A Third Strike, but Britain Is Not Quite Out

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/opinion/brexit-theresa-may-european-union.html

Version 0 of 1.

Friday was supposed to be Brexit day, the day Britain would exit from the European Union with or without a deal. Instead, with the deadline pushed back, the embattled British Parliament capped a week of extraordinary turmoil on Friday with another decisive rejection of Prime Minister Theresa May’s terms for leaving the union.

That set April 12 as the new deadline. European Union officials warned that no deal was now a likely scenario and called for a summit meeting on April 10. Yet for all the suspense and gloom, there remained a slim chance that Parliament could still find a way forward when it regroups on Monday.

The indefatigable Mrs. May provided the week’s first shock on Wednesday when she nobly offered to resign as prime minister if only the Parliament would pass her twice-rejected E.U. deal.

The shock gave way to suspense late that evening when the Parliament reassembled in its oak-paneled chamber to vote on eight different Brexit options, a maneuver that was supposed to indicate what sort of plan the legislators might actually favor, with options ranging from a customs union to another national referendum. The answer came in the style of a Greek chorus as John Bercow, the strong-lunged speaker, intoned, “The no’s have it!” again and again. The phrase could serve as the motto of the entire Brexit process, as the Parliament has repeatedly blocked any deal but has also blocked leaving the E.U. with no deal.

So at the end of a long day of gripping drama, Mrs. May was still prime minister, and she wasn’t finished. She would put her twice-rejected deal to another vote on Friday, she declared, but only the withdrawal agreement part of it, which sets out the conditions of the divorce, including the controversial “backstop” arrangement that the E.U. insists on to ensure that no border is raised between Ireland and the British province of Northern Ireland.

Mrs. May left the heart of the agreement unchanged for the third vote, which was defeated Friday afternoon, 344 to 286. “The implications of the House’s decision are grave,” said Mrs. May.

It would all be splendid theater if it were not so fateful for Britain and for Europe. Had Mrs. May prevailed, Brexit would have been moved back to May 22. But without parliamentary approval for the deal, the E.U. declared the deadline a scant two weeks from now.

It was not over, however. The Parliament was set to hold another series of votes on the various options this coming Monday. And while they were all rejected on Wednesday, there was a chance that members would reconsider at least the two that attracted the most votes — another Brexit referendum or a customs union between Britain and the E.U. If it appeared that Parliament was moving toward an agreement, the bloc would very likely agree to a longer extension.

Historians will no doubt find many reasons the “mother of parliaments” has been in such spectacular disarray for so long on so critical a matter. One is the inherent contradiction in asking Parliament to carry out an ill-conceived referendum when a majority of the legislators, and the prime minister, were never in favor of Brexit. There has also been considerable discussion about the insularity and exceptionalism that has run through the entire debate on Brexit, in which the “Continent” figures as an alien and unwelcome imposition on an antique notion of “Britishness.”

A process as bitterly divisive and extraordinarily complex as extracting Britain from the E.U. was never going to be easy. The repeated “no” votes in Parliament, the passion of the debate and the elaborate parliamentary maneuvering were a reflection of the complexity and passions at play, and not necessarily a failure of democracy. “Clearly there is also more work to do,” noted one coolheaded ally of Mrs. May after Friday’s vote, “but we are at least going in the right direction.”

That may seem unduly chipper, given the real and present danger of no deal. But so long as the members of Parliament are still considering options such as another referendum or a customs union, both infinitely better than a chaotic plunge off the “no-deal” cliff, the process should by all means be allowed to continue.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.