Brexit: ‘3rd meaningful vote’ on Brexit deal ruled out

LONDON

There will be no “meaningful vote” on the prime minister’s Brexit deal, the speaker of Britain’s House of Commons announced Monday.

Addressing the House, John Bercow said that his decision was based on the concerns of many MPs, who argued that the House would be voting on the same deal multiple times with the same result.

Bercow also referenced the parliamentary rule book, which states that if an issue has been decided by the House in substance, it cannot be brought back to the Commons again.

The House speaker detailed the chronology of events regarding Premier Theresa May’s deal and its subsequent postponement last December and this February its two defeats this January and March.

“Decisions of the House matter. They have weight,” the speaker said, adding: “It is a necessary rule to ensure the sensible use of the House’s time and the proper respect for the decisions which it takes.”

He argued that holding a third vote would precipitate the same result and would thus be a waste of the House’s time in conducting parliamentary business.

As such, the government cannot bring back the deal to parliament unless there have been significant changes to it, he said.

“If the government was to bring forward a new proposition that is neither the same, nor substantially the same as disposed of by 10 March, this would be entirely in order,” Bercow added.

LONDON

There will be no “meaningful vote” on the prime minister’s Brexit deal, the speaker of Britain’s House of Commons announced Monday.

Addressing the House, John Bercow said that his decision was based on the concerns of many MPs, who argued that the House would be voting on the same deal multiple times with the same result.

Bercow also referenced the parliamentary rule book, which states that if an issue has been decided by the House in substance, it cannot be brought back to the Commons again.

The House speaker detailed the chronology of events regarding Premier Theresa May’s deal and its subsequent postponement last December and this February its two defeats this January and March.

He argued that holding a third vote would precipitate the same result and would thus be a waste of the House’s time in conducting parliamentary business.

As such, the government cannot bring back the deal to parliament unless there have been significant changes to it, he said.

“If the government was to bring forward a new proposition that is neither the same, nor substantially the same as disposed of by 10 March, this would be entirely in order,” Bercow added.