JOHN Bercow has caused an almighty row in the Commons after snubbing Brexiteer attempts to kill off a People’s Vote.
MPs are due to vote tonight on a government motion to delay Brexit until June 30, but only on the condition that the Commons approve Theresa May's Brexit deal in another meaningful vote by 20 March.
There were several amendments to the government motion tabled by MPs, but the Speaker only chose four to be voted on.
One from a cross-party group of senior backbenchers, which is likely to pass, would allow the House of Commons to have a number of indicative votes.
That amendment, backed by Labour, Tories and SNP MPs, says it is designed “to enable the House of Commons to find a way forward that can command majority support”.
In the Commons David Lidington, May’s de-facto deputy, tried to kill off the amendment, and avoid another government defeat, by promising the government would allow “indicative votes” to allow MPs to agree an alternative approach if no deal is passed by the time of the EU summit starting next Thursday.
He said: “I can confirm today that in such a scenario the government, having consulted the usual channels at that time, would facilitate a process in the two weeks after the March European council to allow the house to seek a majority on the way forward.
“But we should be clear about the consequences if that were to happen. If we are in the world of a longer extension, for this house to come to a decision, then we will be required as a condition to hold European parliamentary elections in May.”
Another, submitted by Sarah Wollaston of the Independent Group, will see MPs voting on a second referendum for the first time.
Bercow infuriated Brexiteer MPs by rejecting their amendment calling for a “divisive and expensive” second EU referendum to be ruled out.
After complaints, Bercow told the Commons: "It is not uncommon for an MP to be mightily pleased when his/her amendment is selected, and displeased when it is not.
"Members do have to take the rough with the smooth."
Votes are expected to start at 5pm.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel