Bercow loving it

Speaker John Bercow has found himself at the epicentre of the latest parliamentary drama as Brexit D-Day approaches. Tory MPs spent the best part of an hour attacking Bercow in the Commons this afternoon for eschewing constitutional precedent to table an amendment to an un-amendable motion.

The Speaker’s office confirmed this morning that an amendment to the government’s motion put forward by Conservative MP and Remainer Dominic Grieve would be tabled. The amendment says that if Theresa May’s deal fails next Tuesday (looking very likely) she will have to present her plan B to parliament within 3 days of the original vote – so, by Friday 18th. The amendment passed this afternoon by 11 votes, 308-297.

Prior to the amendment May had 21 days to come back to parliament with new arrangements if her deal failed. The fear among the amendment’s signatories was that May would simply use that time to ramp up the threat of no deal, returning to parliament with nothing more than a reheated version of her already failed deal. So, parliament would be left with the same situation as before: May’s deal, or no deal, with less time than ever to find an alternative. Grieve’s intervention should force the prime minister to come back promptly on her alternatives, giving parliament more time to solve the quagmire. It should stop the government accidentally crashing out with no deal. That’s the theory, anyway.

In reality the amendment may not be all that significant. While it’s not a good look for the government to be defeated again this close to the meaningful vote, if May does lose on Tuesday she would have had to make a pretty prompt statement on her plan B anyway, that night or the next day. That statement, whether three days or 21 days later may be nothing more than something to the tune of: Can we try this one again, please?

The real significance of this is Bercow’s railroading of parliamentary precedent in tabling the amendment in the first place. The government was under the, probably correct, impression that their motion could not be amended. Peter Bone MP made this clear with his point of order to the Speaker: He was told on Tuesday evening that the motion was “categorically un-amendable” when he tried to table one himself, so why has Bercow tabled Grieve’s?

Bercow acting on his own authority, defying the advice of the clerks and basic constitutional precedent, leaves him pretty exposed to the criticism of partisanship. After all, he’s no secret Remainer, and does not want to see the UK leave the EU at all, let alone with no deal. But leveraging his position to meet his own ideological ends is not exactly befitting of a Speaker, as a litany of MPs did not fail to point out. Crispin Blunt MP summed it up well with his observation that the House has been confronted with an “unshakeable conviction that the referee is no longer neutral.”

On his rejection of precedent, Bercow said: “I understand the importance of precedent… but if we were guided only by precedent manifestly nothing in our procedure would ever change, things do change, and I have made an honest judgement and if people want to vote against the amendment they can and if they want to vote for it they can.” Translation: The constitution? I am the constitution.

The charitable interpretation of Bercow’s actions could be that, as Speaker, he cares about giving a greater voice to parliament. His defence is simple: The amendment passed, didn’t it? He’s just allowing parliament to exercise its will, and isn’t that his job? Uncharitably, this is a cynical ploy by the supposed neutral speaker to prevent a no deal outcome at all costs. The modern speaker’s core job is to be a neutral referee, free of even the slightest perception of bias.

What we are really seeing is a showdown between the legislature and the executive; parliament taking back control, if you will. Hilary Benn made this case from the opposition benches, and Christopher Chope warned of scoring an own goal for the House if they started undermining Bercow’s authority as Speaker. Meanwhile, Tory Mark Francois could be heard yelling “utter sophistry! That is absolutely ridiculous!”

It was quite the spectacle. Bercow insisted he’s just trying to do the right thing, as he slowly feeds a dying flame with torn up pages of Erskine May, the august if increasingly redundant guide to parliamentary procedure.