,
6 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Lots of chatter about whether a third vote on the withdrawal agreement should be ruled out by the Speaker. It's pretty clear to me that he should not, for three related reasons. /1
First, the Commons must be in charge of its own procedure. If it wants to approve the withdrawal agreement then by definition it wants the opportunity to vote on it again. If it doesn’t want to approve the agreement it doesn’t matter if it votes on it again. /2
This point is the flip side of Bercow’s decision in January to allow a dodgy amendment (which MPs went on to accept). The constitutional ground zero has to be the will of the majority of the Commons. If you applauded him then you should not want him to rule out a vote now. /3
Second, although the Agreement hasn’t changed, the equation for MPs about whether to approve it changes with the political dynamics (ruling out No Deal, asking to extend article 50 and a response to that request). It's reasonable to ask MPs afresh in light of those changes. /4
Third, this isn’t a game. It would be wrong for some arcane technicality to thwart MPs if they want to approve the Withdrawal Agreement. If it did, trust in democracy would suffer. And if you really care about democracy you can’t duck this point just because it's inconvenient. /5
(I say all of this despite it being my view that (1) there is no real mandate for the choices in the Agreement and (2) the Government has behaved abysmally in not seeking genuine consensus and (3) MPs should again reject it.) /ENDS
