Brexit amendments: which ones passed and what do they mean?

After Theresa May’s defeat, she instructed Parliament to indicate what they wanted from the withdrawal agreement. They did this through the proposal of amendments to the Withdrawal Agreement which would instruct the Government to act in a particular way.

Of the 15 amendments tabled, 7 were selected and all failed bar 2.

The first successful amendment was by Sir Graham Brady (who you may remember from a previous episode of Brexit when he was in charge of facilitating the no-confidence vote in Theresa May). This amendment allowed MPs to declare that they would theoretically accept the current deal if the Government can go back and renegotiate to get substantive changes to the backstop agreement.

Within 8 seconds of it passing, EU leaders released tweets saying the deal was not open for renegotiation. The Government spokespeople seem to think they’re not being serious, which many are suggesting is a position that lies somewhat removed from any realm of reality.

The other amendment to pass was by Dame Caroline Spelman. Her amendment would prohibit the Government from leaving without a deal. It was slightly different from the other amendments that blocked no deal because it didn’t give any instructions to the Government about what to do instead (general election, second referendum, etc). So, as Krishnan Guru Murthy said, “MPs voted that they don’t want to do it, but also voted not to do anything to stop it.” MPs also failed to pass any amendments that would have extended Article 50, meaning the Brexit date is still set at 29 March at 2300.

The amendments aren’t legally binding, but considering Theresa May says she wants to hear what Parliament wants, it would be pretty unforgivable if she didn’t adopt them as policy. Equally, the EU referendum itself wasn’t legally binding but she’s choosing to honour that, so consistency would mandate she did take them on.

Theoretically, this means no deal is off the table. However, CBI chief, Caroline Fairburn, said that the vote last night did not offer any assurance to business and that many will continue to plan for no-deal. Equally, when asked at PMQs today whether she would categorically rule out no-deal, she replied that the way to avoid no-deal was to vote for her deal…

If Theresa May does stick to her word and refuses to go for no-deal, it means the Government and EU need to get the backstop changes by last week in Feb. If not, there’s seemingly nothing they can do but extent A50. But that in itself has doesn’t get us anywhere either. At that point, who knows what would happen – perhaps only then will the Government resign itself to going for a general election. If not, what was once ‘the unlikely event of no-deal’ becomes reality.

Today, Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May faced off in PMQs, giving the usual display of mutual contempt. At 1500 they are due to have a 1-1 meeting to discuss possible routes forward. Seeing as it is difficult to picture any kind of compromise that could bridge the gap between their two positions, no one is expecting any breakthroughs any time soon.

So for now, yet again and in spite of everything, we’re really in the same place we were before, with no real direction for the future of the Withdrawal Agreement apart from continued demands on our side to change the backstop arrangements, to which the EU have repeatedly said are a no-go.

We continue to rest at Brexit stalemate.