After MPs gave their backing to proposals to replace the controversial Irish backstop in the Prime Minister's withdrawal deal, here's a look at what could happen next in the Brexit saga.
Will the PM go to Brussels?
Theresa May vowed to seek "legally binding" changes to the Withdrawal Agreement with the European Union, but gave no firm date for returning to Brussels to reopen negotiations.
Mrs May told MPs on Tuesday night that while there was "limited appetite" to amend the deal, the House of Commons had "made it clear what it needs to approve a withdrawal agreement".
Read more: Theresa May to return to Brussels in bid to scrap Irish backstop
Will the EU make any concessions?
Key figures in Brussels roundly rejected the PM's suggestion, as Donald Tusk insisted that the Withdrawal Agreement struck last November was not open for renegotiation. Meanwhile, the European Parliament's chief Brexit negotiator, Guy Verhofstadt, said there was "no majority to re-open or dilute" the agreement.
What about the Labour Party?
Jeremy Corbyn, who boycotted cross-party talks after the Commons rejected the Withdrawal Agreement by a record 230 votes on January 15, said that he was now ready to meet the Prime Minister to discuss a "sensible Brexit solution that works for the whole country".
He called on Mrs May to "face the reality that no-deal is not an option".
Could Brexit be delayed?
This option became less likely after MPs rejected two proposals to delay Brexit by extending the two-year Article 50 negotiation process if Mrs May was unable to secure an acceptable agreement by February 26.
What sort of Brexit is now likely?
It still remains unclear. The EU would have to significantly change their stance on reopening the Withdrawal Agreement if legally-binding changes are to be made on the Irish backstop.
But while the UK and EU remain at loggerheads over the issue, one of Mrs May's key negotiating weapons was ripped from her hands by MPs when they voted on Tuesday evening to block a no-deal.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here