What Do They Say?

The most hyped amendment, offered by Yvette Cooper of the Labour Party and the Conservative Nick Boles, is designed to make it more difficult for Britain to leave the bloc without a deal. If Parliament has not agreed to a deal by the end of February, the amendment says, Parliament should get a chance to vote on delaying Brexit, possibly for a few months or even until the end of the year.

That would cheer a broad coalition of lawmakers who are aghast at the likely economic fallout of a no-deal exit, along with those who want to buy time for a second public vote on whether Brexit should happen at all.

An amendment offered by a Conservative lawmaker, Graham Brady, would give Parliament’s backing to a harder-line Brexit. It is designed to force Mrs. May to scrap the “backstop” plan that at least temporarily binds Britain and, to a greater extent, Northern Ireland to European trading rules. (That plan is meant to avoid customs checks on the historically contentious border between Ireland, a member state of the European Union, and Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom.)

What those warring amendments have in common is that they give clear signals about what Parliament does not want — a no-deal exit, in one case, or temporary ties to the European Union, in the other — without charting a course for what Mrs. May should negotiate instead.

And there are many more. An amendment offered by a Conservative lawmaker, Dominic Grieve, would set aside six days before March 29, the Brexit deadline, for Parliament to debate a wide array of Brexit plans. Labour’s official amendment would let Parliament weigh in on the party’s preferred Brexit deal, which includes stronger and more lasting ties to the European Union’s single market, and says lawmakers should get to vote on whether to hold a second public vote on Brexit.