Brexit: UK in constitutional crisis as John Bercow refuses third vote

Britain is in constitutional crisis as the Speaker of the House bars the PM from resubmitting her withdrawal deal for a third vote.

John Bercow has used centuries of precedence to refuse a third vote on Theresa May’s withdrawal bill.

Britain has been plunged into a constitutional crisis after the Speaker of the House, John Bercow ruled out any chance of Theresa May resubmitting her Brexit withdrawal bill in its current form, after referring to parliamentary convention that has existed for four centuries.

The dramatic intervention this morning has now raised a rare possibility that the Queen could be asked to prorogue the parliament, ending the current session and starting a new one. This would potentially create a path for Mrs May to bring her deal before parliament again.

A two-thirds vote in the Commons could also suddenly end this parliamentary session.

Robert Buckland, the solicitor general, told the BBC: “We are in a major constitutional crisis here. There are ways around this — a prorogation of parliament and a new session. We are talking about hours to (Brexit on) March 29. Frankly we could have done without this.’’

He added: “Now we have this ruling to deal with, it is clearly going to require a lot of very fast but very deep thought in the hours ahead.’’

Mrs May has been outmanoeuvred before meeting the European Council on Thursday to request an extension to Article 50. While the EU may allow a technical extension to June, a longer extension may be problematic.

Opponents of Mrs May’s bill, which had been immersed in difficulties around the Irish backstop and the UK being trapped within the EU without an escape clause, welcomed Mr Bercow’s ruling.

Remainers believe it increases the chances of Brexit being cancelled, or a second referendum, while Brexiteers believe the odds of leaving the EU without any deal on March 29 is now more likely.

But the government is furious at being blindsided by Mr Bercow.

Justice Minister Rory Stewart tweeted: “ ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean.’”

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean." pic.twitter.com/UlRAKLbGqN

— Rory Stewart (@RoryStewartUK) March 18, 2019

Mr Bercow issued an urgent statement in Westminster overnight where he ruled that the Erskine May procedural handbook makes it clear that a motion which is the same in substance may not be brought forward again during the same parliamentary session.

Mrs May had been intending to table her Brexit Withdrawal Bill for a third time, after two previous heavy defeats, and following heavy lobbying of DUP and Brexiteer critics.

But Mr Bercow said the convention to refuse the motion dated back to April 2, 1604, and said it had been confirmed repeatedly, including 1864, 1870, 1882, 1891 and 1912.

“Each time the Speaker of the day ruled that a motion could not be brought back because it had already been decided in that same session of Parliament,” he continued.

“Indeed, Erskine May makes reference to no fewer than 12 such rulings up to the year 1920.

“One of the reasons the rule has lasted so long is that it is a necessary rule to ensure the sensible use of the House’s time and the proper respect for the decisions it takes.”

Mr Bercow said he had only allowed Mrs May to table her Brexit bill for a second time last week because there had been significant changes to it brought about by talks between the government and Brussels.

Mr Bercow said if the government wishes to bring forward a new proposition that is neither the same nor substantially the same as that disposed of by the House on March 12, this would be entirely in order.

But he stressed: “What the government cannot legitimately do is resubmit to the House the same proposition — or substantially the same proposition — as that of last week, which was rejected by 149 votes. This ruling should not be regarded as my last word on the subject. It is simply meant to indicate the test which the government must meet in order for me to rule that a third meaningful vote can legitimately be held in this parliamentary session.’’

Amid the fresh uncertainty, Tory and Labour Party strategists were working out how to deal with the ruling and ascertain if other planned Brexit motions would now be impacted. One serious option is to dissolve the parliament so that the same motions could then be tabled in a fresh parliamentary session.

Tory Brexiteer Mark Francois asked the Speaker if he would apply the same test to other motions, including those attempting to force an extension of Article 50 and a second referendum.

He said: “You have said memorably in the past that sometimes we have to take the rough with the smooth, well it seems to me today that that applies to others.”

Mr Bercow replied: “Everything depends upon context and circumstance.”

Mr Bercow said that he would have to look at the details at the time after Labour MP Geraint Davies asked if the Brexit vote would be different if it included provision for a second referendum over the decision.

Conservative MP James Cleverly said MPs might have voted differently if they had realised that last week’s vote was their last chance to vote for the Brexit deal.