Is Andrea Leadsom correct that it is ‘May’s deal or no deal’ on Brexit?

Analysis: Commons leader has appeared to toughen the consequences of throwing out the prime minister’s agreement – in that crucial vote next month, says deputy political editor Rob Merrick

Andrea Leadsom is a 'unicorn hunter' - in the words of David Gauke, the unhappy justice secretary (Getty)

MPs cannot prevent no-deal Brexit if they fail to approve May’s plan” screamed the headline tweeted approvingly by Andrea Leadsom, the indefatigable Commons leader.

The link takes readers to an interview in which Ms Leadsom appears to toughen the government’s line on the consequences of throwing out Theresa May’s agreement with the EU, in that crucial vote next month.

She reminds the public that crashing out without a deal – with all the dangers for food and medicine supplies – is the “legal default position” next March, if nothing else intervenes.

“Parliament can always of course express a view, but in order to avoid a no-deal Brexit, parliament does need to vote for a deal,” Ms Leadsom tells The Sunday Telegraph.

But the Commons leader is also known as the cabinet’s chief “unicorn hunter”, a minister who – in the words of David Gauke, the deeply-unhappy justice secretary – is happy to chase a fantasy Brexit.

Sure enough, Mrs Leadsom goes on to argue again for a “managed” no-deal exit, in which the EU agrees a series of mini-deals to prevent disaster and allow the UK, in her words, to “thrive”.

She also appears to believe there could still be a lengthy implementation period, to avoid the cliff-edge – even though Brussels has absolutely ruled out both of these prospects.

So, if Ms Leadsom is almost certainly wrong in her view about the consequences of a no deal, where does that leave her claim it is the only alternative to the deal on the table?

In fact, if you look closely at her words, rather than the headline – “Parliament does need to vote for a deal” – she is actually acknowledging the possibility of a different deal gaining approval.

Time is clearly running out fast, but MPs could vote for a softer, “Norway-style” exit, remaining in the single market, albeit while having to retain the Irish border “backstop”, the biggest controversy.

But, more importantly, the EU has been clear it will extend the Article 50 period to delay Brexit, if the UK chooses the clearest route out of the crisis – a fresh referendum, as advocated by The Independent’s Final Say campaign.

It is in MPs’ power to do this – whatever the headlines Ms Leadsom pumps out.

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