Constitutional labyrinth that could lead to

IF THE Government loses the vote on Tuesday, there are several potential consequences – legal, political and constitutional – affecting not only how the ministers proceed on the Withdrawal Agreement but also the future of the Prime Minister and her government.

Under the EU Withdrawal Act passed earlier this year, the agreement has to be approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.

Without MPs’ approval of a resolution, or without further legislation, the agreement cannot be ratified. Instead of voting down the resolution, MPs could agree an amendment to it, calling for different terms.

This may raise the issue of whether the agreement has been “approved” by the House. That could lead to a legal challenge. More likely, it would be in terms that, though not formally a rejection, create serious political obstacles for the Government in proceeding with the existing agreement.

MPs could seek to use the power, enshrined in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, to veto its ratification. A failure by the Prime Minister to achieve the outcome she wants may have major political and constitutional consequences beyond the agreement. She could take it as an implicit vote of no confidence in her leadership and resign.

As with David Cameron after the result of the 2016 referendum, it would be a personal decision.

If she sought to carry on, her position could be challenged.

More Tory MPs could write to the chairman of the 1922 Committee calling for a vote of no confidence by the parliamentary party. If the magic figure of 48 (15 per cent of the party’s