What are indicative votes and how might they resolve the Brexit impasse?

Theresa May is rapidly running out of time and options on Brexit.

The EU’s latest demands, announced on Thursday, are clear: either she secures MPs’ approval for her exit deal next week, or the UK must come up with an alternative way forward if it is to avoid crashing out of the bloc on 12 April.

The prime minister is likely to try to hold a third vote on her proposed agreement early next week but government sources are privately pessimistic about the prospect of MPs suddenly approving a deal they have already comprehensively rejected twice.

There is also the matter of whether John Bercow, the Commons speaker, will allow another “meaningful vote” to go ahead, given he has previously said the agreement must have changed “substantially” before another vote can be held on it.

With Ms May’s deal looking unlikely to pass, attention has quickly turned to what kind of alternative plan the Commons could support.

Downing Street is now said to be considering holding a series of “indicative votes” to let MPs give their views on how to proceed if Ms May’s deal is indeed rejected again.

This would involve MPs voting on a series of possible Brexit outcomes to determine which was the most popular. The votes would not be legally binding but would give ministers a strong sense of what kind of outcome, if any, could command a Commons majority.

Pro-EU cabinet ministers including Greg Clark, Damian Hinds and Amber Rudd have been proposing this approach for several months, urging the prime minister to try to find a basis for a cross-party compromise.

And last week, Ms May’s deputy, David Lidington, told MPs that if the prime minister’s deal was voted down for a third time, the government “would facilitate a process ... To allow the house to seek a majority on the way forward”. This was confirmed by Mr Clark, the business secretary, on Friday,

There are several ways that this could happen.

The government could hold its own indicative votes, as promised, if Ms May’s deal is defeated.

Seven possible outcomes are likely to be voted on: the prime minister’s deal, a fresh referendum, revoking Article 50, a no-deal exit, a deal involving a permanent customs union with the EU, a deal involving a customs union and access to the single market, and a less comprehensive agreement in the form of a free trade deal.

However, a group of senior backbench MPs, including former Tory ministers Sir Oliver Letwin and Dominic Grieve and Labour’s Hilary Benn, has said the government should not be allowed to set the terms of the votes.

They have tabled a Commons amendment that would pave the way for indicative votes to be held next Wednesday, regardless of whether or not the government agrees.

One of those involved, former Conservative minister Nick Boles, said it was crucial that MPs, not ministers, are allowed to define the options to be voted on.

He said: “MPs supporting the different options must be in charge of defining them and control the drafting of the motions. Otherwise they will be setting us up to fail.

“We have all been working very hard to craft alternative compromises and the government, frankly, hasn’t a clue where the potential for consensus lies because it hasn’t engaged properly.”

Then there is the question of the process by which MPs would actually vote.

One system would see the Commons divide on a series of yes/no votes on specific proposals in the usual way.

This is likely to appeal to Downing Street because, if all the alternatives were voted down, Ms May could insist her deal was the only viable outcome. The danger, though, is that no option receives a majority.

In a bid to avoid this “last man standing” scenario, an alternative devised by Sir Oliver would involve indicative votes using a paper ballot, adapting the “deferred divisions” method used to hold some Commons votes.

This would allow MPs to rank Brexit outcomes in order of preferences, rather than simply voting yes or no to each one.

Another proposal would see various rounds of voting held, with the least popular option being discarded at each stage.

If indicative votes are to uncover the basis for a possible consensus in parliament, MPs would need to be free to vote with their conscience rather than whipped by their parties.

Brexit minister Kwasi Kwarteng appeared to confirm this on Friday, telling the Commons: “If the house is being asked to decide a way forward, it would be surprising if those votes were not free votes.”

If Ms May’s deal is rejected once again, it is likely that parliament will be given its first formal opportunity to vote on what type of Brexit it wants – just days before Britain was supposed to be leaving the EU.

With ongoing doubts over whether any option would command a Commons majority, though, it is far from clear whether indicative votes will provide the route out of the crisis that supporters hope they will.

Got an unanswered question about Brexit? Send it to editor@independent.co.uk and we’ll do our best to supply an answer in our Brexit Explained series