The Guardian view on Theresa May’s defeat: three strikes and out
Theresa May’s third successive Brexit defeat leaves Britain in a situation that is precarious yet full of possibilities. Friday’s Commons defeat was smaller than those which had preceded it on 15 January and 12 March – the majority against Mrs May was 58 rather than the previous 230 and 149. It was also confined to the withdrawal agreement part of the EU-UK deal she made in November, rather than extending to the deal as a whole. But the verdict is clear. Three strikes and out.
This was in all but name the Commons’ third “meaningful vote” on the Brexit deal this year. All three have had the same result. In her comments after the latest defeat, Mrs May appeared to leave open the possibility that she might try for a fourth time. This would be madness. There has to be a limit to the number of times that the deal can be put before parliament before no really must mean no. That limit has been reached. Mrs May’s deal is dead. It must now be buried.
Given that her deal was likely to lose for a third time, it has to be asked why the prime minister should have so consciously invited her own humiliation in this way. There are several reasons. The stubbornness of her character, the ineptitude of her strategy and the draining of her authority underlie them all.
One reason was simply to keep some kind of Brexit show on the road. The day Mrs May set two years ago for Britain’s departure from the EU was 29 March. Her repeated misjudgments, including her refusal to reach out to remainers and the loss of her majority in 2017, meant that the deadline was not met. But Mrs May was clearly trying to show leave voters that, whoever else was getting in Brexit’s way, it was not her. With a pro-leave crowd outside parliament, Mrs May was trying to turn the spotlight of blame on to Labour and her own hardliners. But the former owed her nothing, while the latter are past caring, especially because they know that she is about to step down. Only five Labour MPs backed her deal, while 34 Tories voted against it. All this did was highlight her own failure and weakness.
According to the attorney general at the start of the debate, the ostensible reason for trying again was procedural. Mrs May needed to get her deal through so that the latest Brexit deadline could be moved back from 12 April to 22 May. That might in theory have allowed time for parliament to push through the final tranche of withdrawal legislation without the UK becoming embroiled in the European parliament elections. As things stand, that is not now likely to happen. The reality is that Britain now faces a choice between a no-deal exit in two weeks’ time or a much longer delay to Brexit, during which the UK will probably take part in the EU elections. Since the former is unthinkably dangerous, the choice must clearly be for a longer delay.
Mrs May had more partisan reasons too. Last Monday’s revolt by MPs, in which they took control of parliament from the government, opened up the possibility that opposition MPs and pro-European Tories might soften the deal, revoke article 50 or insist on a second referendum. Many Conservative MPs panicked at that prospect. With Mrs May also promising to step down if her deal was adopted, more than 40 of her MPs switched to support a deal they had previously execrated. It was all to no avail, but Downing Street seems to have calculated that it should bank those switchers in order to make things easier for the deal if they try a fourth time.
That would be a nonsense now. Instead Mrs May’s defeat clears the way for a different approach. This week’s indicative votes are unfinished business. New versions will be put to MPs on Monday. The movers have learned from their defeats, something Mrs May seems incapable of doing. Two propositions – in favour of a customs union and for a second referendum on the final deal – are very much in play. If the Commons can rally behind these, the EU summit on 10 April should be asked to give the UK a longer extension of article 50 to cement a different form of deal, with a public vote on it at the end. How ironic it is that Mrs May’s third defeat may have finally created space for a very different approach from the one she has followed for three wasted years.