when the party announced that should Mrs May’s deal not meet Labour’s six requirements and a general election be rejected, then they would move tosupport another referendum as a means to prevent no deal. From a remain supporter’s perspective this is yet another glimmer of hope that the nightmarish event ofBrexit be avoided entirely (or at least that crashing out on 29th March be removed from the table).

But then you need to pinch yourself and remember that this is all speculation. IF a second referendum is scheduled, and that’s a big if, then all sorts of potential scenarios are thrown into the mix once more. Politicians will befaced with an immense array of decisions to make prior to this re-run of the 2016 vote. When do you set the referendum date for? Will Article 50 have to be extended (at this stage that’s a near certainty, which will require both the approval of parliament and the European Council)? How long should the respective campaigns be? Do you allow 16-year olds to vote, like in the Scottish Independence referendum of 2014? What about UK nationals abroad and EU nationals here? Both will be severely impacted by a no deal Brexit, is that democratic if they aren’t allowed a say? What about the regulation of the referendum: should spending be monitored and scrutinised more than last time?  Crucially the biggest questions will be: wha twill the choice be and by what margin do you determine a victory?

Those are just questions that are currently bouncing around in the head of one member of the electorate. Can you imagine the issues in theheads of those who would have to organise such a divisive event? As well as that think of the logistics of it? Would police numbers need to be doubled, or tripled, so as to ensure that extremists don’t interrupt the democratic process? Like Tommy Robinson and his far-right thugs, currently building aninfamous reputation for harassing a variety of apparent ‘enemies’, from politicians and journalists, to charities assisting victims of rape.

Let us say all goes to plan: a referendum is called, the decisions are clear, campaigning (though intense) is reasonably civil, and Tommy and his mates are kept at bay. The results come in and…oh dear, it’s 48/52 again. Whether it’s in favour of remaining, leaving, deal or no-deal, theresult is similar. What happens then? Deadlock again, the country doesn’t move on but continues to tread-water. Maybe Theresa May stays, maybe she doesn’t. Maybe a general election is called, maybe it isn’t.

The reality is a second referendum isn’t a simple answer to a complicated problem. Just as the whole choice way back in 2016 should never have been a simple, binary, in or out proposition. A YouGov survey published in January of this year put those in favour of Remain at 56%, while Leave made up the rest. Factoring in those who didn’t vote and the result was 48% Remain and 38% for leave. Those margins may be enough to make a difference. But the irony is that all it could take is a simple event, a simple buzzword, a simple tweet, a simple headline in the Daily Express, and the unlikely could happen again: ‘the people’ vote to leave again.

This isn’t meant to demean the idea of a second referendum. Nor is it meant to attack those who back it, or cast a pessimistic shadow overthose who think a mutually agreeable resolution to the current deadlock is still possible. It is a reminder to not automatically think that the people can resolve this situation. Don’t expect too much of the people; so often that is what referendums do. There was one guy who took that risk several years ago; he thought the people could resolve an issue that had been festering within his own party for years, decades even. He thought a simple in or out question would finally throw out the problem once and for all. Where is he now? To quote Danny Dyer, “he’s over in Nice with his trotters up.”

Labor will reportedly back 2nd referendum vote this week

Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has announced that the Labour Party will back a new move to prevent a hard exit from the European Union.

Speaking to the weekly meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party, Corbyn announced that he would support a Commons amendment to allow for a second public referendum on the final deal to leave the European Union.

The Labour Party will now back a second referendum Commons vote if the Party’s own alternative Brexit plan fails to get a majority vote on Wednesday, leaving the only other option for Brexit being a “damaging Tory Brexit”. However, the Party leader hasn’t included a possibility of a second referendum on the amendment to the Tory Brexit bill due to be released on Wednesday.

The announcement comes exactly a week after 8 centrist Labour MPs rebelled from the party to create the newly formed Independent group, who cited the Labour Party’s pro-Brexit stance amongst their reasons for leaving the Party.

Corbyn has also confirmed that the party will support a cross-party amendment focused on ruling out the possibility of the United kingdom leaving the European Union under a no-deal scenario.

David Lammy, prolific supporter of the People’s Vote campaign, said in response to the Party’s move that it is “welcome news” that the Party will now “accept the principle of giving the public the final say on Brexit”.

However, an estimated 70 Labour MPs have stated that they would vote to stop a second referendum, highlighting the deep divides in the Party on the issue currently, leading many to speculate that the Labour Leader doesn’t intend to follow through with the promise, and is instead hoping that the amended deal is accepted by Parliament on Wednesday.

Jeremy Corbyn Must Back the Kyle/Wilson Amendment

Labour MP’s Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson may just have handed the government an answer as to break the Brexit deadlock. Their amendment (which proposes that MP’s support Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement on the condition that it is then put to a public vote) has been growing in popularity recently, gaining the backing of several senior MP’s; most notably John McDonnell who endorsed it as a  possible “solution” to the Brexit stalemate.

The proposed amendment has a clear aim: to break the Brexit impasse by delivering a legally binding answer to the Brexit question; one which has the support of both Parliament and the people in what Peter Kyle describes as a “double lock”.

The Brexit checkmate, which has driven Britain to the brink of a No-Deal crisis, needs to be resolved as soon as possible. The only way it is going to be resolved, however, is through compromise and unity. Both Labour and the Conservatives have opposed each other every step of the way during the negotiation period and for far too long have been fighting internal battles rather than dealing with the crisis cooperatively.

In times of crisis, it is the duty of government to come together in the national interest. The Kyle/Wilson amendment offers them the chance to do just that.

It’s not perfect, it is a compromise. Corbyn and May must meet in the middle and seek to forge some sort of consensus.  In an ideal world, Labour would force a general election and deliver a workable Brexit. May would see her deal pass through the Commons with the support of the ERG. However, neither of these outcomes seems remotely possible; and Brexit Britain is far from ideal.

Perhaps this is the one admirable quality of the newly founded Independent Group: they recognise that Brexit is a unique moment in British political history and one which requires cooperation in place of division.   

Many Labour members (myself included) have been rightfully sceptical of the division and hostility which would accompany a second referendum, but the Kyle/Wilson amendment would not be a simple re-run of the 2016 referendum.

It is different in a number of crucial ways. As opposed the 2016 vote, the outcome of this “yes” or “no” vote will be clear and concise and have immediate ramifications; as opposed to a freestanding second referendum, the answer to which would provide more questions than it would answers. It is not a simple re-run where the first vote is disregarded; it is a reaction to two years of parliamentary proceedings which have left us with a clear choice: Theresa May’s deal or a No-Deal. There is no majority for either of these things, so the choice must be given back to the people.

Most importantly, the Kyle/Wilson amendment, if given Labour backing, has a significantly higher chance of passing through the Commons than a simple 2016 re-do would have.

The amendment offers Corbyn a lifeline at a time of crisis. Not only does this option give him the chance to appease MP’s and younger members campaigning for a People’s Vote, he also has the chance to reverse the worrying trend which has seen many Labour MP’s resign from the party. For right or wrong, Jeremy Corbyn’s Brexit stance has been greatly criticised by certain groups of MP’s and by backing the Kyle/Wilson amendment, Corbyn can stem the flow of defectors which threatens to engulf him and the party into a full-blown crisis.

Importantly, the amendment offers Corbyn the chance to do all this while simultaneously avoiding casting Labour as the “Remain” party and the Tories as the “Brexit Party”. This would have no doubt lost him many voters. As reports have suggested, the motion has the support of many senior Tories and, should it pass, May too would be required to support a second vote.

The Kyle/Wilson agreement is unique in that it is a gamble for both May and Corbyn. They would be isolating minorities for the greater good. In accepting it they would be going against significant groupings in their respective parties – the ERG in the case of May and the Labour Brexiteers for Corbyn.

In this time of national crisis, the Kyle/Wilson amendment seems the least terrible option.

With little over a month remaining, we really are down to the wire. Labour must put their weight behind this motion and give the British people a chance to prevent Britain from crashing out of the EU without a deal.