Only 7% of the bankers who voted against the withdrawal agreement are now part of De Johnson`s cabinet. Unusually, the spokesperson accepted the proposal for an amendment to this amendment that requires the government, if it loses the „wise vote“ on its agreement of the 15th, to make a statement to the House of Commons within three days of session. Relations with Europe have been an important issue for the UK`s centre-right Conservative party for 50 years. The UK joined the EU in 1973 under a Conservative government, but with broad political support: in a referendum on EU membership in 1975, 67% of voters and all major political parties supported membership. However, over the next 40 years, the EU has moved from a trading bloc to a much narrower economic and political union. This process was violently rejected by a minority of Conservative MPs, but without success, particularly in the early 1990s, when the Maastricht Treaty (an extension of EU powers with a corresponding loss of UK sovereignty) came into force (Sowemimo 1996). At the same time, a minority of right-wing voters voted in favour of leaving the EU. In response to migration from Eastern European countries that joined the EU from 2004, support for this position has increased. The UK Independence Party (UKIP), the only party in favour of the UK`s exit from the EU, has enjoyed considerable support, mainly to the detriment of the Conservative party: UKIP took third place in the EU general election in 2004, second in 2009 and first in 2014 (z.B. Clarke and al. 2016). Section 13 of the 2018 Act required the government to use a motion in a neutral manner in response to the Prime Minister`s written statements of January 21 and 24, in which he outlined her „Plan B.“ In accordance with the „three-day amendment“ to Dominic Grieve`s parliamentary calendar, this application was filed on 21 January (three days of session after the rejection of the draft withdrawal agreement by MEPs) and put to a vote on 29 January 2019.
It was passed in the form of a resolution that the House of Commons had „thought about“ the Prime Minister`s statements. This neutral proposal was amended and, prior to the vote on the main motion, the House of Commons voted on seven amendments proposed by Members and chosen by the spokesperson.  Members who voted on the withdrawal agreement in the three relevant votes may be divided between those who also sat in Parliament in 2015 and therefore acted as representatives at the time of the referendum and those who were not members of the past legislative branch (i.e. those who entered the House of Commons in 2017). If the positions of Members in the referendum were strategically chosen to meet the preferences of constituencies, we suspect that the incentive would be much stronger for those who were already Members at the time of the referendum. After all, in 2016, MPs elected in 2017 did not know they would run in the general election shortly after the referendum, weakening their motivation to make contact with that of future voters. For them, it is clear that the referendum reflects their personal preference. Even if the House of Commons accepts the withdrawal agreement tomorrow and even if it frees up the extension of the Article 50 deadline on 22 May, this will not in itself prevent a Brexit without a deal. Leaving aside the possibility of a further extension of the Article 50 deadline, a Brexit without a deal can only be avoided in two ways: leaving with a withdrawal agreement or revoking Article 50 and thus cancelling out the Brexit process. It is essential that the adoption of the withdrawal agreement by the House of Commons will not allow the government tomorrow to move forward and ratify the agreement – a step that must be taken before the agreement can have a legal effect.