THE EU gave Theresa May a choice last week - secure MPs’ backing for the withdrawal agreement or come up with an alternative way forward if it is to avoid crashing out of the bloc on 12 April.
With May’s deal looking unlikely to pass, attention has turned to what kind of new plan the Commons could support.
Downing Street is considering holding a series of “indicative votes” to let MPs give their views on how to proceed. This would involve MPs voting on a series of possible Brexit outcomes to determine which was the most popular. The votes would not be legally binding but would give ministers a strong sense of what kind of outcome, if any, could command a Commons majority.
Pro-EU cabinet ministers including Greg Clark, Damian Hinds and Amber Rudd have been proposing this approach for several months, urging the Prime Minister to try to find a basis for a cross-party compromise.
And earlier this month, May’s deputy, David Lidington, told MPs that if the Prime Minister’s deal was voted down for a third time, the Government “would facilitate a process ... To allow the house to seek a majority on the way forward”.
Several possible outcomes are likely to be voted on: the Prime Minister’s deal, a second referendum, revoking Article 50, a no-deal exit, a deal involving a permanent customs union with the EU, a deal involving a customs union and membership of the single market and a less comprehensive agreement in the form of a free trade deal.
A group of senior backbench MPs, including former Tory ministers Sir Oliver Letwin and Dominic Grieve and Labour’s Hilary Benn, has said the Government should not be allowed to set the terms of the votes. They have tabled a Commons amendment that would pave the way for indicative votes to be held on Wednesday, regardless of whether or not the Government agrees.
One of those involved, ex-Tory minister Nick Boles, said it was crucial MPs, not ministers, are allowed to define the options. He said: “MPs supporting the different options must be in charge of defining them and control the drafting of the motions. Otherwise they will be setting us up to fail.”
There is also the question of the process by which MPs would vote. One would see the Commons divide on a series of yes/no votes on specific proposals. However, the danger is no option receives a majority. Another plan would see rounds of voting, with the least popular option being discarded at each stage.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel