GN LONDON - MPs have rejected an effort by Labour and Tory rebels to take control of Parliament’s timetable, blocking the latest attempt to stop no-deal Brexit.

The Commons opposed the move by 309 votes to 298.

If passed, it would have given opponents of a no-deal Brexit the chance to table legislation to thwart the UK leaving without any agreement on the 31 October deadline.

The result of the vote was greeted with cheers from the Tory benches.

But Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn responded by shouting “you won’t be cheering in September”.

No 10 said giving MPs a “blank cheque” to dictate Brexit policy would have set a troubling precedent.

The UK was originally supposed to leave the EU on 29 March.

But the EU decided on a seven-month extension after MPs rejected the terms of withdrawal on three occasions - prompting Theresa May’s resignation.

Opponents of a no-deal exit are concerned that Theresa May’s successor as prime minister could seek to take the UK out of the EU without parliamentary approval.

Tory leadership frontrunner Boris Johnson and several of his rivals have said the UK must leave the EU by the revised date, whether a deal is passed or not.

The EU has previously said border checks would have to be brought in, affecting things like exports and travel and creating uncertainty around the rights of UK citizens living in the EU and vice-versa.

The government normally controls business in the Commons - but MPs have previously seized control to legislate in favour of extending the Brexit process.

Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir said the motion was a “safety valve” designed to ensure Parliament “cannot be locked out of the Brexit process” in the coming months.

It would allow Parliament to push back against a new prime minister “foolish enough” to pursue a no-deal Brexit without MPs’ consent.

That was especially important, Sir Keir argued, because the Tory leadership contest had “become an arms race to promise the most damaging form of Brexit”.

Mr Barclay, though, said the motion was a “blind motion” because it did not specify the legislation that would be introduced under its terms.

Labour had previously accused ministers of backing a “blind Brexit” because the future relationship was not spelled out in the withdrawal agreement - but this motion was guilty of the same approach, he said.

He argued it would be a “fundamental change” to the way the House operated and therefore should be opposed.