Talk:Parliamentary votes on Brexit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Moved from my talk page

More appropriate for this comment to be here I think. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

You [The Vintage Feminist (talk)] open the meaningful vote article with "The meaningful vote is the common name given to describe Clause 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill". That is not sourced in the body of the article (as far as I can see), so it needs to be properly sourced after that sentence/clause. A google search is not a source, and headlines don't count as sources because they are usually not written by the author of a piece (and the source is given as being the author of the piece).

What you need is strong sources that state exactly what you state. The first thing in the google search is a Guardian article. It mentions "meaningful vote" outside the headline, but doesn't mention clause 9, so can't be used to support what you state. The second and third ones from the google search have the same problem; I haven't looked beyond that. Are you sure that a) "meaningful vote is the common name given to describe Clause 9", b) "meaningful vote" is an appropriate title, instead of "European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, Clause 9" or similar and c) this article couldn't be part of (merged with) European Union (Withdrawal) Bill? EddieHugh (talk) 10:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC started below. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for comments on the first line of this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article refer to the meaningful vote as "the common name given to describe Clause 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill", yes / no? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 23:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC). --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No it shouldn't I think calling the clause the commonname is confusing the issue (the extent to which Parliament has input), with the legislation which has become the main focus of that issue. On a purely practical level - even if subsequent developments mean that other clauses, or other legislation came into being to address the same issue - they would still probably be referred to as part of the "Meaningful vote". Pincrete (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• Yes it should The news media, including The Guardian, routinely use this term, though sometimes, in quotation marks: "Brexit 'meaningful vote': government backs away from fight with rebels. The government has backed away from confrontation with the Brexit rebels over a meaningful vote." Wed 20 Jun 2018 14.32 BST source Peter K Burian (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• The question isn't "has the media used the term 'meaningful vote'?" That's the question you've answered. Responding "yes" to the actual question asked ("Should this article refer to the meaningful vote as 'the common name given to describe Clause 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill'") requires sources that support the assertion it contains. If you have some, please add them, because lots of time, effort and discussion (see below) from others failed to find any. EddieHugh (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

"What does a 'meaningful vote' on Brexit really mean?" source Peter K Burian (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• No. See discussion below. The specific assertion (meaningful vote = Clause 9) is not supported by sources, so policy dictates that it mustn't be included. EddieHugh (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Partial yes. See below. § Music Sorter § (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Who knows? If that's what sources state, then it's fine. If that's not what sources state, then it's not fine. Despite several requests and attempts, no source has been provided for the assertion that MV = clause 9. An RfC wasn't/isn't needed... sources are! EddieHugh (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This for me is a simple matter of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:COMMONSENSE. No sources under the criteria laid out Talk:Meaningful vote#Moved from my talk page could ever survive such tendentious editing. The RfC is to see if other editors agree that - love it or loathe it - the amendment "meaningful vote" is the common name given to it. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

"Meaningful vote" has a common meaning that is not specific to this topic (examples from a quick googlenews check: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) – picking a current use out as a title, when it is just one example of a common name, looks like recentism. On this specific example: doesn't the common name "meaningful vote" mean parliament having a vote on the outcome of Brexit negotiations, and that vote being able to influence government actions? Just like Brexit means a BRitish EXIT from the EU (which is brought about by article 50, etc, etc), doesn't MV mean a Vote that can be of Meaning (and which may be brought about by a particular legislative clause, etc, etc)? That looks like common sense to me. And it is readily supported by sources, unlike (apparently) the "MV = clause 9" assertion. EddieHugh (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Referring to the examples you have given:

• Link 1 = Israel’s Charade of Democracy opinion piece in the New York Times with the quote On the eve of elections, Mr. Netanyahu promised that there would be no Palestinian state while he is in office. Does that mean nobody in the occupied territories has a meaningful vote? No. In fact, some people do: Israeli settlers. Do you have 20 examples using it the same way?
• Link 2 = The conviction of Khaleda Zia hobbles Bangladesh’s opposition article in The Economist with the quote The Election Commission says the Bangladesh Nationalist Party's participation is needed to hold a meaningful vote. Do you have 20 examples using it the same way?
• Link 3 = NUS Conference suspended as students occupy stage article in The Cambridge Student (a student newspaper) After only one motion was debated in the welfare zone out of sixteen, proposed by students across the country, dozens of delegates stormed the stage at the conference in Glasgow, demanding a meaningful vote on both issues. Do you have 20 examples using it the same way?
• Link 4 = 'Zimbabwe election will be free,' says UN - if cannot speak truth to power then shut up article on Bulawayo 24 News website with the quote As the UN Representative in Zimbabwe, Mr Parajuli, you should know that many Zimbabweans will be denied a meaningful vote in these elections. Do you have 20 examples using it the same way?
• Link 5 = The Vanishing Voter: Why Are the Voting Booths So Empty? journal article published in US journal National Civic Review in 2002, also available here, with the quote In many of the House districts in 2002, there was no campaign to speak of, and the news media provided little or no coverage. Voters in these districts were deprived of an opportunity to learn of the issues and the candidates and, on Election Day, to cast a meaningful vote. Do you have 20 examples using it the same way?

If the opening line of the article read: the phrase 'meaningful vote' has never been uttered by any other human in any other context then you would have a point. I did a googlenews check, I stopped after 10 pages as they referred entirely the Brexit.

In answer to your question: On this specific example: doesn't the common name "meaningful vote" mean parliament having a vote on the outcome of Brexit negotiations - yes which is why it is generating a massive amount of media input, hence this article.

WP:RECENTISM is an explanatory supplement offering further on WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Notability, and WP:What Wikipedia is not - none of which I have breached. As I said above for me this is all highly WP:TENDENTIOUS. Forgive me but you do have a bit of form over this: User talk:EddieHugh/Archive 2017#3RR. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll ignore the indirect attack on me, which is not constructive. You cited WP:COMMONNAME as a justification for the opening line (which is being discussed): "The meaningful vote is the common name given to describe Clause 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill". I therefore provided sources that employ "meaningful vote" in what I see as its normal (and WP:COMMONSENSE) usage. I don't know why you asked for 20 examples 5 times; they're 5 examples of the same thing: its common sense, common name usage. In the 10 pages you checked, did you find any sources that support the opening line, or did they mostly employ the term in the same way as in the 5 examples above? I think our difference is that you see the term MV as applying to a piece of legislation, whereas I see it as applying to a vote. Based on what I've seen in Brexit-related sources as well as non-Brexit ones, MV as a term does apply to a vote, not to legislation. If you or someone else can provide sources demonstrating otherwise, then I'll happily change my view, but there do seem to be a lot of sources that use it to refer to a vote, not to legislation. EddieHugh (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I asked for 20 examples of the the meaning(s) that you have given because the issue is will someone say, "Wait, meaningful vote is nothing to do with Brexit its about whether or not Palestinians have a meaningful vote in the occupied territories." Unless there are 20+ similar links for one of the examples you have given then there is no confusion between this articles' interpretation of meaningful vote and any other possible interpretation, so the links you have managed to find don't really mean anything.

As for your other point, fine, I've done a copy edit on the lead section to: The meaningful vote is the common name given to the UK Parliament's vote on the final exit deal negotiated with the European Union (EU) as described in Clause 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. I really think you could have done that yourself and written "copyedit" in the edit summary. It would have saved all of this. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I assumed that the opening assertion – MV = clause 9 – of the newly created article would be supported by strong sources, whether they had been cited already or not. I was wrong. The assertion has been changed, so this RfC can be closed/withdrawn, as no longer relevant. I still have doubts about the title and whether this article in a trimmed version (there's little justification for including a highly detailed, day-by-day account of parliamentary procedure in an encyclopedia) could be merged with European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

As an aside, while we're discussing things, is MV still "as described in Clause 9", or in a different/new/upcoming clause now? EddieHugh (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The article will progress, it is currently Clause 9, but if the numbering changes the article will reflect that. Similarly, the "bill" will become "act" of parliament. The same goes for the journey of the Clause through parliament, the article will move on to the effects of amendment post-EU deal, at which point the account of how it was passed can be abridged. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments. (came for RfC), Firstly I don't think the title is great - while immediately recognisable to UK readers - the present title suggests that the article is about the concept or term - the title needs to make it clear that the article is about the use in the current UK/Brexit debate. Secondly, I sympathise since although I'm aware of the term being thrown around in UK - I doubt if sources actually define any exact meaning, it has become a 'catch all' term for whether, and in what ways and when Parliament will have a say in the 'Brexit' deal. Thirdly, whilst I would say that this is not the primary issue of 'meaningful vote', the issue of whether devolved powers (to Sc+Wales), can be negotiated by the UK govt, is a significant aspect of the whole debate. I've voted above - but to repeat myself - to me 'meaningful vote' is the commonname for the issue - clause 9 is the focus around which the debate has mainly congregated - and the 'Grieve amendment' is the commonname for various attempted modifications to clause 9. Calling 'meaningful vote' the commonname for the clause is like saying 'Scottish devolution' is the name for specific pieces of legislation designed to implement devolution. I think it would be difficult to find sources to support that.

Finally, while I think the article is very strong on the detailed mechanics of what has happened - it is fairly weak on expounding the issues at stake. Good luck on that one! I wouldn't envy you such a task! Pincrete (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The UK Parliament refers to a specific clause in the bill (soon to be act) as a meaningful vote. It's neither a concept or a term to describe the whole debate. If the Scottish independence referendum, 2014 had voted yes then the term Scottish devolution would link to an article similar to the Brexit article. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't refer to "a specific clause"; it refers to "areas". And that's from before the Commons vote which defeated Grieve's amendment. The latest version of the bill's amendments doesn't mention "meaningful vote" at all. For a few weeks, this looked like it could be the next big thing, but the Brexit MV looks like it's gone the way of other objections. Maybe it'll come back, but, if not, this article should be merged. EddieHugh (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

From your source "There are four remaining areas where the two Houses are yet to agree on the text of the Bill: Meaningful vote: the House of Lords amended the Bill on a division to require that the Government bring forward an amendable motion at the end of the Article 50 negotiations",no mention of clauses anywhere. I paraphrased that to " whether, and in what ways and when Parliament will have a say in the 'Brexit' deal", which I think is a reasonable parphrase of the issues underlying an amendable motion at the end of the Article 50 negotiations. Of course Scottish devolution would link within the article to the referendum (yes or no vote), that does not make the two synonyms. Pincrete (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Partial yes IMHO, the current first sentence does not match the typical WP article formatting where the title is listed followed by a meaning or description of that title. It appears the sentence could be rephrased to something like: A Meaningful vote is a phrase often used to describe the .... I would resist actually saying it is the common name of the topic of the article because that phrase means many other things to other people in other countries outside of Europe. However, if the specific argument is over MV = Clause 9 or MV = some other aspect of Brexit, I am not close enough to this issue to make that recommendation. § Music Sorter § (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

See MOS:FIRST, which warns against using that sort of construction: 'Keep the first sentence focused on the subject by avoiding constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject.' EddieHugh (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment I've updated the lead following the bill receiving Royal Assent on 26 June 2018. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You haven't added any sources that support the new version – 'MV=Sec13' – though! I thought we'd agreed on an earlier wording being better-supported by sources. We're now back to where we were 2 months ago: the sources simply don't support the 'MV=clause 9/section 13/any specific bit of such docs' assertion. EddieHugh (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The lead isn't the only part of the article I've altered, as the edit history shows, the body of the text also includes:

• B "European Union (Withdrawal) Bill: Division 1". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Lords. 18 June 2018. col. 1904–1907.
• C Staff writer (18 June 2018). "New Brexit defeat for government in Lords". BBC News. Retrieved 7 August 2018.

Quote: Their amendment to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill was backed by 354 votes to 235. It means the issue is sent back to the House of Commons for a debate on Wednesday [20 June].

• D "European Union (Withdrawal) Bill: Division 191". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Commons. 20 June 2018. col. 384–388.
• E Perkins, Anne; Elgot, Jessica (20 June 2018). "Brexit 'meaningful vote': May wins after rebels accept compromise". The Guardian. Retrieved 7 August 2018.

Quote: The attempt to secure a“meaningful vote” that could have potentially given MPs the power to stop Britain leaving the EU without a deal was defeated by 319 votes to 303.

According to MOS:INTRO The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article... It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article. Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article, but do not hint at startling facts without describing them. I'm not quite sure what more you think it needs.

Also in MOS:CITELEAD The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

That is what I have attempted to do and I am happy to abide by the consensus of this RfC. I wouldn't have opened it if I wasn't. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Which one of those sources are you saying states that MV=Section 13? EddieHugh (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

This from the lead, with quotation (page 5 of the pdf):

• A1 Maer, Lucinda (19 June 2018). "2. Continuing areas of debate: 2.1 Meaningful vote" (PDF). In Maer, Lucinda (ed.). European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19: Ping Pong. Commons Briefing Papers: CBP-8345. House of Commons Library. pp. 5–9. Retrieved 7 August 2018. There are four remaining areas where the two Houses are yet to agree on the text of the Bill: Meaningful vote: the House of Lords amended the Bill on a division to require that the Government bring forward an amendable motion at the end of the Article 50 negotiations... Of these four areas, only the "meaningful vote" proposal was made on a division, with the Government defeated. The other three proposals were brought forward by Government Ministers. Summary.

A2 Also from the fourth paragraph below under the section entitled 2.1 Meaningful vote: This amendment was discussed in the Commons as Lords Amendment 19. The Commons disagreed to the Lords amendment on division by 324 to 298.

and from the footnotes: 12 June 2018, Division 171

Then there's this from Meaningful vote#The Commons Vote:

• F "European Union (Withdrawal) Bill: Division 171". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Commons. 12 June 2018. col. 810–814.

...and if that isn't enough the combination of the four I've listed above, which is where it went next. Like I said I am happy to abide by the decision of the Wikipedia community on this. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The first one refers to MV as one of several "areas", not as a clause/section in a paper/bill etc. The second one refers to MV as an "issue", not as a clause/section in a paper/bill etc. The third (footnote) in its entirety is: "Votes and Proceedings, 12 June 2018, Division 171", so doesn't help at all. The fourth – Hansard – has some politicians using the term "MV", including "the European Parliament has a meaningful vote and 27 member states have a meaningful vote", "not simply for the House to have a meaningful vote, but to go back to the people and then accept the result of that vote", "we had a meaningful vote—we had a meaningful vote in a referendum two years ago", but columns 810–814 don't mention MV. So the term has been used to refer to a variety of things – mostly to refer to a vote in parliament or elsewhere – but not to a clause/section etc. Maybe there are sources somewhere that do, but they'll be vastly outnumbered by those that use it to refer to a vote. I've restored the previous wording of the opening (it's not very good, but better) and added a tie-in to the second sentence. EddieHugh (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

A1 Page 5 of the pdf gives masses of detail on this. This is the prime reference from the lead section which you have not commented on at all.

A2 Is the footnote to A1 and is a url link to "Votes and Proceedings, 12 June 2018" to Division 171 (did you not click on it?). Ref F Hansard columns 810–814 is simply a link to Division 171 mentioned in A1 and A2 from the lead section (the quotes you mention fall outside of columns 810–814).

From page 5 of A1 (my bold) "2. Continuing areas of debate: 2.1 Meaningful vote"

The “Meaningful Vote” issue has been the subject of the Government’s only defeat on division in the House of Commons Committee Stage of the Bill, and the subject of two defeats in the House of Lords: one at Lords Report Stage and another in the Lords during “ping pong” on 18 June 2018. During the Committee stage in the Commons, the Government had been defeated on an amendment which would require a statute to be passed on the Withdrawal Agreement before the powers available under Clause 9 of the Bill as introduced could be used. The House of Lords then voted to amend the Bill to insert a new clause which would regulate Parliament’s role in approving the Withdrawal Agreement. This amendment was discussed in the Commons as Lords Amendment 19. The Commons disagreed to the Lords amendment on division by 324 to 298. A2 The Government’s amendment in lieu was agreed to without division. The amendment inserts a new clause into the Bill which provides a statutory framework that gives effect to the Government’s written statement on 13 December 2017 on the arrangements for the approval and implementation of the Article 50 agreements: (1)  The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if— (a)  a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament— etc. A2 Votes and Proceedings, 12 June 2018, Division 171

From page 4 of A2 "Votes and Proceedings, 12 June 2018, Division 171"
(6) That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 19 (Question on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown to disagree with a Lords amendment).— (Secretary David Davis.) The House divided. Division No. 171. Ayes: 324 (Tellers: Jo Churchill, Nigel Adams). Noes: 298 (Tellers: Thangam Debbonaire, Jeff Smith). Question agreed to. Lords Amendment 19 accordingly disagreed to.

B Is division 1 which was 354 votes to 235, (columns 1904–1907). Votes are always on something - in this case the "meaningful vote" as confirmed in ref C.

C Quote Their amendment to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill was backed by 354 votes to 235.... The 119 majority was 28 more than the last time peers voted on the so-called "meaningful vote" issue.

I'm going to restore the lead to restore the tie-ins and also this is no longer "being debated", it has passed into law and parliament is in recess. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Good point about it no longer "being debated". I commented on the first: the opening words are 'The "Meaningful Vote" issue', not 'The "Meaningful Vote" clause' or 'The "Meaningful Vote" section'. An issue. The main part 2.1 belongs to is 2, which lists "four remaining areas". An area. 'Issues', 'areas', 'topics', 'problems', 'things to talk about', etc. The linked document in the footnote does not contain the term "meaningful vote". You've taken a commonly used term ("meaningful vote"), connected it to a current situation (the UK and the EU negotiation), and then attempted to make "meaningful vote" mean a piece of legislation. The first two of these steps are justified (with caveats) by the sources; the third is not. Pending another person's attempt at rewording the opening, I'll reattach the 'not in source' tag. EddieHugh (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Really, all we have to do here is put in an opening sentence that states what MV means (parliament having some kind of vote that can influence whether or not any negotiated outcome is accepted), then a second sentence stating that it has been legislated for. That would mean we could move on to doing productive things. How about it? EddieHugh (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The main part 2.1 belongs to is 2, which lists "four remaining areas". Correct namely:

2.1 Meaningful vote, pp. 5-9

2.2 Enhanced protection of specific areas of EU law, pp. 9-10

2.3 Refugee family unity, pp. 10-11

2.4 Sifting Committee, pp. 11-12

The linked document in the footnote A2 does not contain the term "meaningful vote". It doesn't need to because:

A1 states The “Meaningful Vote” issue has been ...This amendment was discussed in the Commons as Lords Amendment 19. The Commons disagreed to the Lords amendment on division by 324 to 298. The amendment inserts a new clause into the Bill which provides a statutory framework that gives effect to the Government’s written statement on 13 December 2017 on the arrangements for the approval and implementation of the Article 50 agreements: A3

and:

A2 details that particular division (division 171) - on Amendment 19 - which is now clause 13.

