All eight indicative vote options on Brexit defeated by MPs – as it happened

And here are the results, ranked in order, with the least unpopular at the top.

J - Ken Clarke’s - Customs union [see note]

For: 264

Against: 272

Majority against: 8

M - Dame Margaret Beckett’s - Confirmatory public vote

For: 268

Against: 295

Majority against: 27

K - Labour’s - Customs union and alignment with single market

For: 237

Against: 307

Majority against: 70

D - Nick Boles’s - common market 2.0

For: 188

Against: 283

Majority against: 95

L - Joanna Cherry’s - Revocation to avoid no deal

For: 184

Against: 293

Majority against: 109

B - John Baron’s - No deal

For: 160

Against: 400

Majority against: 240

O - Marcus Fysh’s - Contingent preferential arrangements

For: 139

Against: 422

Majority against: 283

H - George Eustice’s - Efta and EEA [see note]

For: 65

Against: 377

Majority against: 312

• Note: This note was added on 29 March 2019. After publication, the Speaker of the House corrected the counts that had been initially declared for two votes: H, EEA/Efta without customs union, was defeated 64 to 377, not 65 to 377 as originally declared; and J, Customs union, was defeated 265 to 271, not 264 to 272 as originally declared.

Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, says tonight’s results show there is no easy way forward. They strengthen the government’s view that the PM’s deal is the best option.

He says any deal must include a withdrawal agreement.

If MPs want to leave the EU with a deal, they must back the withdrawal agreement, he says.

He says otherwise he cannot say where this process will end.

• Barclay, the Brexit secretary, says the indicative votes results show why the PM’s deal is the best way forward.

Here are the results of the indicative votes on the Brexit alternatives.

I have taken the summary of what each amendment does from the Press Association summary featured earlier.

• MPs vote against all eight options considered under the indicative votes process. This is what Oliver Letwin, the MP who championed this process, said he expected to happen in his Today interview this morning.

B - John Baron’s - No deal

Backed by Conservative MPs John Baron, David Amess, Martin Vickers and Stephen Metcalfe, the motion proposes leaving the European Union without a deal on April 12.

For: 160

Against: 400

D - Nick Boles’s - common market 2.0

Tabled by Conservatives Nick Boles, Robert Halfon and Andrew Percy and Labour’s Stephen Kinnock, Lucy Powell and Diana Johnson. The motion proposes UK membership of the European free trade association and European Economic Area. It allows continued participation in the single market and a “comprehensive customs arrangement” with the EU after Brexit, which would remain in place until the agreement of a wider trade deal which guarantees frictionless movement of goods and an open border in Ireland.

For: 188

Against: 283

H - George Eustice’s - Efta and EEA

A motion tabled by Conservative MP George Eustice – who quit as agriculture minister this month to fight for Brexit – proposes remaining within the EEA and rejoining Efta, but remaining outside a customs union with the EU. The motion was also signed by Conservative MPs including former minister Nicky Morgan and head of the Brexit Delivery Group Simon Hart.

For: 65

Against: 377

J - Ken Clarke’s - Customs union

Requires a commitment to negotiate a “permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU” in any Brexit deal. Tabled by veteran Conservative Europhile Ken Clarke, backed by Labour’s Yvette Cooper, Helen Goodman and chair of the Commons Brexit committee Hilary Benn and Tory former ministers Sir Oliver Letwin and Sarah Newton.

For: 264

Against: 272

K - Labour’s - Customs union and alignment with single market

Labour has tabled a motion proposing its plan for a close economic relationship with the EU. The plan includes a comprehensive customs union with a UK say on future trade deals; close alignment with the single market; matching new EU rights and protections; participation in EU agencies and funding programmes; and agreement on future security arrangements, including access to the European arrest warrant

For: 237

Against: 307

L - Joanna Cherry’s - Revocation to avoid no deal

Under this plan, if the government has not passed its withdrawal agreement, it would have to stage a vote on a no-deal Brexit two sitting days before the scheduled date of departure. If MPs refuse to authorise no-deal, the prime minister would be required to halt Brexit by revoking article 50. The motion, tabled by the SNP’s Joanna Cherry, has been signed by 33 MPs including the Conservative former attorney general Dominic Grieve, the Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Vince Cable, Labour’s Ben Bradshaw and all 11 members of the Independent Group.

