At 3.30pm on Monday 18 March, the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, issued a statement which banned prime minister Theresa May from bringing the same Brexit deal back to Parliament for a third ‘meaningful vote’. Drawing on one of the oldest rules in the rulebook, Bercow declared that the deal could not be voted on again unless substantially different from the last time it was tabled, when the Commons rejected it by 149 votes.
How would UEL students ‘vote’ on Speaker Bercow’s intervention?
Robin Mahr: It was Labour foreign affairs spokesperson Hilary Benn who asked the Speaker if the deal could be brought back to Parliament without being considerably different, prompting Bercow to make a decisive and divisive statement on the matter. Some are calling this unconstitutional and sneaky Remainer tactics. However, the Speaker is within his rights to invoke the powers at his disposal, especially in such a tumultuous time for British politics. It is unfair for May to continue to batter the house with her long rejected deal. This intervention by Bercow could potentially rally others to begin making more radical and passionate decisions, whilst giving the government a motivational kick.
Lucas Ribeiro Dos Santos: After 51.9% of the UK electorate voted to Leave the EU, there seemed to be a clear goal. But since 2016 Brexit has proven to be a shambles. With Theresa May constantly offering the same deal over and over again just to be rejected again and again, the Government has been trying to pull a 12 Angry Men manoeuvre in order to fatigue the Remainers.
John Bercow threw a curve ball at May’s deal as he cited the 1604 convention, later enshrined in the parliamentary rulebook written by Erskine May. I understand and support his decision as we need real change – not being bullied into submission. However I understand that this could also be a ploy to derail Brexit and, eventually, stop it altogether.
Jordan Jones: To call John Bercow ‘humpty dumpty’ for simply making a decision, is ridiculous. Bercow’s ban on another vote on a deal that has already been decided against does not throw us into a ‘constitutional crisis’, but rather protects the reasoning behind parliamentary process. It makes no sense to repeatedly vote on the same deal over and over, as the only people whose vote will change are those who have lost the will to fight against it again.
This is no way to run things, especially on matters of such importance as a Brexit deal. To wear people down until they they agree with you is not the way to win the argument. His decision just makes it so that Theresa May must include significant changes to her deal to allow for another vote. Sure, some can see it as time-wasting in a last minute effort to shut down Brexit, but despite what news outlets and Leader of the House Andrea Leadsom are saying, arguably all it does is show respect for MPs and the Commons by refusing to allow them to have the same deal repeatedly shoved in front of them.
Michelle Harris: According to The Sun, ‘smug’ Commons speaker John Bercow ‘is trying to bully Britain out of Brexit.’ Bercow’s decision has certainly raised some eyebrows, and I for one welcome his decision. I agree it’s insanity to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result which is exactly what May has been doing.
Someone needed to put their foot down, and John Bercow was the one to do it with the spirit of Thomas Erskine May behind him. This scenario I can only liken to that of a strong willed parent who has to remind a child that ‘no means no’ – no matter how hard you try to disguise or dress-up your request – no.
Thank goodness Bercow saw through all the BS.
“John Bercow” by JULIAN MASON is licensed under CC BY
