Bercow blows up Brexit and points way to long delay or revoking Article 50

The final episode of Brexit Series One hardly lacked drama as it was. But the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow MP, on Monday introduced a fresh plot twist to the seemingly never-ending tale of parliamentary chicanery and institutional ineptitude.

The government has been planning to bring back its failed Brexit deal so that MPs this week might consider it for a third time. Bercow, citing parliamentary precedent stretching back to Nineteen Canteen, told MPs this afternoon that he will, in effect, not allow that to happen. Unless the proposition in the motion is substantially different from when it was last voted on (just a week ago, how time flies!) then Meaningful Vote 3 will not be put to the vote. Meaningful Vote 2 did badly at the box office. Brexit addicts looking forward to further films in the franchise will be disappointed.

Although there will be fury on the government side, among the whips and those ministers just trying to get anything remotely agreeable through the House of Commons in time, Bercow has a point. Of course, the manner in which he framed his intervention – like a self-satisfied headmaster from the 1950s at school assembly picking on pupils he doesn’t care for – was annoying. Nonetheless, the executive has mishandled Brexit throughout and in assuming that it could try repeated attempts to get its controversial deal through it was risking a ruling such as this grounded in parliamentary precedent.

Bercow has pushed it though. Sir Stephen Laws QC, Senior Fellow at Policy Exchange, and former First Parliamentary Counsel from 2006-2012, says that the Speaker is wrong: “If there is a majority for the deal, preventing the vote would be to frustrate the will of the House. It would be deeply concerning to see a Speaker act in such a way. Those who are opposed to the deal should want to win with a majority on the substance, not by procedural manoeuvring or on a technicality, and the Speaker should allow that.”

The government may have a go at overturning or setting aside the rule that the same, or substantially the same, motion cannot be brought back, Laws points out.

All that and more will now be fought out in the the days ahead. But what does the Bercow ruling mean in practical political terms when there are only 10 days left until the UK is meant to leave the EU?

In my view Bercow has pointed the way to a path that ends with Article 50 being revoked, or short of that the Commons endorsing a long delay during which a general election, pretty soon, becomes highly likely.

Revoking might sound extreme, or look like quite a leap, but with so little time left there is scope for a lot to happen rapidly. You might hate the idea intensely – I do – but revoking is where the logic leads in May failing to get anything more out of the EU, and then struggling to hold or win a vote. If the long delay proposal fails, if the UK cannot define the offer to the EU or the EU bungles the conditions, then MPs will then find themselves next week faced with a stark choice between no deal (which MPs hate because they fear the economic consequences) and a quick vote to revoke.

The legal opinion is that the UK can revoke. Ah, say some observers, it needs legislation. Perhaps, but if the votes are there it could be rammed through quicker than you could say “John Bercow’s thought of a convenient constitutional innovation that stops Brexit.”

In the face of this threat, the die hard Brexiteers appear to be cheerful. They think that the Bercow ruling on Monday kills May’s deal and continues to “run down the clock” until we exit on March 29th.

There is a chance that in this fashion a “pure” no deal Brexit stumbles over the line next week by accident. The chance is slim though, because MPs are highly unlikely to allow it to happen.

There are many conclusions one can draw from the votes and drama of recent weeks. There are not the votes for a second referendum for example, which is good news for anyone interested in maintaining the nation’s social fabric. The main conclusion is clearly that the Common hates no deal and will stop no deal if it has to. A significant number of MPs and ministers on the Tory side will do anything – just about anything – to prevent a no deal Brexit. Their view is shared by the bulk of the parliamentary Labour party, by the SNP, and by the Lib Dems. In a fight – no deal takes on revoke  and delay has been botched – the numbers are there for revoke and against the no dealers. Goodness, even some of the die hard Brexiteers now favour revoke to “reset” and try for a better deal under some magical new Tory leader who comes armed with a laser to solve the technology problem on the Irish border.

Other die hard Brexiteers in the country seems to relish the clash with the Commons, getting it all out in the open in order that there can be a magical uprising. Be careful what you wish for, die hards. A lot of voters would be annoyed, although it would not all be in one direction. A fair few Brexit moderates and Remainers who accept Brexit would be furious with purist muppets who dropped the ball and lost Brexit.

Personally, I would rather leave the European Union as soon as possible, with an imperfect deal, rather than gambling the lot on the promise of fantastical things in the future that involve lasers, Nigel Farage marching (or not marching) and Steve Baker’s strategic skills.

By now, those Brexiteers still putting their faith in the strategists of the ERG should surely be having doubts. We have all – Brexiteers and many a Remainer – made mistakes in our assumptions these last few years, but the ERG playbook has been notably deficient. By now German car manufacturers were supposed to have intervened to force an EU concession. Where are they?

When Theresa May should have been removed after the general election disaster, the Tory die hard factions propped her up and smugly assured their colleagues and commentators that they knew what they were doing and they had the Prime Minister under their control. Then, when that went wrong, and they tried to remove May late last year, they found they had left it far too late and botched the attempt. Now, they are proclaiming themselves relaxed. They seem convinced their moment of final victory is at hand. It isn’t.