For: 184

Against: 293

M - Dame Margaret Beckett’s - Confirmatory public vote

Drawn up by Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson and tabled by former foreign secretary Dame Margaret Beckett with the backing of scores of MPs across the House, this motion would require a public vote to confirm any Brexit deal passed by parliament before its ratification.

For: 268

Against: 295

O - Marcus Fysh’s - Contingent preferential arrangements

A group of Conservative MPs, including Marcus Fysh, Steve Baker and Priti Patel, have signed a motion that calls for the government to seek to agree preferential trade arrangements with the EU, in case the UK is unable to implement a withdrawal agreement with the bloc.

For: 139

Against: 422

Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, says stopping Brexit “is possible now”.

MPs have backed the statutory instrument changing Brexit date in the EU Withdrawal Act by 441 votes to 105 - a majority of 336.

And here is the full version of the DUP statement.

The DUP and the government have had good discussions in recent days and some progress on domestic legislation has been made. All concerned recognise the need to ensure that as we leave the European Union the economic and constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom is maintained.

However, given the fact that the necessary changes we seek to the backstop have not been secured between the government and the European Union, and the remaining and ongoing strategic risk that Northern Ireland would be trapped in backstop arrangements at the end of the implementation period, we will not be supporting the government if they table a fresh meaningful vote.

The backstop, if operational, has the potential to create an internal trade border within the United Kingdom and would cut us off from our main internal market, being Great Britain.

We want to secure the United Kingdom’s departure from, and our future relationship with, the European Union on terms that accord with our key objectives to ensure the integrity of the United Kingdom.

In our view the current withdrawal agreement does not do so and the backstop, which we warned this government against from its first inception, poses an unacceptable threat to the integrity of the United Kingdom and will inevitably limit the United Kingdom’s ability to negotiate on the type of future relationship with the EU.

The DUP statement does not say whether the party will abstain, or vote against the deal, but the reference to the backstop being “an unacceptable threat” to the union implies the latter.

Arlene Foster, the DUP leader, has said her party cannot support Theresa May’s deal.

An ERG source has sent out some lines from the speech that Steve Baker, the ERG deputy chairman, gave at the ERG meeting this evening. It turns out he really did talk about bulldozing parliament. (See 7.43pm.) Baker said:

I’m consumed with a ferocious rage after that pantomime [May in the ‘22] ...

What is our liberty for if not to govern ourselves?

Like all of you I have wrestled with my conscience about what to do.

I could tear this place down and bulldoze it into the river.

These fools and knaves and cowards are voting on things they don’t even understand.

We’ve been put in this place by people whose addiction to power without responsibility has led them to put the choice of no Brexit or this deal.

I may yet resign the whip rather than be part of this.

The source said that Baker received an enormous standing ovation at the end of the speech and that he was hugged by Jacob Rees-Mogg and others afterwards. “We are not a hugging group,” the source said.

He also said he thought there was “no way” that enough ERG members were going to switch for Theresa May’s deal to pass.

Boris Johnson, the Brexiter former foreign secretary, has told the Tory European Research Group, that he will now vote for Theresa May’s deal, HuffPost’s Arj Singh reports.

Johnson has been signalling that he is ready to drop his opposition to the deal for some days now, but only last night he said in a speech: “If we vote for the PM’s lamentable withdrawal agreement we are skewered.” (See 9.33am.)

Here is Jeremy Corbyn responding to Theresa May’s announcement.

As my colleague Heather Stewart reports, Jeremy Corbyn has written to Labour MPs qualifying the party’s support for the confirmatory referendum amendment.

Here is the key quote:

Our conference agreed that if we cannot get a general election we would support all options remaining on the table, including a public vote. Labour is supporting the Beckett-Kyle-Wilson amendment (even where it can be read as going beyond our policy) to keep the option of a public vote on the table in order to stop a disastrous no deal or May’s unacceptable deal.

Labour’s priority is to deliver our credible Brexit plan which respects our commitment to accept the result of the referendum. Today we are are supporting all options that enable us to prevent a damaging Tory Brexit or no-deal being forced on the country.

The reason why the Corbyn letter says the Beckett amendment could be read as going beyond Labour party policy is because it does go beyond Labour party policy. It says any withdrawal agreement passed during this parliament should be subject to a confirmatory referendum. Here is the full text:

That this house will not allow in this parliament the implementation and ratification of any withdrawal agreement and any framework for the future relationship unless and until they have been approved by the people of the United Kingdom in a confirmatory public vote.

So Corbyn is saying Labour is backing the Beckett amendment even though it does not agree with it in full. He sent the letter after some members of the shadow cabinet told him they had strong doubts about backing a second referendum.

Downing Street has sent out extracts from what Theresa May said to Tory MPs at the Conservative backbench 1922 Committee.

This has been a testing time for our country and our party. We’re nearly there. We’re almost ready to start a new chapter and build that brighter future.

But before we can do that, we have to finish the job in hand. As I say, I don’t tour the bars and engage in the gossip – but I do make time to speak to colleagues, and I have a great team in the whips’ office. I also have two excellent PPSs.

And I have heard very clearly the mood of the parliamentary party. I know there is a desire for a new approach – and new leadership – in the second phase of the Brexit negotiations – and I won’t stand in the way of that.

I know some people are worried that if you vote for the withdrawal agreement, I will take that as a mandate to rush on into phase two without the debate we need to have. I won’t – I hear what you are saying.

But we need to get the deal through and deliver Brexit ...

I am prepared to leave this job earlier than I intended in order to do what is right for our country and our party.

I ask everyone in this room to back the deal so we can complete our historic duty – to deliver on the decision of the British people and leave the European Union with a smooth and orderly exit.

These are from my colleague Dan Sabbagh.

Thirty three Tory MPs defied the whip and voted in favour of the business motion. The full list is here. That is three more than the 30 Tories who rebelled on this issue on Monday.

Two Labour MPs joined the Tories, the DUP and three independent in voting against the business motion: Stephen Hepburn and Kate Hoey.

Here is some reaction to the Bercow ruling (see 3.47pm) from people who follow Commons procedure closely.

From Nikki da Costa, the former head of legislative affairs for Theresa May at Number 10

From Chris White, a former adviser to William Hague when he was leader of the Commons

White is correct. Bercow said he would disallow a notwithstanding motion in relation to MV3. But the business motion today includes a “notwithstanding” element. Its third clause says:

(c) notwithstanding the practice of the house, any motion on matters that have been the subject of a prior decision of the house in the current session may be the subject of a decision;

From the Times’ Esther Webber

From Jack Simson Caird, a research fellow at the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law.

John Bercow, the Speaker, is putting eight amendments to a vote.

Here they are. I have taken the summary of what each one says from the Press Association summary I posted earlier. The letters refer to the letters attached to each amendment in the order paper.

B - John Baron’s - No deal

Backed by Conservative MPs John Baron, David Amess, Martin Vickers and Stephen Metcalfe, the motion proposes leaving the European Union without a deal on April 12.

D - Nick Boles’s - common market 2.0

Tabled by Conservatives Nick Boles, Robert Halfon and Andrew Percy and Labour’s Stephen Kinnock, Lucy Powell and Diana Johnson. The motion proposes UK membership of the European free trade association and European Economic Area. It allows continued participation in the single market and a “comprehensive customs arrangement” with the EU after Brexit, which would remain in place until the agreement of a wider trade deal which guarantees frictionless movement of goods and an open border in Ireland.

H - George Eustice’s - Efta and EEA

A motion tabled by Conservative MP George Eustice – who quit as agriculture minister this month to fight for Brexit – proposes remaining within the EEA and rejoining Efta, but remaining outside a customs union with the EU. The motion was also signed by Conservative MPs including former minister Nicky Morgan and head of the Brexit Delivery Group Simon Hart.

J - Ken Clarke’s - Customs union

Requires a commitment to negotiate a “permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU” in any Brexit deal. Tabled by veteran Conservative Europhile Ken Clarke, backed by Labour’s Yvette Cooper, Helen Goodman and chair of the Commons Brexit committee Hilary Benn and Tory former ministers Sir Oliver Letwin and Sarah Newton.

K - Labour’s - Customs union and alignment with single market

Labour has tabled a motion proposing its plan for a close economic relationship with the EU. The plan includes a comprehensive customs union with a UK say on future trade deals; close alignment with the single market; matching new EU rights and protections; participation in EU agencies and funding programmes; and agreement on future security arrangements, including access to the European arrest warrant

L - Joanna Cherry’s - Revocation to avoid no deal

Under this plan, if the government has not passed its withdrawal agreement, it would have to stage a vote on a no-deal Brexit two sitting days before the scheduled date of departure. If MPs refuse to authorise no-deal, the prime minister would be required to halt Brexit by revoking article 50. The motion, tabled by the SNP’s Joanna Cherry, has been signed by 33 MPs including the Conservative former attorney general Dominic Grieve, the Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Vince Cable, Labour’s Ben Bradshaw and all 11 members of the Independent Group.

M - Dame Margaret Beckett’s - Confirmatory public vote

Drawn up by Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson and tabled by former foreign secretary Dame Margaret Beckett with the backing of scores of MPs across the House, this motion would require a public vote to confirm any Brexit deal passed by parliament before its ratification.

O - Marcus Fysh’s - Contingent preferential arrangements

A group of Conservative MPs, including Marcus Fysh, Steve Baker and Priti Patel, have signed a motion that calls for the government to seek to agree preferential trade arrangements with the EU, in case the UK is unable to implement a withdrawal agreement with the bloc.

This is what John Bercow said about firming up his “no repeat votes” ruling. (See 3.32pm.) Reminding MPs of his original decision, Bercow told MPs:

In the course of answering questions following her statement [on Monday], the prime minister accepted this constraint, saying that: “I am very clear about the strictures that Mr Speaker gave when he made his statement last week and, were we to bring forward a further motion to this house, we would of course ensure that it met the requirements he made.”

I understand that the government may be thinking of bringing meaningful vote three before the house either tomorrow or even on Friday, if the house opts to sit that day.

Therefore, in order that there should be no misunderstanding, I wish to make clear that I do expect the government to meet the test of change. They should not seek to circumvent my ruling by means of tabling either a notwithstanding motion or a tabling motion. The table office has been instructed that no such motions will be accepted.

I very much look forward, colleagues, to today’s debate and votes which give the house the chance to start the process of positively indicating what it wants.

There had been speculation that the government might get round Bercow’s ruling, which is based on a rule in the Commons bible, Erskine May, by having a vote on a motion disapplying the rule in this case. That option has now been disallowed.

John Bercow, the Commons Speaker, is now talking about his ruling about “no repeat votes”, that prevented Theresa May from bringing back her meaningful vote before the EU summit.

He says there is talk of the government bringing back the vote on Thursday or Friday next week.

He says that, for this to be allowed, there would have to a substantial change to the motion.

And he says he has instructed the clerks to block any attempt by the government to get round this ruling by tabling a “notwithstanding” motion – ie, a one-off rule change that would allow the debate to go ahead despite the usual Commons rule.

• Bercow restates his ruling that he will only allow a new vote on the Brexit deal if it has changed significantly.

• He says he will block any attempt by the government to use a procedural rule change to get round his decision.

This is new, and unexpected. It has probably reduced the chances of the meaningful vote being brought back this week (MV3), and it makes the chance of MV3 never happening a distinct possibility.

Theresa May has lost again. Her attempt to defeat the business motion failed, and it was passed by 331 votes to 287 - a majority of 44.

The government could make another attempt to win a majority for Theresa May’s Brexit deal on Friday.

The choice of Friday 29 March is not an accident. Although no longer Brexit day, it remains an important day in the calendar, because of the two-step extension process imposed by the EU last week.

EU leaders agreed to grant the UK an extension until 22 May if the withdrawal agreement is approved by the House of Commons “by 29 March 2019 at the latest”. But if the withdrawal agreement is not approved, the extension will expire on 12 April, a UK domestic deadline for confirming British participation in the European elections.

The text of the EU’s legal decision states:

In the event that the withdrawal agreement is not approved by the House of Commons by 29 March 2019 at the latest, the period provided for in article 50(3) TEU is extended until 12 April 2019. In that event, the United Kingdom will indicate a way forward before 12 April 2019, for consideration by the European council.

Some EU sources suggest there could be some leniency on 29 March deadline. If, for example, MPs vote for the deal on 1 April. “The text of the legal decision says that we need to vote by Friday,” a senior EU source said. “Quite honestly I think that we will be lenient on that. The real question is whether we have clarity in the coming days, if this going to work or not.”

That remains unclear given the “volatile” nature of British politics that is changing day-by-day, the source said.

The EU has already pencilled in a summit for a few days before the 12 April deadline, although it is impossible to say whether that summit will be for EU leaders to decide on a long extension or help them prepare for no-deal.

Last week’s meeting with Theresa May left EU leaders unconvinced that the deal would pass, but a positive meaningful vote three has not been completely ruled out.

Neither, however, has a major government crisis leading to new elections. Officials see two outcomes from a soft Brexit result of the indicative votes process. “It could mobilise forces for a slim majority for May’s deal, or we will have a serious government crisis which will probably lead to elections,” the EU source said.

In that case it would not be clear if the prime minister would be in a position to request an extension. Whatever happens in parliament, for the EU it is the government that counts. “Our interlocutor is not the Commons, our interlocutor is the UK government,” the EU source said.

This is from the Conservative MP James Cartlidge.

Theresa May made it clear on Monday and again at PMQs, that she will not necessarily accept any Brexit plan that emerges from the indicative votes process.

But she was under strong pressure to give Tory MPs a free vote, not least from pro-Europeans in the government, and so she is going to let Tory MPs vote for what they want, even though the government is opposed to many of the proposals on the menu.

MPs are now debating the business motion for today’s debate.

Often business motions (which set the timetable for a debate) go through on the nod. But today’s is quite complicated, and the debate on the business motion could go on until 3pm.

Sir Oliver Letwin, the Conservative former cabinet minister who moved the amendment setting up the indicative votes procedure, is moving the motion. Normally it would be the leader of the Commons moving the business motion, but the government is not in charge today, and so Letwin is moving the motion from the government backbenches.

This is a very important point we’re making here about how our country is ultimately governed.

In an emergency the House of Commons is capable of controlling its own business in such a way as to find a solution the vast majesties of Whitehall and government have not been able to provide us with.

It’s because Whitehall has failed, not due to the inadequacy of any individual but due to the basic difficulty of the situation, that the Commons is taking these steps.

Told by an MP that Twitter is reporting that the government will vote against the business motion, Letwin at first says he does not take any notice of Twitter. Then he goes on to say that it is not a surprise that the government is whipping against the business motion.

Kate Hoey, the Labour Brexiter, intervenes. She says the business motion today is not the same as the amendment passed on Monday. She says it is setting aside Monday for further indicative votes on Monday.

Letwin concedes that he wants to “book a slot” for Monday. He says he does not expect the votes today to produce a majority for one proposal. That is why he wants another round of voting on Monday.

These are from the Downing Street post-PMQs briefing.

From my colleague Heather Stewart

What is significant about this is that the business motion does not just set out the procedures to be followed today; it also says that Monday next week should also be set aside for another indicative votes debate, instead of being set aside for government business, as is usual under standing order 14. If the government were to win this vote, the indicative votes process would end tonight - before it has been fully concluded.

The votes tonight will show which Brexit alternative is most popular. But Oliver Letwin plans some sort of run-off procedure on Monday, to clarify an ultimate winner. See 9.33am.

From the Mirror’s Pippa Crerar

From ITV’s Carl Dinnen

PMQs - Snap verdict: PMQs used to be one of the political highlights of the week. Increasingly that has become less and less true (partly because Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn are both relatively uninspiring performers in this arena), but today it felt like a particularly diminished event, that did not shed much light on the crisis facing the country, or even resonate with much drama. With the exception of Scottish questions, it may be the most boring half hour in the Commons today. Corbyn devoted all his questions to Brexit, and he started by challenging May to explain what was wrong with a customs union – a pertinent question given that is where the indicative votes process may lead. But May rebutted his question without much difficulty, and his attack on the government over its unwillingness to commit to accepting the result of the indicative votes process did not get very far because May was able to reply, correctly, that Labour’s position is much the same. The most awkward question for May on Brexit came from her own colleague Andrew Bridgen, who declared that she had now forfeited the trust of his constituents. (See 12.05am.) But even that did not discomfort May much, and some observers were left speculating that perhaps a private decision to stand down soon has lightened her mood.

May’s response to the SNP leader at Westminster, Ian Blackford, also fuelled speculation that she is not planning to stay in office for long.

For the record, this is what Blackford asked:

It is becoming increasingly clear that the cost the prime minister will pay to force her disastrous deal through is the price of her departure. Yet again another Tory prime minister is willing to ride off into the sunset and saddle us with a crisis in the UK and an extreme rightwing Brexiteer coming into Downing Street. Does the prime minister feel no sense of responsibility for what she is about to do?

May replied:

It is my sense of responsibility and duty that has meant I have kept working to ensure Brexit is delivered.

It is the sort of answer you might expect from someone who thinks their days as PM are numbered.

PMQs is about to start.

Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.

I normally post a snap verdict after the May/Corbyn exchanges, on the grounds that for most people this is the highlight, but today I will do it at the end because May’s exchanges with her own MPs may be just as interesting.

Dominic Cummings, the Vote Leave campaign director, has posted a blog responding to the Commons privileges committee report saying he should be admonished for being in contempt of parliament. (See 11.06am.) He says he did offer to give evidence to the culture committee, and then to the privileges committee.

But what is more interesting is what he says about the current state of Brexit.

• Cummings condemns hardline Brexiters in the European Research Group as “delusional” and “useful idiots”. He says:

Those of you in the narcissist-delusional subset of the ERG who have spent the last three years scrambling for the 8.10 Today slot while spouting gibberish about trade and the law across SW1 – ie exactly the contemptible behaviour that led to your enforced marginalisation during the referendum and your attempt to destroy Vote Leave – you are also in the pirate category. You were useful idiots for remain during the campaign and with every piece of bullshit from Bill Cash et al you have helped only remain for three years. Remember how you WELCOMED the backstop as a ‘triumph’ in December 2017 when it was obvious to everybody who knew what was going on — NOT the cabinet obviously — that this effectively ended the ‘negotiations’? Remember how Bernard Jenkin wrote on ConHome that he didn’t have to ‘ruin his weekend’ reading the document to know it was another success for the natural party of government – bringing to mind very clearly how during the referendum so many of you guys were too busy shooting or skiing or chasing girls to do any actual work. You should be treated like a metastasising tumour and excised from the UK body politic.

Cummings has been contemptuous of backbench Tory Brexiters in the Commons for years. During the EU referendum campaign he used to refer to them as the “flying monkeys”.

• He suggests the UK could in future abandon any commitments it makes to the EU as part of the Brexit settlement. In a message directed at Vote Leave activists, he says:

Also, don’t worry about the so-called ‘permanent’ commitments this historically abysmal cabinet are trying to make on our behalf. They are not ‘permanent’ and a serious government – one not cowed by officials and their bullshit ‘legal advice’ with which they have herded ministers like sheep – will dispense with these commitments and any domestic law enforcing them.

Cummings used to be an adviser to Michael Gove, the environment secretary, when Gove was education secretary. Gove has also suggested that over time the UK could harden up any Brexit settlement, although he has not gone as far as Cummings, who is suggesting the UK could easily renege on any promises made to the EU.

(Cummings seems to be forgetting that they do read this stuff in Brussels. That’s one of the reasons why the EU has been determined to ensure the withdrawal agreement is legally watertight.)

Tom Watson, the Labour deputy leader, has said that, regardless of what his shadow cabinet colleague Barry Gardiner said on the Today programme about the confirmatory public vote amendment (see 9.33am), he will be backing the amendment.

The Labour MP Wes Streeting has also rejected Gardiner’s argument.

And the Labour MP Jess Phillips has too.

Labour sources are saying the party has not yet decided whether its MPs will be whipped to vote for or against the confirmatory public vote amendment, or whether they will be given a free vote.

There are 16 Brexit plans on the order paper for today’s debate. The Speaker, John Bercow, will announce which ones will be put to a vote, probably when the debate proper starts at about 3pm.

You can read them all on the order paper here (pdf).

And here is a Press Association guide to what they all are.

Labour plan

Labour has tabled a motion proposing its plan for a close economic relationship with the EU. The plan includes a comprehensive customs union with a UK say on future trade deals; close alignment with the single market; matching new EU rights and protections; participation in EU agencies and funding programmes; and agreement on future security arrangements, including access to the European arrest warrant.

Common market 2.0

Tabled by Conservatives Nick Boles, Robert Halfon and Andrew Percy and Labour’s Stephen Kinnock, Lucy Powell and Diana Johnson. The motion proposes UK membership of the European free trade association and European Economic Area. It allows continued participation in the single market and a “comprehensive customs arrangement” with the EU after Brexit, which would remain in place until the agreement of a wider trade deal which guarantees frictionless movement of goods and an open border in Ireland.

Confirmatory public vote

Drawn up by Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson and tabled by former foreign secretary Dame Margaret Beckett with the backing of scores of MPs across the House, this motion would require a public vote to confirm any Brexit deal passed by parliament before its ratification.

Customs union

Requires a commitment to negotiate a “permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU” in any Brexit deal. Tabled by veteran Conservative Europhile Ken Clarke, backed by Labour’s Yvette Cooper, Helen Goodman and chair of the Commons Brexit committee Hilary Benn and Tory former ministers Sir Oliver Letwin and Sarah Newton.

Malthouse compromise Plan A

A cross-party proposal calls for Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement to be implemented with the controversial “backstop” for the Irish border replaced by alternative arrangements. Backed by Conservatives from both the leave and remain wings of the party, including Nicky Morgan, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Damian Green, Steve Baker and Sir Graham Brady, as well as the DUP’s Nigel Dodds and Labour Brexiteer Kate Hoey.

Revoke article 50

Under this plan, if the government has not passed its withdrawal agreement, it would have to stage a vote on a no-deal Brexit two sitting days before the scheduled date of departure. If MPs refuse to authorise no-deal, the prime minister would be required to halt Brexit by revoking article 50. The motion, tabled by the SNP’s Joanna Cherry, has been signed by 33 MPs including the Conservative former attorney general Dominic Grieve, the Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Vince Cable, Labour’s Ben Bradshaw and all 11 members of the Independent Group.

Revocation instead of no deal

Under this plan, the government is called on to “urgently” bring forward any legislation needed to revoke article 50 “in the event that the house fails to approve any withdrawal agreement four days before the end of the article 50 period”. It has been signed by 28 MPs, including the SNP’s Angus Brendan MacNeil and Tory MP Ken Clarke.

New customs union

Tabled by Labour’s MP for Stoke-on-Trent Central, Gareth Snell, this motion simply states that it should be the government’s objective to implement a trade agreement including a customs union with the EU. It mirrors an amendment to the trade bill secured by Labour peers in the House of Lords.

EEA/EFTA without customs union

A motion tabled by Conservative MP George Eustice – who quit as agriculture minister this month to fight for Brexit – proposes remaining within the EEA and rejoining Efta, but remaining outside a customs union with the EU. The motion was also signed by Conservative MPs including former minister Nicky Morgan and head of the Brexit Delivery Group Simon Hart.

No deal

Backed by Conservative MPs John Baron, David Amess, Martin Vickers and Stephen Metcalfe, the motion proposes leaving the European Union without a deal on April 12.

Unilateral right of exit from backstop

The same four Tory MPs, as well as Andrew Percy and Neil Parish, have also backed a motion to leave the EU on May 22 with the PM’s withdrawal agreement amended to allow the UK to unilaterally exit the Northern Ireland backstop.

Consent of devolved institutions

Backed by SNP MPs including Ian Blackford, Kirsty Blackman and Stephen Gethins, this motion requires an agreement that the UK will not leave without a deal, and that no action for leaving the EU will be taken without a consent motion passed in both the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly.

Contingent preferential arrangements

A group of Conservative MPs, including Marcus Fysh, Steve Baker and Priti Patel, have signed a motion that calls for the government to seek to agree preferential trade arrangements with the EU, in case the UK is unable to implement a withdrawal agreement with the bloc.

Contingent reciprocal arrangements

A similar group of Tory MPs have backed a proposal calling for the government to “at least reciprocate the arrangements put in place by the EU and or its member states to manage the period following the UK’s departure from the EU”, in case the UK is unable to implement a withdrawal agreement.

Respect the referendum results

A cross-party proposal, signed by 94 MPs including the Conservatives’ Will Quince, Labour’s Frank Field and the DUP’s Nigel Dodds, urges the house to “reaffirm its commitment to honour the result of the referendum that the UK should leave the European Union”.

Constitutional and accountable government

Tabled by Sir Bill Cash and other Tory Brexiters, this backs leaving the EU, rejects the government’s withdrawal agreement and proposes changing Commons standing orders so that a two-thirds majority would be needed to allow any fresh attempt to allow indicative votes debates to take precedence over government business on any given day.

Good morning. We are two days before the date originally set for the UK’s departure from the EU and in the Commons they have gone back to the drawing board, holding a debate and votes on up to 16 alternative Brexit plans. And 7% of people still think the government is handling this process well.

Here is our overnight preview story.

And here are the main developments this morning.

• Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, has said the government hopes to be able to hold a third vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal later this week. In an interview on the Today programme she said:

I think that there is a real possibility that it does. We are completely determined to make sure that we can get enough support to bring it back.

• Leadsom refused to comment on speculation that May could tell Tory MPs tonight that she will stand down as prime minister if her deal gets passed. “I am fully supporting the prime minister to get us out of the European Union,” Leadsom said.

