John Bercow drops a Brexit bombshell

THE INTERVENTION on March 18th by the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, could almost have been scripted to make the Brexit process even more tortuous. Without warning the government, Mr Bercow ruled that Downing Street could not put Theresa May’s Brexit deal, which has already twice been rejected by large majorities, to a third vote unless it was changed in substance. The Speaker’s decision was based on precedents set down by the Bible on parliamentary procedure, “Erskine May”, against holding repeated votes in the same parliamentary session on a matter already decided by MPs.

Unlike the Speaker of America’s House of Representatives, who is the head of the majority party, the British Speaker, an MP chosen by their peers, is supposed to be a neutral referee. Mr Bercow, who has occupied the canopied chair for nearly ten years, is unpopular with most Tories, who believe he is a Remainer bent on sabotaging Brexit. Indeed, his ruling yesterday was welcomed by those calling for a softer Brexit, as well as those campaigning for a second referendum. Yet many hardline Brexiteers opposed to Mrs May’s deal also praised it. They seemed to think that, by making it still harder for the prime minister to pass her deal, the ruling makes a no-deal Brexit more likely.

In this the hardliners are surely wrong. MPs have already voted against leaving the EU with no deal. It is also clear that Mrs May will instead go to the European Union summit on March 21st to seek an extension of the Article 50 deadline, which is due to expire on March 29th. This requires the unanimous agreement of EU leaders, who will grumpily ask the prime minister what she wants the extension for and how long it should be. Yet in truth nobody wants to be seen forcing a no-deal Brexit, so an extension is almost certain to be agreed.

Mrs May could try to use the Bercow ruling to justify renegotiating the Brexit deal, telling EU leaders that unless they agree to alter it she will be unable to put it before Parliament again. But the EU would surely say no. It has made clear that the withdrawal agreement, including the Irish backstop which hardline Brexiteers regard as a trap to keep Britain in a customs union, cannot be renegotiated. There is more openness over the accompanying political declaration about the future relationship, which is not legally binding. But EU leaders will tell Mrs May that substantive changes to the declaration would require her to blur some of her Brexit red lines, which she is unwilling to do.

The prime minister will instead try to use an extension, however long, to bludgeon more MPs into backing the current deal. The Downing Street strategy is to peel off groups opposed to her deal, starting with the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), by telling them the alternative is no Brexit at all. Mr Bercow’s ruling makes it harder for this approach to succeed. But most analysts believe that, if Mrs May can assemble a majority for the deal, ways can be found round the Speaker. These range from suspending Commons standing orders, to winning a “paving motion” showing there was a majority for the deal in principle, to proroguing the current parliamentary session and starting a new one.

The real obstacle to passing the deal is not Mr Bercow but Mrs May’s inability to talk enough MPs round to supporting it. From the start she has been a rotten saleswoman for her deal. Because of the vagueness of the political declaration, it leaves the shape of a post-Brexit relationship with the EU wholly unclear. Her case for backing it has been merely that it is better than no deal or no Brexit. And this has not been enough to win over either hardline Brexiteers or significant numbers of Labour MPs to come over to her side.

It is possible that the arithmetic will change during an extended Article 50 period. The most likely way forward is to cajole the DUP into switching sides, by persuading it that the backstop will not become permanent, giving the Northern Ireland Assembly more say or just by spending more money in the province. Many hardline Tories would follow the DUP on the basis that they cannot be more royalist than the king. It might then also be possible to lure over more Labour MPs, who would be more willing to stick their necks out and support the plan if they thought it had a realistic chance of passing. The trouble is that Mrs May is a poor communicator and negotiator. And that, not the antics of the Speaker, is what is really blocking her Brexit deal.