A FTER SEEING her Brexit agreement crushed in the Commons by 230 votes, Theresa May was forced on January 21st to report to MP s on what she would do next. Characteristically, she refused to change. After a token effort to consult opposition MP s, she reverted to her previous plan: seek assurances from the European Union about the temporary nature of the Irish “backstop”, in hopes of winning over Brexit hardliners. With Brussels still rejecting any legally binding end-point to the backstop, such hopes seem forlorn.

Most Brexiteers are unfazed. They argue that, if there is no majority for any Brexit deal, Britain will leave without one on March 29th, the deadline fixed under Article 50 of the EU treaty. Yet many MP s and even some ministers are determined to stop such a high-risk outcome. Amendments have been proposed to Mrs May’s Brexit motion that will be put to the vote on January 29th. Some are declaratory only. But two are more serious because they change parliamentary procedure—and they seem likely to pass.

The first, from Yvette Cooper, a Labour MP , and Nick Boles, a Tory, would suspend the rules giving precedence to government business for one day, February 5th. It would be used to rush through a bill requiring the government, if no Brexit deal were passed by February 26th, to ask the EU to extend the Article 50 deadline. A second amendment from Dominic Grieve, another Tory, would suspend the rules for every sitting Tuesday until March 26th. On those days MP s would instead vote on other Brexit options, ranging from a permanent customs union to a second referendum.

Mrs May is against such plans because she wants to keep the no-deal option. But with the Labour opposition suggesting it will back at least the first proposal, it seems likely to win the day. Hardliners are denouncing what they call a constitutional outrage by which Remainers seek to hijack and even stop the Brexit backed by voters in 2016. Jacob Rees-Mogg, a leading Brexiteer, has even suggested that the government should prorogue (ie, suspend) Parliament to stop the Cooper/Boles bill becoming law.

There are several ironies in this. A key argument made by Leavers was that sovereignty must return from Brussels to Westminster. Yet now that MP s are duly asserting themselves, Leavers attack them for subverting the sovereign will of the people.

Another irony arises from claims that MP s are not delivering Brexit because they no longer represent their voters. It is true that a large majority of MP s, like the prime minister and most of the cabinet, were Remainers. Yet as a study on Brexit and public opinion published this week by the UK in a Changing Europe academic network shows, voters are as divided as MP s on what sort of Brexit they want. In failing to find a majority for anything, the Commons exactly reflects those divisions. Moreover, the study suggests that, were the 2016 referendum rerun now, Remain would win, albeit narrowly.

What will happen if backbenchers succeed in legislating a call for an Article 50 extension? The first point to keep in mind is that other EU governments might not agree. Extension (as opposed to revocation of the original Article 50 letter) requires unanimous approval, and many in Brussels are dubious about giving Britain more time merely to argue over what it wants. Yet the EU is also anxious to avoid a no-deal Brexit, which would damage the continent as well as Britain. So it may well, in the end, prove ready to accept an extension.