Last week's Brexit indicative votes were widely reported as a failure, but I think that's unfair. The idea was always to indicate which directions might have support, not to magically resolve the dispute. For example, the SNP, Lib Dems and Independent Group all abstained on the "soft Brexit" options, because they prefer a second referendum, but they'd clearly prefer a soft Brexit over no deal.
I made a spreadsheet that interprets the indicative votes as preferences, Aye / Abstain / No → 1st / 2nd / 3rd, and compares all the motions head-to-head against each other.
It turns out that “customs union” is the clear winner, beating every other motion head to head. “Public vote” is narrowly second, and there's a clear rank ordering of the remaining options -- no rock-paper-scissors cycles.
I think this shows that last week's indicated votes were useful, and we could see some real progress in the second round of voting this evening, as long as MPs are willing to make reasonable compromises.
1 comment
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 15.4 ms ] threadI made a spreadsheet that interprets the indicative votes as preferences, Aye / Abstain / No → 1st / 2nd / 3rd, and compares all the motions head-to-head against each other.
It turns out that “customs union” is the clear winner, beating every other motion head to head. “Public vote” is narrowly second, and there's a clear rank ordering of the remaining options -- no rock-paper-scissors cycles.
I think this shows that last week's indicated votes were useful, and we could see some real progress in the second round of voting this evening, as long as MPs are willing to make reasonable compromises.