Speaker Bercow Disallows Third Vote – The Is Britain, Not The European Union

A standard complaint about the European Union is that when a vote is lost then it is just held again until the “right” answer is reached. This was done with referenda in at least France, Holland and Ireland. Sticks were thrown in the spokes of varied pieces of further integration so they were just held again. This time with a bit more propaganda.

It is this which Speaker Bercow has not allowed to happen over Theresa May’s deal to try to leave the EU. And rightly so of course for we are Britain, a democracy, and we don’t do things that way. A vote is lost then, well, it’s lost. Come back with another idea. You can’t just keep bringing back the same motion for people to vote upon giving yourself an opportunity to twist a few arms and force it through. You’ve got the chance and if you lose, well, change.

Speaker John Bercow has thrown the UK’s Brexit plans into further confusion by ruling out another vote on the PM’s deal unless MPs are given a new motion. In a surprise ruling, he said he would not allow a third “meaningful vote” in the coming days on “substantially the same” motion as MPs rejected last week. With 11 days to go before the UK is due to leave the EU, ministers have warned of a looming “constitutional crisis”.

This is not a constitutional crisis, this is an assertion of the rules which make up our constitution.

Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit plans were thrown into further turmoil on Monday when the speaker of parliament ruled that she could not put her divorce deal to a new vote unless it was re-submitted in fundamentally different form.

That’s just what you’ve got to do. Nope, you’ve asked them that and they said no. You’ve got to now ask a different question.

There is, of course, precedent in the very well-thumbed copies of Erskine May, the parliamentary rules, for the speaker’s decision. Quoting decisions as far back as 1604, John Bercow was quite clear that governments are not meant to be able to keep asking parliament the same question, in the hope of boring MPs into submission if they keep saying no.

Well, actually, it’s about making sure that government doesn’t have a chance to know exactly how many MPs they need to bribe to get it through. These days the price being a Knighthood or other such douceur rather than cash or a monopoly but it’s the same idea all the same.

Factchecking Pollyanna: An Investigation into the Accuracy of Polly Toynbee’s Journalism

Quite why anyone thought Bercow wouldn’t do this is the thing to be surprised at. After all, rather the point of this whole exercise is that we don’t do things as they do over on the Continent, isn’t it?

6
Leave a Reply

avatar
4 Comment threads
2 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
PatLeo SavanttQ46davidRhoda Klapp Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Rhoda Klapp
Guest
Rhoda Klapp

So we must ask ourselves what brought this on. I have no information but I have a couple of theories. !. It’s part of a plan on his part to eliminate even the wet WA brexit, leaving only revocation of A50 or extension into infinity.. 2. He had a message from the palace, via emissaries, to stop the nonsense or prorogation might be on the cards. Unlikely, I know. 3. His own Clerks office, which provides his advice on procedures, threatened to walk out if he let this go ahead. He couldn’t keep breaking the rules if that happened. That… Read more »

david
Guest
david

Option 4: The outcome is pre-fixed. What we, the polloi are allowed to see is merely the theatre which diverts our attention from the main event.

Leo Savantt
Guest
Leo Savantt

The Speaker’s motivation for preventing a second vote is surely that it makes Brexit less likely. He previously has not only stated that he holds no truck with precedent but alao has numerous times allowed re-voting.

Whether this, unusual by his standards, return to proper procedure will make Brexit more or less likely is one of life’s un-knowables, what is known is that The Speaker has publicly committed himself to thwarting Brexit, and that is what he was trying to do.

Q46
Guest
Q46

The default (the Law) is by Act of Parliament Brexit must take place on 29 March. What The Speaker has made certain, save complete change of heart by the EU, is a no-deal Brexit. Unless. Brexit can only be delayed if the Government places an amendment to that effect to the 2018 Withdrawal Act before both Houses and it is passed. There would be no point in doing so unless the EU agreed to an extension. I suppose he has, maybe unwittingly, prevented Parliament from taking control from the Government which certain elements were trying to do, and put control… Read more »

Leo Savantt
Guest
Leo Savantt

The government can delay Brexit simply by writing a Statutory Instrument, the provision is already in the Withdrawal Act, no amendments are nessecary.

The EU have already said that they will likely agree an extension, albeit on the terms of their choice.

Bercow has done nothing to help Brexit, at least deliberately.

Pat
Guest
Pat

I doubt there is one plan to derail Brexit. Rather there are several from disjointed groups, and they sometimes get in each others way.
The remain strategy seems to depend on the Electorate forgetting about Brexit by the time of the next GE. I think they will be disappointed, and if so the sum of their achievements will be to make the process longer and more painful than necessary.