• Barry Gardiner, the shadow international trade secretary, has said that Labour could have difficulty backing a plan for a confirmatory public vote on any Brexit agreement. The amendment was originally drawn up by the Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson, but is on today’s order paper with Dame Margaret Beckett as the lead signatory. In an interview on the Today programme, Gardiner said that if Labour voted for it, that could suggest it was a remain party, which was not the case. He said, under the terms of the motion, a referendum could be a choice between May’s deal or staying in the EU. He went on:

It would be saying we could accept what we have always said is a very bad deal. Therefore it looks as if the attempt to have a public vote on it is simply a way of trying to remain because nobody likes this deal.

To put that up as the only alternative in a public vote and say we will let it go through looks as though you believe that at the end of it remain would be the result.

It is not where our policy has been. Our policy is clearly that we would support a public vote to stop no-deal or to stop a bad deal, but not that we would allow a bad deal as long as the public had the opportunity to reject Brexit altogether.

That implies that you are a remain party. The Labour party is not a remain party now. We have accepted the result of the referendum.

But earlier Peter Kyle told the same programme that Jeremy Corbyn would order Labour MPs to back the Beckett amendment. He said:

[Corbyn] will order MPs to vote for this. We had a really constructive process of engaging with him. At no point was he instinctively against this.

• Sir Oliver Letwin, the Conservative MP who tabled the amendment that set up today’s indicative votes process, said that if the government ignored the plan backed by most MPs, the Commons could legislate to force it to respond. He said that he did not expect there to be a majority for any one idea today, but that on Monday, when there is due to be another indicative votes debate, MPs could unite behind one plan. He went on:

If on Monday one or more propositions get a majority backing in the House of Commons, then we will have to work with the government to implement them.

The way I would hope it would happen under those circumstances is that we would have sensible, workmanlike discussions across the House of Commons and the government would move forward in an orderly fashion.

If the government didn’t agree to that, then those who I am working with across the parties will move to legislate to mandate the government - if we can obtain majorities in the House of Commons and House of Lords for that - to carry that forward.

• Donald Tusk, the president of the European council, has said the almost 6 million people who have signed the revoke article 50 petition should not be ignored. Speaking in a debate in the European parliament, he criticised those who say it would be unacceptable for the UK to have a long article 50 extension because it would have to hold European elections. He explained:

Let me be clear, such thinking is unacceptable.

You cannot betray the six million people who signed the petition to revoke article 50, the one million people who marched for a people’s vote, or the increasing majority of people who want to remain in the European Union.

They may feel that they are not sufficiently represented by their UK parliament, but they must feel that they are represented by you in this chamber because they are Europeans.

• The government has formally responded to the revoke article 50 petition, saying no. It says:

This government will not revoke article 50. We will honour the result of the 2016 referendum and work with parliament to deliver a deal that ensures we leave the European Union.

• Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leading Tory Brexiter and chair of the European Research Group, has used an article in the Daily Mail to apologise to his supporters for changing his mind on May’s Brexit deal. He is now ready to vote for it, he says, if the DUP backs it too, because the alternative could be a long delay to Brexit, leading to the UK staying in the EU.

Another leading Brexiter, Boris Johnson, has also signalled he will vote for the deal. In a speech last night, reprinted on the Telegraph’s front page (paywall), he said:

If we vote for the PM’s lamentable withdrawal agreement we are skewered. We run the risk of either weakening the union, or else being forced to remain effectively part of the single market and customs union. But if we vote it down again there is now I think an appreciable risk that we will not leave at all.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Karen Bradley, the Northern Ireland secretary, gives evidence to the Northern Ireland affairs committee.

9.30am: The People’s Vote campaign holds a press conference.

10.30am: Michael Gove, the environment secretary, gives evidence to the Commons environment committee on Brexit.

12pm: Theresa May faces Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.

After 1pm: MPs begin debating the business motion for today’s indicative votes debate.

After 3pm: MPs begin the indicative votes debate.

5pm: May addresses the Conservative backbench 1922 Committee.

7pm: MPs vote on the indicative votes options.

7.30pm: MPs debate the statutory instrument changing the date of Brexit set out in the EU Withdrawal Act.

Around 9.15pm: John Bercow, the speaker, announces the results of the indicative votes ballot.

Today I will be focusing exclusively on Brexit, and on the debate, and I will be bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web.

You can read all the latest Guardian politics articles here. Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’s top 10 must-reads.

If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.

I try to monitor the comments BTL but it is impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer questions, and if they are of general interest, I will post the question and reply ATL, although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.

If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.