Indicative votes will only deepen confusion

The Prime Minister was right to voice her scepticism about the procedure taking place in Parliament today. In the absence of an agreement on her deal with the EU, the Order Paper has been commandeered by the legislature in an effort to find a Brexit position on which a majority of MPS can agree.

The chances must be high that they will fail. A similar exercise was conducted, though in less dramatic circumstances, in February 2003 when the Labour government put seven proposals for reforming the House of Lords to a free vote and every single one was rejected. As a result, nothing has happened since. The same could happen today, deepening confusion rather than ameliorating it.

But at least the Government controlled the business. Today’s exercise is not only constitutionally questionable in that the executive is being sidelined, but the methodology leaves much to be desired. MPS are to be issued with ballot papers listing all the options and will then be invited to signify “Yes” or “No” for each. As yet it is unclear what the options will be, though it is assumed a customs union, a second referendum, revocation of Article 50, a Norway-style arrangement and a no-deal Brexit will be among them. Each has been voted down at one point or another during the tortured Brexit process.

It is possible that without whipping one of these might garner a majority. But as Mrs May told the House on Monday, there would be little point in the Commons supporting a proposal that the EU will not countenance. Labour’s idea of a customs deal under which the UK can still strike its own trade agreements is for the birds.

Moreover, is the Government going to allow Tories to vote for an option which was rejected in the party’s election manifesto? Cabinet ministers left their meeting yesterday none the wiser (not for the first time) about the likelihood of a free vote on all the options.

It would be bizarre for the executive to hand over authority for the day to the Commons yet still insist upon whipping MPS. But Mrs May’s point is that the Government is expected to enact whatever they agree; and yet that might not be possible. “No Government could give a blank cheque to commit to an outcome without knowing what it is, so I cannot commit to delivering the outcome of any votes held by the House, but I do commit to engaging constructively with the process,” she said on Monday.

In other words, today’s fandango risks adding to uncertainty in the country while deepening the divisions between the Government and the legislature, which will expect its decisions to be upheld should it reach any.

While the Prime Minister’s suspicion of this turn of events is well justified, it still might work to her advantage. If every other option falls then her twice-defeated deal might be the only mechanism left that guarantees leaving the EU. Given Parliament’s implacable hostility to a no-deal departure, the most likely alternative will be a lengthy extension to Article 50 of a year or more, during which time anything could happen.

In these circumstances, Brexiteer Conservatives who have so far opposed her deal might be tempted to back it tomorrow or Friday, the last possible date for a third vote. Already there are cracks in their ranks; these might widen if the Prime Minister announces a date for her departure when she meets backbench MPS today.