He loves high stakes... now he’s betting the House

WHEN Parliament returns this week, all eyes will be on the battle of wills and wits between the Prime Minister and the Commons Speaker. John Bercow may believe that what he is doing is defending the rights of Parliament and its duty to hold the executive to account. In fact, there is much more at stake as his latest interventions on Brexit show.

The Speaker is doing nothing less than changing the historic relationship between Parliament as the legislature and the Government as the executive in a fundamental way. If he succeeds, it won’t be the Prime Minister

proroguing Parliament that will be remembered as a ‘constitutional outrage’, to quote Mr Bercow’s own words last week.

Despite being a former Conservative MP, Mr Bercow could never be accused of proTory bias. Far from it. Moreover, when it comes to Brexit, he has never made a secret of his views or willingness to enter the political fray. But by trying to stop the Prime Minister’s potentially No Deal Brexit, Mr Speaker appears to be moving in the direction of a US-style Speaker.

By tradition, Commons Speakers are politically impartial whereas the US Congress Speaker has an overtly political role.

Some may say Mr Bercow embarked on this controversial road a long time ago. But the consequences of what may now unfold are much more serious. Until the 2016 referendum, Parliament was firmly the representative of the people and the people were happy that their Parliament was sovereign.

But David Cameron passed that sovereignty from Parliament to the people by asking them to vote on whether we should Leave or Remain in the EU.

The people were told that their decision was binding. Leave or Remain, it would be implemented. When the votes came in, we saw a seismic shift in representation, with the Government trying to implement the will of the people against a Remain Parliament trying to stop them. The only way that Parliament could do so was with a Speaker willing to invent new rules. He has done so already with the ‘Cooper-Letwin Bill’, which effectively extended Brexit Day to October 31 and he has made known that he is about to try again.

In doing so, Mr Speaker is not only in open opposition to the people, who voted Leave, but he may actually cause the hard Brexit that his Remain supporters are so keen to avoid.

We know that Boris Johnson won’t let his hands be tied.

Should the Speaker allow Parliament to legislate to force the Government to ask for an extension to Brexit, then the Prime Minister will call a General Election – during which a hard Brexit could happen on October 31 by default. In a campaign that pits Parliament versus people, the

Speaker could find himself on the losing side, with the Election result being a Boris Johnson administration with a majority.

Surely even Mr Bercow must recognise that he cannot change the role of Speaker from impartial referee to partisan player-manager by executive order. As powerful as he is, these are major constitutional changes that need the agreement of all those concerned.

Mr Speaker has always liked to play high stakes but this week he will be betting the House. If he wins, he succeeds in delaying Brexit to another day. If not, he could lose everything and be blamed by both Leavers and Remainers for changing the rules on something that – for both sides – is really not a game.

Natascha Engel is the former Labour MP for North-East Derbyshire and now a partner with the Public First consultancy