You've taken a commonly used term ("meaningful vote"), connected it to a current situation (the UK and the EU negotiation), and then attempted to make "meaningful vote" mean a piece of legislation.

No I have not. Amendment 19 is now clause 13:

A3 text of amendment 19 from pp. 5-6 of A1

(1) The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if— (a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament— (i) a statement that political agreement has been reached, (ii) a copy of the negotiated withdrawal agreement, and (iii) a copy of the framework for the future relationship, (b) the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, (c) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown and— (i) the House of Lords has debated the motion, or (ii) the House of Lords has not concluded a debate on the motion before the end of the period of five sitting days beginning the first sitting day after the day on which the House of Commons passes the resolution mentioned in paragraph (b), and (d) an Act of Parliament has been passed which contains provision for the implementation of the withdrawal agreement. (2) So far as practicable, a Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for the motion mentioned in subsection (1)(b) to be debated and voted on by the House of Commons before the European Parliament decides whether it consents to the withdrawal agreement being concluded on behalf of the EU in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union. (3) Subsection (4) applies if the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution mentioned in subsection (1)(b). (4) A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution, make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed in relation to negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union. (5) A statement under subsection (4) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.

became:

Final full text of section 13 as it appears in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

13  Parliamentary approval of the outcome of negotiations with the EU (1)  The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if— (a)  a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament— (i)  a statement that political agreement has been reached, (ii)  a copy of the negotiated withdrawal agreement, and (iii)  a copy of the framework for the future relationship, (b)  the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, (c)  a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown and— (i)  the House of Lords has debated the motion, or (ii)  the House of Lords has not concluded a debate on the motion before the end of the period of five Lords sitting days beginning with the first Lords sitting day after the day on which the House of Commons passes the resolution mentioned in paragraph (b), and (d)  an Act of Parliament has been passed which contains provision for the implementation of the withdrawal agreement. (2)  So far as practicable, a Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for the motion mentioned in subsection (1)(b) to be debated and voted on by the House of Commons before the European Parliament decides whether it consents to the withdrawal agreement being concluded on behalf of the EU in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union. (3)  Subsection (4) applies if the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution mentioned in subsection (1)(b). (4)  A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution, make a statement setting out how Her Majesty's Government proposes to proceed in relation to negotiations for the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union. (5)  A statement under subsection (4) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate. (6)  A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for— (a)  a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of the statement mentioned in subsection (4), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made, and (b)  a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the statement to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made. (7)  Subsection (8) applies if the Prime Minister makes a statement before the end of 21 January 2019 that no agreement in principle can be reached in negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the substance of— (a)  the arrangements for the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the EU, and (b)  the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom after withdrawal. (8)  A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the statement mentioned in subsection (7) is made— (a)  make a statement setting out how Her Majesty's Government proposes to proceed, and (b)  make arrangements for— (i)  a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of the statement mentioned in paragraph (a), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement mentioned in paragraph (a) is made, and (ii)  a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the statement mentioned in paragraph (a) to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement mentioned in paragraph (a) is made. (9)  A statement under subsection (7) or (8)(a) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate. (10)  Subsection (11) applies if, at the end of 21 January 2019, there is no agreement in principle in negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the substance of— (a)  the arrangements for the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the EU, and (b)  the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom after withdrawal. (11)  A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of five days beginning with the end of 21 January 2019— (a)  make a statement setting out how Her Majesty's Government proposes to proceed, and (b)  make arrangements for— (i)  a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of the statement mentioned in paragraph (a), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of five Commons sitting days beginning with the end of 21 January 2019, and (ii)  a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the statement mentioned in paragraph (a) to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of five Lords sitting days beginning with the end of 21 January 2019. (12)  A statement under subsection (11)(a) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate (13)  For the purposes of this section— (a)  a statement made under subsection (4), (8)(a) or (11)(a) may be combined with a statement made under another of those provisions, (b)  a motion falling within subsection (6)(a), (8)(b)(i) or (11)(b)(i) may be combined into a single motion with another motion falling within another of those provisions, and (c)  a motion falling within subsection (6)(b), (8)(b)(ii) or (11)(b)(ii) may be combined into a single motion with another motion falling within another of those provisions. (14)  This section does not affect the operation of Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (ratification of treaties) in relation to the withdrawal agreement. (15)  In subsection (1) “framework for the future relationship” means the document or documents identified, by the statement that political agreement has been reached, as reflecting the agreement in principle on the substance of the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom after withdrawal. (16)  In this section— “Commons sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Commons is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day); “Lords sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day); “negotiated withdrawal agreement” means the draft of the withdrawal agreement identified by the statement that political agreement has been reached; “ratified”, in relation to the withdrawal agreement, has the same meaning as it does for the purposes of Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 in relation to a treaty (see section 25 of that Act); “statement that political agreement has been reached” means a statement made in writing by a Minister of the Crown which— (a)  states that, in the Minister's opinion, an agreement in principle has been reached in negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the substance of— (i)  arrangements for the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the EU, and (ii)  the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom after withdrawal, (b)  identifies a draft of the withdrawal agreement which, in the Minister's opinion, reflects the agreement in principle so far as relating to the arrangements for withdrawal, and (c)  identifies one or more documents which, in the Minister's opinion, reflect the agreement in principle so far as relating to the framework. References

