Q&A

What happened yesterday?

Commons Speaker John Bercow announced, without warning, that MPs could not vote on the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement for a third time unless it was ‘substantially different’ from before.

Downing Street was stunned, insisting it had no notice that the statement was coming.

Mr Bercow might argue he is behaving honourably. But at a time of national crisis, when the Government is trying to pick a way through the impasse, his intervention will be seen by ministers as profoundly unhelpful. The EU has already said it will not re-open the deal to provide the kind of changes that would satisfy the Speaker.

What had been the Prime Minister’s plan?

After two humiliating Commons defeats for her Brexit deal – one by a record 230 votes in January, the second by 149 last week – Theresa May wanted to bring her agreement back for approval by MPs for a third time before March 29.

Ministers had pencilled in today or tomorrow to hold the vote ahead of the next meeting of EU leaders in Brussels on Thursday. Westminster watchers dubbed this ‘Meaningful Vote Three’ (MV3). Mrs May had hoped enough hardline Tory Brexiteers would hold their noses and support her deal, fearing the alternatives: a long delay to leaving the EU, a soft Brexit or, worst, no Brexit at all.

How can the Speaker justify his move?

Having been asked by Labour MPs Angela Eagle and Chris Bryant whether the Government was allowed to vote on the same motion repeatedly in a short space of time, the Speaker said he had consulted Erskine May, the Parliamentary procedural handbook. He cited a 415-yearold precedent – not used for nearly 100 years – to rule the PM could not bring back broadly the same deal ‘during that same [Parliamentary] session’.

But didn’t he flout parliamentary convention himself?

He did indeed. In January, Mr Bercow tore up centuries of Commons procedure and helped frustrate Mrs May’s attempts to win a better deal from the EU.

He allowed an amendment by the former attorney general and Remain campaigner Dominic Grieve that forced the PM to come back within three sitting days if her withdrawal agreement was voted down.

This ruling by the Speaker was made against the advice of Commons Clerk Sir David Natzler and meant the Government lost an element of control over Parliamentary business.

Is Mr Bercow right to make it harder to hold a third vote?

Legal experts and MPs were divided yesterday over his interpretation of procedure.

But last October Sir David told MPs: ‘If it was exactly the same document and they came back three months later for another bite, I do not think the procedures of the House are designed to obstruct the necessary business of government in that way in such a crucial thing.’

So is Mrs May’s deal dead – or is it still on life support?

If it becomes clear that there is a majority for the deal, the Government can probably put it to a vote.

The PM still has to travel to Brussels on Thursday to ask the EU for an extension and MPs will have to vote on that, plus alternative outcomes.

While leaving the bloc on March 29 is still the default legal position – with or without a deal – there is zero chance that Parliament, which is overwhelmingly Remain-supporting, will allow that.

But the Speaker has certainly inserted yet another unwanted obstacle for the Government to overcome.

What happens next?

There will not be a third vote this week, meaning MPs could be voting on Brexit next week, days before the March 29 ‘exit day’. Mrs May will now have to find something substantially different to allow her to even put a vote before the Commons.

Solicitor general Robert Buckland stated succinctly yesterday: ‘We are going to have to put all our thinking caps on and come up with some quick answers.’

A nuclear option would be ejecting Mr Bercow from the Speaker’s chair using a noconfidence motion. However, Remainers – especially Labour MPs – turn a blind eye to his antics because they see an ally in thwarting Brexit.

A second option is proroguing Parliament – ending the session. Public Bills can be carried over from one session to the next. But this would require a new Queen’s Speech and take time, yet the Brexit clock has only ten days to tick.