Bercow’s hubris puts our democracy at risk

IN these perilous days of political and constitutional crisis, the House of Commons desperately needs a Speaker who is scrupulously impartial and commands respect across the whole chamber.

Instead we have John Bercow, a man who wears his anti-Brexit prejudice on his sleeve as a badge of honour.

While the rest of the country frets nervously over the Brexit impasse and yearns for a solution, Mr Bercow is positively revelling in the opportunity it affords him for self-publicity.

Yesterday, in a brazen act of sabotage, he indicated his intention to block a third meaningful vote on Theresa May’s deal – the one measure that could actually break the Brexit deadlock.

He gave the Government no prior notice, detonating this bombshell at the most inconvenient and sensitive moment – just 11 days before we are due to leave the EU.

Although he claims his decision is based on ‘strong and longstanding convention’, several constitutional experts – including ex-Commons clerk Sir David Natzler and former Parliamentary Counsel Sir Stephen Laws – say it is wrong in principle as well as in spirit.

They say he is wrong to obstruct the vital business of government in this way and wrong to frustrate the House in its search for compromise. But it also smacks of gross hypocrisy. Mr Bercow’s supposed reason for vetoing another meaningful vote is that the May deal has been defeated already, so should not come back to the Commons in this session unless it can be shown to be ‘substantially different’.

Yet he has been perfectly happy for antiBrexit motions to be put more than once.

The so-called ‘Cooper-Boles’ amendment, which would have allowed Parliament to take control of the withdrawal process, was voted down in January, yet allowed again last week in the same form but with another name added – that of Hilary Benn.

So why the double standard?

Equally, Mr Bercow’s view of ancient precedent seems strangely elastic.

Yesterday he cited a 400- year- old convention to justify his ruling.

Yet in January he rode roughshod over all precedent to facilitate an antiGovernment amendment from archRemainer Dominic Grieve.

On that occasion he said: ‘ If we were guided only by precedent, manifestly nothing in our procedures would ever change.’

So was yesterday’s decision made in good faith? Or was it a duplicitous act, cynically intended to scupper Brexit?

Let’s not forget this preening egotist has boasted about being a committed Remainer and whose family car displays a ‘Bo***cks to Brexit’ sticker. So much for objectivity.

But bias is not the only charge levelled at him. He stands accused of bullying, shouting and swearing at Westminster staff – allegations which have yet to be properly investigated – and calling Leader of the House Andrea Leadsom a ‘stupid woman’.

In almost any other job, he would have been suspended or even fired. He has been threatening to retire for some time, originally promising to go last June. Yet somehow, there he remains.

If Mr Bercow does block the third meaningful vote, three things become more likely – a long delay in implementing Article 50, a calamitous No Deal Brexit (still the legal default position on March 29), and a general election.

Any of these outcomes would ensure that our national trauma goes on and on. As the Mail has consistently said, the best way to deliver on the referendum and begin the process of healing the country’s wounds is to back the May deal.

For the chance of doing that to be lost because of one man’s overweening vanity would be a perversion of our democracy.