Comment: Brexit - indicative votes may not break the deadlock Published on: 23 January 2019 Writing for The Conversation, Dr Martin Farr looks back to the last time MPs used an indicative vote to break a deadlock in Parliament. Deadlocked. Pajor Pawel/Shutterstock One of the many ironies thrown up in the course of Brexit has been just how controversial attempts by parliament 鈥� the UK鈥檚 supreme constitutional authority 鈥� to take back control have been. First, MPs insisted on holding a 鈥溾�� on the government鈥檚 draft Brexit deal. Then they insisted that the prime minister must return to parliament within three days with a new plan after they . Throughout, parliament鈥檚 role has been, equally controversially, championed in the House of Commons by a , who set a new precedent by allowing MPs to vote on an amendment to the business motion of the day. A range of options has now been mooted to help break the deadlock, including a , a , and even a quasi-government of . Another, put down in by the Labour MP Hilary Benn, is a unique means of seeking to establish consensus by testing the will of MPs in an 鈥渁ll-options鈥� debate: an . This process gives MPs the chance to vote on a series of non-binding resolutions on different outcomes to a particular issue. In the case of Brexit, that voting for no deal, or for the government to re-negotiate the deal to achieve a specific outcome, or for a second referendum. The very notion of an indicative vote had never been uttered in parliament before 1997. Then, just as now, it was suggested 鈥� although not ultimately used 鈥� as a way of resolving the innate tensions surrounding a referendum: then, the question had been whether to establish a . In 2000 and 2002 indicative votes were employed early on in the tortuous consultative process in parliament of a matter which, much like Brexit, inflamed significant sections of the public: . In such generally unprecedented times as this, there鈥檚 only one real precedent. In 2003 a novel recourse was intended for an ancient conundrum: reform of the House of Lords. This was a gridlocked issue where there was no obvious solution, and where the cabinet was divided between groups of ministers who strongly preferred one option, and, equally strongly, opposed others. Lords reform Membership of the House of Lords remained essentially unreformed and largely based on birthright until 1997, when the 鈥淣ew Labour鈥� government sought to reflect 鈥淣ew Britain鈥�, including making the upper chamber 鈥渕ore democratic and representative鈥�. Parliament duly passed, in the main, Labour鈥檚 manifesto to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the Lords. As a compromise, and selected by their peers, . At the next general election, Labour to remove the remaining hereditary peers to make the House of Lords 鈥渕ore representative and democratic鈥�. But deciding on what should happen once hereditary peers were removed proved difficult, defeating both a and the government. A committee of both houses on seven options, including a fully appointed and fully elected House of Lords, and a range of hybrid chambers with different percentages of elected and appointed peers. MPs were invited to give their view of these options in a series of indicative votes in early . In the ensuing muddle, MPs voted tactically as well as on principle, with some by voting for an option which they knew would not prevail. The prime minister, Tony Blair, preferred an appointed chamber and was opposed to an elected chamber. The official position of the official opposition, suitably enough, was the opposite. In the end, all the propositions were . In their diaries, Blair鈥檚 official spokesman, Alistair Campbell, called it a , and the chairman of the Conservatives鈥� backbench 1922 committee, Michael Spicer, noted the . Subsequent efforts to resolve the issue in 2007 were similarly unsuccessful. This meant that, in the kind of one-could-not-make-it-up situation that takes place almost daily today, the only democratic element of the House of Lords was, and remains, the . Left with the status quo Supporters of indicative votes to break the parliamentary Brexit deadlock hope that they could tentatively establish something of a consensus among MPs, each of whom had, after all, been elected by their constituents. If they were freed from the constraints of party discipline, MPs could vote based on their judgement. The attempted Lords reform of 2003 offers only a for the current situation. are certainly no panacea. Each of the motions on which MPs would vote would be amendable, and which amendments would be chosen would doubtless be the objects of . The inevitably protracted parliamentary process may also merely lead MPs back to the current impasse 鈥� and given that MPs would be able to support more than one option, more than one option might command a majority. To add to the uncertainties, the government need not be bound by the settled will of parliament, even if there were one, and Downing Street . The principal difference between indicative votes in 2003 and 2019 is that in 2003 the issue in question, for all its longevity, aroused no great public interest and had not been subject to the muddying consequences of a referendum. The principal similarity may be that in both cases there was a majority for nothing, and the eventual outcome pleased nobody. If the government provides time for indicative votes to take place, Brexiters will at least hope one precedent is not followed: in 2003 the equivalent of 鈥渞emain鈥� 鈥� that is, the status quo 鈥� was not offered as an option, but in the absence of any agreement on an alternative, 鈥渞emain鈥� is what came to pass. , Senior Lecturer in Modern and Contemporary British History, This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the . Share: Latest News 缅北禁地 expert highlights climate crisis in a new film A leading 缅北禁地 climate scientist is featured in a new film about how the climate and nature breakdown will affect the UK. published on: 14 April 2026 Neolithic tombs reveal ancient kinship ties Male individuals buried in Neolithic chambered tombs in northern Scotland were often related to each other through the paternal line and some were interred in the same or nearby tombs, research shows. published on: 14 April 2026 We are our Memories New exhibition by Fine Art graduate Trish Hudson-Moses, 22 April 鈥� 4 May 2026 published on: 10 April 2026 Facts and figures
![缅北禁地 logo](/gomobileassets/img/logo.svg" "缅北禁地"){kind=logo}