Editorial, London, 22 October 2019<\/p>\n
T<\/span><\/span>he House of Commons last night successfully put the brakes on the prime minister\u2019s attempt to deliver Brexit at breakneck speed. Parliament must now attempt to steer Britain away from the rocks of a Brexit deal which was hastily conceived and which, if enacted, would leave the country to repent at leisure. Boris Johnson<\/a> will claim, with justification, that the backing by MPs of a second reading for his withdrawal bill, by a majority of 30, was a significant victory. After all, Theresa May never managed as much. But the defeat of the government\u2019s programme motion by 322 votes to 308 means that the prime minister will not be able to force MPs to vote on it by Thursday evening.<\/p>\n Having failed to rush his legislation through parliament, Mr Johnson has announced his intention to pause it, while the EU considers the request that he was forced to send for an extension beyond the 31 October deadline for Brexit. The prime minister will urge Brussels to make that extension short. Whatever its length, MPs who oppose his version of Brexit, which pushes the country towards a deregulated, disunited and poorer future, must now use the time to devise a coherent cross-party plan to achieve a better outcome. The Labour MPs who voted for a second reading of Mr Johnson\u2019s bill will receive fierce criticism. But most did so not because they back Mr Johnson\u2019s deal, but with the intention of amending and softening it, perhaps through a customs union. All options and potential compromises must now be explored by the opposition parties, because Mr Johnson\u2019s version of Brexit<\/a>cannot be allowed to stand.<\/p>\n The government\u2019s desire to bludgeon the withdrawal bill through the House of Commons in three days flat represented a brazen attempt to exploit a mood of national exhaustion with Brexit. To table a programme motion requiring parliament to give its verdict on Mr Johnson\u2019s deal within 72 hours was an absurdity. As has been pointed out<\/a>, the Wild Animals in Circuses Act underwent greater parliamentary scrutiny. MPs first saw the legal text of Mr Johnson\u2019s new deal \u2013 which proposes a far harder Brexit than Mrs May\u2019s version \u2013 on Monday evening. It is 110 pages long and separate explanatory notes run to 125 pages. Scandalously, its publication was accompanied not by an economic impact assessment, but by the blithe assurance of Sajid Javid<\/a> that the deal is \u201cself-evidently\u201d in Britain\u2019s interest.<\/p>\n