Talk:Parliamentary votes on Brexit

Total possible votes

I have set the total possible votes in the table under Third vote on the withdrawal agreement to 645. My logic was that out of 650 total members one should take away the 4 tellers and the 1 vacant seat.

I don't know what logic is for the totals in the other tables. If my thinking makes sense then I'll go through and make them consistent. Liam McM 18:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The MV1 and MV2 tables are inconsistent with MV3. Probably because the ten permanent abstentions (the speaker, 2 tellers and 7 Sinn Fein MPs who do not take their seats) are not included in the earlier ones. Would probably make more sense to mention this, and count the votes out of 640, which would then show the actual abstentions by choice or specific circumstance. One assumes the tellers are selected on the basis they will oppose each other [reference?]. Doesn't help that some Lab/Con have become Independent during the timeline! David Atherton 11:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datherton (talk • contribs)

So the arithmetic is the following. In the first vote there were 650 seats. Of these, 7 were Sinn Fein, 4 were the Speaker and his Deputies, and 4 were tellers. This leaves 635 MPs who could possibly vote, of which only Paul Flynn did not vote (due to illness). By the time of the second vote Paul Flynn had died, so there were 649 MPs of which 634 could vote, and all did except Douglas Ross who was attending the birth of his child. In the third vote there were still 649 MPs of whom 634 could vote, and there were 4 abstentions Kelvin Hopkins (Independent), Dennis Skinner (Labour), John McNally (Scottish National Party) and Ronnie Campbell (Labour) and hence 630 votes. I can't find reasons for these four abstentions. I'll adjust the page to be consistent, excluding Sinn Fein, the Speakers and the Tellers from the totals for each of the 3 MVs. Oscar Cunningham (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that the speaker will vote in the case of a tie, so maybe they should remain as part of the total? It also makes sense to me for Sinn Féin to be counted as abstain votes, given that that is what they are. I'm not sure what the arithemtic is for the current number of 634. 1 speaker + 4 tellers + 7 Sinn Féin + 1 vacant = 13. Where do the other 3 come from? Liam McM 11:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

There are three deputy speakers. It would make sense to include Sinn Féin as abstentions, but on the other hand I feel like the main benefit of showing the abstentions is to see whether or not the abstainers could change the result if they decided to vote. Since Sinn Féin are never going to vote they're not really relevant for that purpose. Oscar Cunningham (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! I take your point about Sinn Féin too. Liam McM 13:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible move

Could we move this to "Parliamentary votes on Brexit" or similar as it now covers the indicative votes as well as the various meaningful ones? Crookesmoor (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I support that idea, with a redirect from "Meaningful vote". Bondegezou (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I would also support a move to votes on Brexit since the meaningful vote was only a part of several votes that have taken place. This is Paul (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

This was recently the subject of a move request the result was keep it as "meaningful vote" Talk:Meaningful vote#Requested move 10 March 2019. Do you want me to start another RfC? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The previous (rejected) move request was for a different reason and at a different time (given how fast events are moving). This is a new proposal.

Do we need an RfC: can't we just discuss here? Bondegezou (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Meaningful vote into Brexit withdrawal agreement per duplicate and overlap. The article Meaningful vote mainly talks about Parliament of the United Kingdom's votes on Brexit withdrawal agreement and the alternative scenarios of the Brexit withdrawal agreement, which is the same subject and has close relations with Brexit withdrawal agreement#Votes. Thus, it is reasonable to merge Meaningful vote into Brexit withdrawal agreement. 2409:8900:1910:307E:15CB:5CF6:BE36:A29A 06:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I would oppose a merger because this article covers a wider subject area than the withdrawal agreement. Also this article is already 185K in length and doesn't need to be any longer than necessary. This is Paul (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose since the vote plays an important role on Brexit. It also has a lot of media coverage. I see no reason to merge. --B dash (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support As the meaningful vote article now covers many vote sections. Many of which are fairly distantly related to the principal subject of the article (the prime minister's meaningful votes, of which there have been 3). I would also support the splitting of the ALL the votes sections out of the Meaningful vote article and directly into this article instead, thus leaving the rest of Meaningful vote as is. - Wiz9999 (talk) 10:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Withdrawal Agreement article should be that and no more. If there is forked material in any detail about the meaningful votes (i.e., anything more than that by law the Government requires Parliament to ratify any agreement, then it should be deleted per wp:FORK (and transferred to this article). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Would be way too long. This article is about the votes and only the votes. It doesn't consider the substance of the withdrawal agreement, nor does it consider debates around that agreement that haven't been voted on. Bondegezou (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose simply for length and ease of navigation. --ERAGON (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The story of how we got the meaningful vote is a story in itself. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Cooper–Letwin Bill

I've just moved the Cooper–Letwin Bill to its own article. I haven't time to clean it up right now plus my laptop is acting up, I would be grateful for any assistance other editors could give. Thanks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 9 April 2019

Meaningful vote → Parliamentary votes on Brexit – Although the original move is disputed, the mover raised a good point that this page is not only about "meaningful vote", but also included other votes like amendable motion and indicative votes. 158.182.173.246 (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The story of how we got the meaningful vote is a story in itself, to have one and when it should take place. This is actually an argument in favour of removing the stuff about the amendable motions and indicative votes and putting it into the Brexit withdrawal agreement. I've already moved the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 to its own article and I tried (in vain) to keep all this non-MV stuff to a minimum and a sub-topic to prevent this article turning into a skip diff and diff. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support WP:NPOV policy says that we don't use loaded terms like 'Meaningful' Unibond (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support I think we should start with good article organisation, and then pick relevant names, rather than shaping content to fit the existing names. Where once we'd all expected a single meaningful vote, the Parliamentary process has metastasized. There has been a series of additional votes. Where appropriate, this content can be spun off into separate articles, as The Vintage Feminist thankfully did with European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019. However, I believe most of the indicative votes fit better here: reliable sources have talked about them in the context of getting a meaningful vote passed, with a very common comparison being made between the several MVs and the indicative votes in terms of numbers voting for and against. It makes sense to have this material in one article. Given that, we then need a name for the article and while I was in favour of "meaningful vote" as a name previously, now the article does cover more than that, we need a different name. So, I support a move to "Parliamentary votes on Brexit". Bondegezou (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)