Thread by @IanDunt

Bercow making a statement parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/62…

Says there's been lots of speculation about meaningful vote three. On March 13th he was asked about whether it is proper to keep bringing the deal back. He said no ruling necessary at the time but may be required later.

This is weird. He couldn't possibly do this could he?

Says he's been asked to pronounce on it by both sides of House and Brexit debate. Quotes the relevant section of Erskine May

Holy fuck, is he about to do this? It really sounds like he might.

Reminds House it is up to 'chair' - that's him - to decide if substance of motion is the same. He says Chris Bryant quoted examples of the ruling being reasserted last week. Each time Speaker ruled motion couldn't be brought back.

"It is a necessary rule to ensure the sensible use of House's time. Decisions of the House matter. They have weight."

Now summarises chronology with Brexit deal. Published Nov 14th. Was supposed to be voted in Dec. But it was postponed, after over a 100 speeches made in debate.

"I pointed out at the time this was deeply discourteous to the House." He sought a vote on it. "Regrettably it was not."

First vote defeated more heavily than any govt motion in parliamentary history. Second vote was "again very heavily defeated".

Second motion didn't fall foul because "it could credible be argued that it was a different proposition" to that put earlier - the legal changes with EU.

Guys, I'm pretty sure he's about to do this shit right now and it is going to blow the fucking lid right off this thing.

He says it is rumoured, but he hasn't been informed, that third and then fourth meaningful votes will be tabled.

"If govt wishes to bring forward new proposition that is neither the same nor substantially the same as that disposed of in the House" last week, that's in order.

"What govt cannot properly do is resubmit to the House the same propitiation or substantially the same proposition as that which was rejected last week".

OK, that was odd.

He did not quite rule out another vote on the motion. However, his argument was reliant on text of the deal and whether it had changed in negotiations with Europe.

But that is a much narrower assessment, and a much higher benchmark, than that which many constitutional experts have. They thought the "underlying reality", to quote one of the clerks of the House, were relevant on the motion.

Ie: If votes were shifting towards govt, that would suggest will of the House was for another vote. And Speaker would take note of that. But no mention of that at all from Bercow.

For more details on this, see this piece from this morning - but health warning: It is now clear Bercow is taking a much stricter interpretation of the rules than I laid out there politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/03/…

Interestingly, Bill Cash, ardent Brexiter, rises to congratulate Bercow on what he said.

Mogg up. Sarcastically says he is delighted Speaker is following precedent finally. Important moment: Says a new session after prerogation would allow another vote.

Bercow says it is "self-evidently valid".

Angela Eagle, who asked Bercow about this last week, says the section in Erskine May is to prevent "bullying" by the executive.

This is basically a constitutional nerd orgasm explosion.

The shit that is going down here? It is fucking insane. Insane.

Bercow lists the rational behind his decision-making on the subject. Important to note. "

He lists: 1) "Concern with judicious use of parliamentary time when that time is finite." 2) "Ensuring clarity and consistency so far as the statute book is concerned."

3) "Underlying all of that there is a concept of respect for the importance of decisions made by the House and weight to be attached to them."

Nowhere in that list was reflecting the "will of the House", which was thought to be the dominant guiding principle in his decision on this matter.

Francois makes a decent point. Benn amendment last week was substantially similar to Cooper-Boles amendment from a month ago. He judged it was permissible, cos not exactly the same. So if it comes up again, Bercow will surely have to block it.

Bercow says "everything depends upon context and circumstance... manifestly and incontrovertibly".

Soubry: "This is what happens when you don't seek compromise and consensus from the beginning."

Quick caveat to all this. Govt can try to pass a motion putting aside the normal rules in a specific case. They could try that here, saying it can be put down as often as they like. Trouble is: They'd need a majority for that.

This is fucking hilarious.

Bercow looks with a harsh glare at the government front bench. "Part of the responsibility of the Speaker is to frankly to speak truth to power. I have always done that and no matter what I always will.

"Others can proceed as they wish, but I have never been pushed around and I'm not going to start now."

On test for another meaningful vote: "Demonstrable change to the proposition would be required. Simply a change about an opinion about something wouldn't constitute a change in the offer."

Peter Bone, another hardline Brexiter, also gets up and praises Bercow.

Bercow basically just side-eyeing the fuck out of the govt right now.

"I would hope the govt would feel respect for procedure does matter. I note that as the rt hon gentleman asks his question and I respond, the leader of the House is playing with her electronic device and so is the deputy chief whip."

"I didn't include him in the category of very senior people in the House, that is a debatable proposition, I readily grant."

Lol.

"But it would seem to me to be helpful if people showed respect for each other in these circumstances... listened to what others had to say, but if they choose not to do so, so be it."

Repeated efforts by Brexiters to insist that this means People's Vote is dead because that amendment was defeated last week. Bercow says it;s a context and circumstance decision.

By virtue of allowing Benn amendment after Cooper-Boles, or May deal twice, that clearly will not work. But everyone on all sides of the debate, heavily impacted by what's going on here.

But for instance, Kyle amendment obvs very different to a straight-up People's vote amendment, as it it contingent on deal support. Point Bercow is making with May deal is the content & purpose is literally identical.

(Although fuck knows how Kyle amendment works now).

This is like one of those jokes that you laugh at, then stop, then it becomes funny all over again.

Whittingdale raises I think a crucial point: If May comes back with a "substantially different proposition" from the European Council meeting this week, that would be a new proposition to put to the House.

it of chatter about Speaker's conferences. Leader of the House Andrea Leadsom shoots back: "I am indeed a reforming leader of the Commons. For me treating colleagues with courtesy and respect is at the forefront of that reform.

"And any Speaker's Council would have to have that at its heart and I simply would not be confident that would be the case."

Points of order still coming in after over an hour of this.

Ok, we're done here. Just a smouldering wreckage of Brexit and the British constitutional arrangements left now. Points of order over.

Bercow concludes by saying, and I am not making this up: "I've never lost a wink a sleep over any work related matter."

He's a class act, whatever you make of the decision itself. Anyway, I'll writer this up now, piece up in a jiffy.

Bercow detonates May's third vote with dramatic Brexit intervention politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/03/…

Your complete guide to what just happened: The battle over sovereignty, the Bercow decision, and what avenues are open to May now.

Fuck man, I thought today was going to be chill.