Welcome to the Guardian’s weekly Brexit briefing, striving to make sense of the nonsensical since summer 2016. If you would like to receive this as a weekly email, please sign up here. And catch our monthly Brexit Means … podcast here.

Producing the Guardian’s independent, in-depth journalism takes time and money. We do it because we believe our perspective matters, and it may be yours too. If you value our Brexit coverage, please support us. Thank you.

Top stories

Well, fancy that. Having crushed Theresa May’s Brexit deal in the heaviest defeat for a government in UK parliamentary history, MPs voted by a narrow margin to resuscitate it after she gave in to Conservative hardliners and promised to return to Brussels in search of changes to the Irish backstop.

The Brady amendment, which aims to replace the backstop with unspecified “alternative arrangements”, passed by 317 votes to 301, with May pledging to try to bring back a renegotiated withdrawal agreement by 13 February so that MPs could have a second “meaningful vote” on Valentine’s Day.

Britain’s Eurosceptic press hailed “Theresa’s triumph” but European politicians and especially the continental media were withering, condemning the prime minister as weak, untrustworthy and above all, willing to place the unity of her own party over the interests of her country. The EU would not play ball, they warned.

It didn’t. Chief negotiator Michel Barnier said firmly that the backstop was needed “as it is”, while EU council president Donald Tusk said the agreement was “not open for renegotiation” and told May in a “frank” phone call that no talks could begin without a concrete plan from Downing Street that had clear parliamentary support.

As no-deal planning continued across the the EU, May warned MPs that their vote had not killed off the prospect of the UK crashing out. Officials in Brussels said a no-deal Brexit may be more likely because the prime minister will not have the political courage to ask for a long Brexit delay, which they believe she needs.

Hardline Brexiters soon upped the ante, letting May know that the only backstop proposal they would back is a version of the so-called “Malthouse compromise” (apparently known in Brussels as “the madhouse compromise”), which would remove the mechanism from the exit treaty altogether.

With 53 days to go, the government set up a new working group to explore options – including new technology – for avoiding a hard border, but EU negotiator Sabine Weyand was quick to trash them, saying any concessions on border controls by the EU (what Brexiters described as “goodwill”) would amount to dereliction of duty.

As talks between May and the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, looked unlikely to soften her red lines, she set about wooing rebel Labour MPs from leave-voting constituencies with offers of improved worker’s rights and even cash, leaving them divided and shadow chancellor John McDonnell accusing her of pork-barrel politics.

And, of course, the good news kept coming: Nissan cited Brexit concerns in its decision not to build the new X-Trail in Sunderland (despite a 2016 government promise of £60m if it did); the Institute for Directors said one in three UK firms could relocate abroad; the government is preparing for putrefying piles of rubbish after Brexit and a couple of Sunday papers reckoned the Queen would be evacuated from London if it all goes really pear-shaped.

What next

The EU does not, at this stage, look set to budge on the backstop: it considers the negotiations concluded and that all that may be possible is some form of additional legal assurance or perhaps a rewording of the political declaration – but not the 585-page withdrawal agreement itself.

Neither of these options, in the opinion of both Martin Selmayr, the European commission secretary general, and British MPs from the Commons Brexit committee who were in Brussels to meet him on Monday, is likely to persuade Tory Brexit hardliners in the ERG group to back the deal.

If the UK is not to crash out without a deal, an extension of article 50 now looks inevitable – except May has promised repeatedly that the UK will leave the EU on 29 March, making it hard for her to ask for extra time. Many MPs fear she is deliberately running down the clock, aiming to force parliament to back her deal at the last minute as the only alternative to a no deal.

But this faces growing opposition from ministers such as the business secretary, Greg Clark, who want clarity by mid-February. And even if the government does end up asking for an extension, the EU may disagree over the length, possibly demanding up to a year to be sure there will be no repeats of the present chaos. The threat of a no-deal Brexit by accident, therefore, remains very real.

Best of the rest

Top comment

In the Guardian, Zoe Williams reckons Brexit is like a particularly brutal breakup in a romcom, except it’s not even funny …

He has been complaining since for ever and she doesn’t think much will come of it. Imagine her surprise, then, when he is suddenly leaving. Gobsmacked, she appeals to his good sense, the long, rich history of their two and a half years, their couples-together railcard: but his heart wants what it wants and he’s off. Except he isn’t. For ages, it’s not clear what he wants at all, he’s just outside the window, shouting: “I could have anyone! Girls will be queuing round the block to go out with me. I’m agile, see. Whereas you could stand to lose a few pounds.” It’s annoying, but also quite emancipating in that it reconciles her much faster to his departure than she could ever have imagined. His personal grooming takes a downward turn. Now he is saying he wants “friends with benefits”, and she says: “Sure, I have nothing against the odd shag; we were quite compatible in that one area.” But, honey, that’s not what he means. He wants everything the same as it was before – same roof, toggled Amazon accounts, shared diaries, weddings as a couple – just none of her stupid rules about reaching decisions together. And if she doesn’t back down, he is going to stop taking his psoriasis medication. See how she likes that.

And Jonathan Lis argues that the need to extend article 50 is now blindingly obvious, except May does not dare to say so:

Through Brexit’s looking-glass, the clearer something is, the more unsayable it becomes. As with the non-negotiability of the backstop, the need to delay article 50 is nakedly self-evident. Because ministers refuse to say it, however, the media must indulge their derangement like an overawed nanny to a spoilt child. But the problems are just starting. Once the government has conceded the need to delay, someone will have to go further and acknowledge the damage of implementing Brexit altogether. After three years of lies, manipulation and doublespeak, which senior minister will finally break the spell and tell the truth?

Top Tweet

Actor and screenwriter David Schneider delivers his considered opinion: