Mr John Bercow is the Speaker of the House of Commons. The Speaker of the House of Commons is supposed to be unbiased. Mr Bercow is anything but unbiased.
Wikipedia explains that the Speaker 'remains strictly non-partisan and renounce all affiliation with their former political parties when taking office and afterwards'. Mr Bercow has been constantly accused of allowing his own beliefs and feelings to come in to play when he makes a decision in the House of Commons, and I agree. Don't get me wrong. He is clever, informed, and manages to pull little known laws out of the hat when he needs to, but that is not being unbias when you can be seen to thwart certain motions consistently. The important word here is 'consistently'.
Much as I don't want to harp on about it, I seem to be consistently writing about Brexit recently. It's become my bête noir. I honestly never thought my blog would end up so full of it, but then my bio says my blog is all about what I think, and Brexit seems to be on my mind a lot recently. It's very therapeutic to get it off my chest!
So back to Mr John Bercow. He was a Conservative Party member, but his election to the Speakers Chair depended very heavily on the support of other parties. His election was also unpopular with many of his Conservative colleagues. I can see why. He has been a controversial Speaker, and to a layman's eye he meddles when he should be silent. Today he is in the news for two reasons. One is that he has announced he will stay on as Speaker of the House of Commons because 'it was not sensible to go while the momentous events of Brexit are happening'. To be honest that's rubbish. We're having a New Conservative Leader, we'll probably have a new Labour Leader soon the way things are going, so why not have a new Speaker? He has clashed with Tory MPs consistently and has been accused of making up rules as he goes along. He certainly has been the most outspoken and involved Speaker for a long time. The second reason he is in the paper is that he has openly stated that he will make sure that MPs have a say over whether we leave the EU with No Deal or not.
At the moment the current law says we will leave on the 31st October 2019. It isn't clear whether Parliament could stop a No Deal but Mr Bercow has proved to be rather 'flexible' in his Speaker approach recently where Brexit has been concerned. It could be that Parliament will have to rush through a new law to get another postponement if a No Deal seems inevitable. What the MPs and Mr Bercow believe the EU will do about that is beyond me. As I have stated before, the EU have totally and categorically said they are now getting fed up with the dithering and will not tolerate another delay. All the other EU member states would have to agree another delay. It would only take one member state to say no extension and that would be it. The cost to all of the countries is growing, business wise and economically wise, not to mention that everyone's nerves are getting fraught. They will not allow another extension, and it appears they could turn round and say that we cannot leave if this carries on. I suspect that is what some people, some MPs and Mr Bercow want. I cannot imagine the mood of this country if that would happen, but be it on their heads.
There are a couple of scenarios possible if Mr Bercow starts this action. The MPs could pass a resolution rejecting a No Deal but that would not be legally binding, and so it could still go ahead. MPs could call for a no confidence vote in the Government and bring it down. What a mess the House of Commons would be in then.
This is Mr Bercow's statement -
'My reading of the situation is that legally the default position in the absence of an agreement is Brexit on October 31. 'There can, however, be a difference between what the law says and what political movements between now and then decrees. 'I'm not saying that Brexit without a deal will happen and I'm not saying that it definitely won't. I am saying that Parliament and individual parliamentarians will have strong views about these matters. 'There is a difference between a legal default position and what the interplay of political forces in Parliament will facilitate.'The idea that there is an inevitability of a No Deal Brexit would be a quite wrong suggestion. There is no inevitability whatsoever about that.'
Mr John Bercow denies impartiality. He says that he has allowed both sides to be heard, but he also admits he voted to Remain. I have accused MPs before of doing what they believe in, rather than doing the will of the majority of their constituents. I would suggest this is what Mr Bercow has done, and is doing. This is my opinion from my observations and my prerogative to think this, but I am not the only person to feel this way. The media is full of his statement today.
He also mentioned who he admires 'for their capability for answering urgent questions in Parliament'. Quote 'In the present Government, if I may say so, I would cite Michael Gove and Jeremy Hunt as very good examples of extremely capable ministers who have got the intellectual self-confidence as well as the communication skill and the dexterity at the despatch box to cope at that which is thrown at them'. That smacks of unbias where the Leadership of the Conservative Party contest is concerned! He knows he can influence MPs and as such should keep out of it all. He is there to keep the order of the House of Commons when it is sitting, and as such should do his job rather than meddle. But Mr Bercow has always done what he feels is right. So maybe I should admire him for his stance. Actually all he does is irritate me for bending the rules of his job, and allowing himself to get involved when he should be neutral.
Mr Bercow please will you butt out, be quiet for once, and let MPs get on with their job!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_House_of_Commons_(United_Kingdom)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bercow
No comments:
Post a Comment