‘Constitutional crisis’ as John Bercow blocks another vote on May’s Brexit deal

Theresa May's bid to win parliamentary approval for her Brexit withdrawal deal has been dealt another dramatic blow after Commons Speaker John Bercow declared he could block any attempt to put the question to MPs again.

In a surprise statement, Bercow said he would only allow the government to put its Brexit plan before MPs again if it is substantially different to the one voted down last week.

That means unless May is willing to make or secure significant changes to her deal by tonight, she will travel to an EU summit on Thursday and seek a long extension to the UK's exit date.

The Prime Minister’s spokesman revealed Downing Street had no advance warning of Bercow’s decision, and one stunned minister even suggested calling upon the Queen to open a new session of Parliament – which would get around the Speaker's ruling that a motion, once defeated, cannot be brought back in the same parliamentary session.

Delivering his verdict, Bercow said the precedent for stopping the government repeatedly bringing the same motion before MPs dated back to 1604.

He added: “What the government cannot legitimately do is to resubmit to the House the same proposition or substantially the same proposition as that of last week which was rejected by 149 votes.”

The Speaker clarified any new deal would have to be “fundamentally different” to the deal already rejected. In a nod to the attorney general's legal advice on the nature of the Irish borer backstop protocol, which is said to be under review, Bercow added: “Simply a change in an opinion about something wouldn’t itself constitute a change in the offer.”

While those seated on the government’s frontbench, including work and pensions secretary Amber Rudd, appeared downcast during the statement, some pro-Brexit Conservatives were delighted with the decision.

Veteran MP Sir Bill Cash said Bercow’s ruling “makes an enormous amount of sense”, while former cabinet minister Owen Paterson later told the BBC it was a “real game changer” that should “concentrate minds” in Brussels.

He said: “I think the Prime Minister can now go to the [European] Council on Thursday with some real asks.”

Solicitor-General Robert Buckland struck the opposite tone, and said: “We are in a major constitutional crisis here.

“There are ways around this – a prorogation of parliament and a new session. We are talking about hours to March 29. Frankly we could have done without this.”

While Downing Street had not confirmed it would bring forward a third meaningful vote before the summit, a motion passed by MPs last week said the PM would seek a delay to Brexit until June 30 provided Parliament signed off on the agreement by Thursday.

With that seemingly no longer an option – unless May makes a dramatic change to her deal today – the UK will now have to ask for a longer extension period.

Ben Bradley, a Conservative MP who switched from opposing May’s deal in January to backing it last week, told City PM the PM has “one more chance to get improvements – if possible”.

He added: “The argument is, does it mean extension is now the most likely thing, or does it mean if no legislation can really come forward it opens a path to no deal? My view is probably the former.”

Sir Stephen Laws QC, former First Parliamentary Counsel, suggested there are mechanisms for the government to get round the ruling, and pointed out the delay motion approved last week contained within it the acceptance of another vote.

In an opinion for the Policy Exchange think tank he said: “The vote for a delay of the Article 50 deadline resulted in a resolution that specifically provided for a third vote, and so implicitly gave the House’s permission to have one. The Speaker should respect that."

He added: "a procedural technicality should not now be used to frustrate the intended effect of primary legislation."