It is in the source unless the community rule otherwise on this RfC. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• To me, this is simple: on Wikipedia, assertions (except for the inherently obvious and commonplace) must be sourced. If the assertion is "A equals B" then the sources given must state that, not "Issue A is legislated for in clause B" or "Area A is going to be discussed in bill B". You've supplied no sources that state that "meaningful vote" equals "clause 9" or "section 13". You even quote 'The "Meaningful Vote" issue' and then don't see those three adjacent words as meaning "meaningful vote" is an "issue", not a piece of legislation. Somehow, I've failed to make you see this. And that's after nearly 2 months. So I give up. I have happier, more productive things to do. I might look back in on it in a few weeks or months, but it's all yours. EddieHugh (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment To me, this is simple: on Wikipedia, assertions (except for the inherently obvious and commonplace) must be sourced. And there's the rub, it is inherently obvious and commonplace, as a matter of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:COMMONSENSE. I said so on 16 June when I began this RfC diff. You disagree that's fine, that's what RfCs are for. I've repeatedly asked for it to be left to the Wikipedia community and I am glad that you now agree that that is what should happen. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: It strikes me that those who oppose the use of the current description of the article's subject essentially do not accept that this article should exist at all! -The Gnome (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wider information about Brexit

I've removed the following (diff):

• wider information about Brexit as there is already a Brexit article covering the subject as a whole it is therefore WP:OFFTOPIC
• the New European citation breaches WP:NPOV and
• info about The Real Brexit Debate as it breaches WP:CRYSTAL and it also gives undue prominence to one particular programme. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Current events entries for this article

10 December 2018

A news item involving the meaningful vote was featured on Wikipedia's current events portal in the International relations section on 10 December 2018: LINK. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

15 January 2019

There was also a news item involving the meaningful vote featured on the current events portal in the politics and elections section on 15 January 2019: LINK. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

16 January 2019

There was also a news item involving the meaningful vote featured on the current events portal in the politics and elections section on 16 January 2019: LINK. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

29 Jan votes

I've added some text about the 7 amendments voted on today. It would probably be useful to have vote breakdowns for all of these, or at least the two that passed. Bondegezou (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Second meaningful vote 14 February 2019

All day on the news channels 29 January 2019 reporters were saying "Today is not a meaningful vote", as per refs:

• Theresa May, Prime Minister (29 January 2019). "European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Commons. col. 671. First of all, as I have said, we will bring a revised deal back to this House for a second meaningful vote as soon as we possibly can. While we will want the House to support that deal, if it did not, we would—just as before—table an amendable motion for debate the next day. Furthermore, if we have not brought a revised deal back to this House by Wednesday 13 February, we will make a statement and, again, table an amendable motion for debate the next day.
• Lovegrove, Simon (29 January 2019). "United Kingdom (and EU regulation): MPs reject all but two amendments to Theresa May's Brexit plan". regulationtomorrow.com/eu. Financial services: Regulation tomorrow. Retrieved 29 January 2019. After the votes the Prime Minister told MPs that there was now a "substantial and sustainable" majority in the Commons for leaving the EU with a deal, but admitted renegotiation "will not be easy". She added that she expected to bring back a 'revised' deal by 13 February 2019, with a secondary meaningful vote to be held in the House of Commons on 14 February 2019.

... so reverting 29 January 2019 as the date of the second vote and excessive, uncited detail about amendments. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of whether events on 29th January count as a "meaningful vote" they are very relevant to the topic of this article, so I don't think that content should have been deleted en masse. And it also doesn't make much sense for the events on 29 January to be described in a section headed "14 February 2019". By way of compromise I've renamed the relevant section headings to reflect the theory that 14th February is the second "meaningful vote". Will try to add further citations for the material in due course. 23:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Iota (talk)

I agree that the events on 29 Jan are very relevant and very important and warrant coverage. Iota's new sub-heading seems sensible, but I may tweak. Bondegezou (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I've temporarily removed the collapable box with details of the Spelman-Dromey amendment as it was not the only amendment passed. I personally think the extra detail is excessive, especially as it is non-binding, but if it is to be included then there ought to be 2 boxes, one for the Spelman-Dromey amendment and one for the Brady amendment or neither as per WP:UNDUE. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought the box represented both amendments? Bondegezou (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Bondegezou is correct. The collapsible box is not the text of an amendment. It's the text of the final main resolution adopted by the Commons, and as such it incorporates both amendments.

I think the level of detail given about the 29th January is consistent with the level of detail provided in other parts of the article, which is quite intricate in many places. For example, the article has a lot of detail on the "Pan B amendment" and the "three day amendment". Both of these amendments were about setting the ground work for the vote on 29th January. One stipulated that the vote on 29th January would be amendable, and the other dictated when it would happen. So having covered those points in detail, it would not make much sense to skimp on detail about the actual vote on 29th January.

I've reinstated the collapsible box and added a source. Iota (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

She didn't set any date for the second meaningful vote except to say "as soon as we possibly can". She stated that if there is no meaningful vote before February 13 then she would bring an amendable motion to the Commons on February 14, but (while it may be safe to assume she'd like to have the meaingful vote before that), she didn't actually say that it would take place before that. She simply set out what would happen if it didn't. My source for this is the source actually cited in the article right now (Theresa May, Prime Minister (29 January 2019). "European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Commons. col. 671. First of all, as I have said, we will bring a revised deal back to this House for a second meaningful vote as soon as we possibly can. While we will want the House to support that deal, if it did not, we would—just as before—table an amendable motion for debate the next day. Furthermore, if we have not brought a revised deal back to this House by Wednesday 13 February, we will make a statement and, again, table an amendable motion for debate the next day.) There's nothing in what she said that precludes there being a debate on an amendable motion on February 14 and a "meaningful vote" on her deal a week later. NB the meaningful vote refers specifically to a vote on whether or not to accept a proposed Brexit withdrawal agreement, not a vote on an amendable motion which states simply that the House has considered the Prime Minister's statement (ie not the vote she has said could happen on February 14).217.196.231.103 (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am not disputing the idea that February 13/14 should be in the article, just that it should not be described as a second meaningful vote as it currently is 217.196.231.103 (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 10 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. This issue can be revisited a few months after the whole affair dies down, one way or another. As for the bolding I leave that to WP:BRD as an editorial decision. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Meaningful vote → Meaningful vote on Brexit – The term "meaningful vote" is so ordinary, common and colloquial that can describe any vote which is so important and has enormous and profound effect, whatever the country, region and issue. However, this article mainly talks about the so-called "meaningful vote" held in the Parliament of the United Kingdom on Brexit. Thus, it is a good idea to add "on Brexit" to the end of the original title to make this article's title more accurate, precise and rigorous.
114.253.193.5
08:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 22:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The appropriation of the term to the narrow topic of Brexit, affecting just 1 country with less than 1% of the world’s population, is inappropriate. Frenchmalawi (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The appropriation of the term to a WP:RECENT topic is inappropriate and fails WP:CRITERIA. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME this is exactly the phrase used for this in all the reliable sources. And I cannot find any other "meaningful vote" contexts out there that would require this one to be disambiguated in any way. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment OP says that the term "meaningful vote" is so ordinary, common and colloquial. It is colloquial language, but are there any references for it being common, as in used for any other vote which is so important. --Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per DeFacto. As far as encyclopedic uses of "meaningful vote", this is it. Dohn joe (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose agree with DeFacto, it's WP:COMMONNAME in all the sources. I just googled the phrase (lower case) "meaningful vote" and could not find any reference to anything other than the topic of this article in the first 15 pages. The EU refer to it by this name as well in official releases without conditionals such as . I accept that in future there may be a case for renaming this article once the phrase it no longer in such common use, but this is what it is referred to, often even in sources from outside the UK such as . Also which shows that the phrase just was not in routine use prior to it's use for the subject this article documents. Aurourafx (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

References

• Oppose for now it may be recentism, but this seems like the primary topic today. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with Frenchmalawi. Mgasparin (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Far too generic to use alone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per DeFacto. I am the creator of the article and that is the WP:COMMONNAME in all sources e.g.

• Maguire, Patrick (15 January 2019). "What will defeat on tonight's meaningful vote mean for the government?". New Statesman.

--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The fact it's the common name at the moment when Brexit dominates the British media doesn't mean it should be used without some form of disambiguation for what is not an uncommon term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Which other Wikipedia article using the same term does it need disambiguating from? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not an uncommon phrase. It matters not that there are no other articles with this title. Common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - 99% of all sources on Google refer to Brexit, Ofcourse there's one or 2 that refers to something else but that's basically 1%...., Had there been other major meaningful votes then sure I would agree with moving but as Brexit is by far the common and pretty much only term this is used for as per COMMONNAME it should remain as is. –Davey2010^Talk 13:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support as per WP:RECENTISM and WP:BIAS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:BIAS? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It should be clear – there are many editors from the UK, and to them "Meaningful vote" will have one primary meaning (thus introducing a systematic "bias" on the topic); to everyone else not from the UK, not so much. The additional disambiguation in the title here is necessary for anyone not from the UK. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: It's known as the meaningful vote, without qualifiers; in parliamentary practice, all votes on meaningful subjects are supposed to be meaningful themselves, and the emphasis on "meaningful" in the motions requiring it is to prevent May from doing a run-around of Parliament as she has done at least once before (c.f. contempt of Parliament motion). Sceptre (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support: The phrase 'meaningful vote' seems to lack context that I see becoming an issue down the road when Brexit is no longer a current event everyone is staring at intently. Even if it's not official phrase, that it may come up again in time in a different context. Also agreement with Frenchmalawi's point.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 00:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems to me that arguments regarding "meaningful vote" as an "ordinary, common and colloquial" phrase is an argument about notability. Meaningful vote meets WP:COMMONNAME it only needs disambiguation if there is another specific, common use of the term to disambiguated. As it passes into history, 10 years+, it may be necessary to disambiguate it but right now it is WP:TOOSOON. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - the term is so generic, it matters not that it might be the common name to those who use yet, for the rest of the world (yes, other places outside the UK or EU exists) it means nothing without context. --Gonnym (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Which other Wikipedia article using the same term does it need disambiguating from? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not see any examples given of any other articles that could or should be called "meaningful vote". Ergo, I agree with The Vintage Feminist. Bondegezou (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support: The current term is a generic one that could be applied to anything. No doubt it will be used in the context of other topics given time. This is Paul (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose apart from the common name argument it wasn't/is not a vote on Brexit but relates to acceptance of the Withdrawl Agreement and Political Statement so the proposed new name could be misleading. MilborneOne (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: I think the proposed title raises more issues of interpretation than it solves. "Meaningful vote on Brexit" could be understood as any meaningful vote on Brexit, including the referendum itself, votes by EU bodies, etc. If a more descriptive title is needed, it should eliminate such ambiguity, for example "UK parliamentary votes on Brexit Withdrawal Agreement". Krubo (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support: While the unadorned term has dominated the news lately, it's just too generic and recentist for a longer-term record. Yes, redirect (we don't need a disambiguation page unless there are three candidates), but a less ambiguous title is desirable. ((I do agree with MilborneOne that perhaps a different disambiguation suffix would be better. I support a more descriptive title; it doesn't specifically have to be "on Brexit".) 209.209.238.189 (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support: The phrase "meaningful vote" will return to its generic meaning after this news spike. Esiymbro (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Is there actually anything else this term could actually refer to? Unreal7 (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Any vote that was meaningful! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Name one that has half-a-dozen press reports calling it a meaningful vote. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Proposed compromise (discosure: I supported the move above): How about keep the page title but expand the bolded restatement in the lead? Like many biographical articles use a WP:COMMONNAME as the title (e.g. Winston Churchill) while bolding a more formal full name (e.g. Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill) in the lead. That would avoid renaming the article unnecessarily, but indicate what it could be moved to if it became necessary due to a sufficiently prominent conflicting definition of "meaningful vote" appearing in future. E.g. something like

The "meaningful vote" on the Brexit withdrawal agreement is the parliamentary vote required by Section 13 of the United Kingdom's European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to ratify the Brexit withdrawal agreement. The act requires the government of the United Kingdom to bring forward an amendable parliamentary motion at the end of the Article 50 negotiations between the government and the European Union before the agreement may come into effect.

Opinions? 209.209.238.189 (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it's the generic nature of the article title that's important here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I would have no problem with expanding the bold text further. If the problem is it being generic then who is searching meaningful vote in the first place and why? If a second article on a different use of the term is created then a disambiguation argument comes into play but I don't see what we are separating this article from right now. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

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)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.