John Bercow, the soon-to-retire Speaker of the House of Commons, is being criticised for voicing his opposition to Boris Johnson’s “no deal” Brexit.
Critics are saying he should be impartial and has no right to attack the prime minister and his policies.
Supporters say it is important for him to stand up for Parliamentary sovereignty.
Now he has said he may bend Parliamentary rules – in response to efforts by BoJob and his advisers to go around them.
And he has voiced support for the idea of a written UK constitution, to ensure that the kind of shenanigans we have seen from the Johnson administration (and the May ministry before it) cannot happen again:
John Bercow has threatened Boris Johnson that he will be prepared to rip up the parliamentary rulebook to stop any illegal attempt by the prime minister to take the UK out of the EU without a deal on 31 October.
In a direct warning to No 10, the Speaker of the House of Commons said he is prepared to allow “additional procedural creativity” if necessary to allow parliament to block Johnson from ignoring the law.
“If we come close to [Johnson ignoring the law], I would imagine parliament would want to cut off that possibility … Neither the limitations of the existing rulebook or ticking of the clock will stop it doing so,” he said, delivering the annual Bingham lecture in London. “If I have been remotely ambiguous so far, let me make myself crystal clear. The only form of Brexit that we have, whenever that might be, will be a Brexit that the House of Commons has explicitly endorsed.”
He also proposed a written constitution to stop “executive malpractice or fiat”, which could potentially have avoided the constitutional crisis that the UK has found itself in over Brexit.
Simple question: Do you think Mr Bercow is right to speak out? Or should he keep his mouth shut?
Source: John Bercow: I’ll stop Boris Johnson breaking the law on Brexit | Politics | The Guardian
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
Here’s a link to John Bercow’s full speech at this years Bingham Lecture, put the time aside (1hr 38mins) and watch it in full
Have you seen this?
Yes. See my article.
I think he’s absolutely right to speak out, because he’s defending parliamentary sovereignty and democracy at a very dangerous time from those who would subvert and distort such things. These are extenuating circumstances and I think history will prove that he’s on the right side of it, rather than standing meekly by and crying impartiality
Yes ,,, the EU liked Labors proposal in leaving deal so did we
Yes, speak out. And yes, use any means to stymie Fuehrer Johnson.
His opposition to Johnson is not about “no deal brexit ” but is about opposition to a PM who is proposing to ignore Parliament’s ruling on a no deal Brexit.
You have asked two questions, here, Mike. To the first; is he right to voice his own views on “Brexit”? No. How can he be seen to be impartial? To the second; is he right to criticise attempts to subvert Parliamentary democracy? Aye. One might say that it is his duty although, I think that, perhaps, he should have done it in Parliament, rather than media. This, from the Parliament website: “Speakers must be politically impartial. Therefore, on election the new Speaker must resign from their political party and remain separate from political issues even in retirement. However, the Speaker will deal with their constituents’ problems like a normal MP.” That is interesting; “even in retirement”? That, I most certainly did not know.