Without Bercow there would be no Brexit

Today John Bercow made a decision that has sent certain groups of people into meltdown.

The Commons erupted over Speaker John Bercow's decision to allow an attempt to change the rules for the resumed "meaningful vote" debate. This is no mere technicality. The amendment proposed by former Attorney General Dominic Grieve would require the government to come back within three days, rather than 21, to debate the implications of not having a Brexit deal - if the prime minister's deal is indeed voted down next Tuesday. 

Under the previous rules, that debate would be kicked back to late February, with the Brexit clock ticking remorselessly in the background. The new Grieve amendment, now passed by MPs, means that in the event the PM loses next week, the Commons will then have a chance to vote on alternative policies - everything from a "managed no-deal" to a further referendum, via a "Norway option" or a reheated version of the current deal, could be on the table. 

If a majority could be found for anything, it would not have the force of law - but it would at least indicate a policy which had the support of MPs.

However back in the mists of time now ....back back to 2013 John Bercow made a decision that was described as "the single most important decision of his speakership" and paved the way for Brexit.

"And here is where Mr Speaker Bercow enters our story, with a ruling on an apparently in-house issue that probably ranks as the single most important decision of his speakership. He allowed an extra amendment to the Queen's Speech, stretching the terms of Commons Standing Order 33 probably beyond breaking point in the process."

Those who are in meltdown over this would do well do remember that without Bercow making the decision in 2013 there wouldn't be any Brexit.

As David Allen Green said in the Financial Times

"The recent decision by John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, to allow a vote on an amendment on a government business motion has prompted Tory unhappiness and screaming front page headlines in the right wing press. Even on its own merits, the subject is arcane. One suspects that few of those supposedly upset by this development knew or cared whether such votes were possible before a few days ago."

"In fact, there is little to be genuinely concerned about in what happened. All the Speaker did was to allow MPs to vote on how the business of the House should be conducted. The government’s real problem is not that the vote took place, but that it no longer has a working majority on Brexit issues. And the outcome of the vote was sensible: it obliges the government to act swiftly if, as is expected, it loses the “meaningful” vote next week on accepting the Brexit withdrawal agreement. Only a knavish or foolish partisan could be vexed by this."

Soapbox Comment

1. The Brexit referendum wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for Bercow.
2. He's normally pretty good at allowing all parties to put things forward for debate.
3. Personally I don't think he's very good at keeping the baying Tory animal pack in check.
4. I think it's a good move to get May back in 3 days if she loses the vote. That's what they are there for to debate things and make decisions. 
5. The vote was leave to take back democracy, well one of the reasons. This is our democracy at work.....debating and voting on things, not putting things off so they cant be discussed.
6. All they have to do now is make MPs legally liable for lying and libeling and take away Parliamentary privilege with regard to that and we'll be getting somewhere.

LINKS
BBC: Brexit: How rebel MPs outfoxed Cameron to get an EU referendum
Guardian: John Bercow backs referendum on Britain's EU membership
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-09c.1047.0
Guardian: Brexit: MPs vote 308-297 in favour of amendment for three-day 'plan B' deadline - Politics live
FT: Outrage at John Bercow is the sound of a constitution working