FOR months now, Theresa May has been resisting every effort to give MPs more of a say over how the UK leaves the EU. But everyone concerned about the effects of Brexit has always hoped the rebels would eventually find a way to ensure the voice of the Commons was heard. And now, it seems, thanks to the Speaker John Bercow, they have.
The details of this week’s vote are complicated but what they amount to is this: if the PM’s deal is voted down next week then the amendment proposed by Dominic Grieve and passed by MPs will require the Government to come back within three days to debate the next step. Crucially, the Commons will then have a chance to vote on alternative policies, including a second referendum or a different version of Brexit.
The Speaker’s critics say that, in allowing this to happen, he has ignored parliamentary precedent, but we are in unprecedented times and Mr Bercow is right to say that the past is important but not binding. We should also be in no doubt about what motivates the MPs who are citing precedent – their concern is not parliamentary procedure but getting their version of Brexit or, in some cases, a no-deal Brexit. As he often does, the Leader of the House Ken Clarke summed it up best when he suggested some of the MPs who were getting over-excited might want to don a yellow jacket and go outside.
The most important point – to use the words of the Brexiters – is that the House of Commons is taking back control. The bullying allegations against the Speaker may make him a difficult hero, but the action he has taken has hastened the moment when the Government has to contemplate an alternative approach; it also reduces the ability of the PM to delay in an attempt to frighten MPs into accepting her deal. And in helping to unite a majority of MPs, the vote has achieved something even more important: in the face of a hapless government and a weak Prime Minister, it allows the House of Commons to start to take control, at last, of this chaotic process.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel