Bercow's ruling not based on arcane historicism

The Brexit minister (backed up by at least one BBC reporter) today presented the Speaker's pronouncement on repeatedly bringing back the same motion to the Commons as a idiosyncratic dredging up of a 17th century anomaly. The contrary is the case. The fact that the principle was established in 1604 shows how fundamental it is. Examine the constitution and/or standing orders of any council from a mighty unitary authority to a humble community council and you will find a ban on an attempt to reverse a decision previously voted on. The period may vary from a few months to the lifetime of that council before the next election, but the principle of taking decisions seriously and letting a realistic period of reflection go by before revisiting them is ubiquitous. Of course, if there is a dramatic change of circumstances, there is the possibility of suspending standing orders but this is a course not to be taken lightly.

For a student of parliamentary history like the member for Rhondda, the Speaker's ruling did not come out of the blue:

This ruling has been repeated many, many times. On 30 June 1864, Sir John Pakington wanted to give more money to nursery schools—hoorah! On 17 May 1870, Mr Torrens wanted to relieve poverty by enabling the poor to emigrate to the colonies. On 9 May 1882, Henry Labouchère wanted to allow MPs to declare, rather than swear, an oath so as to take their seats. On 27 January 1891, Mr Leng wanted to limit railway workers’ very long hours. On 21 May 1912—this one would probably have the support of every Member—George Lansbury wanted to allow women to vote.

On every single occasion, the Speaker—Speaker Brand, Speaker Peel, Speaker Denison and Speaker Lowther—said, “No, you can’t, because we’ve already decided that in this Session of Parliament”. That is why I believe the Government should not have the right to bring back exactly the same, or substantially the same, measure again and again as they are doing. It is not as if the Government do not have enough power. They decide ​every element of the timetable in the House. They decide what we can table and when. They decide when we sit. They can prorogue Parliament if they want. They have plenty of powers. The only limit is that they cannot bring back the same issue time and again in the same Session because it has already been decided.

What do the Government not understand about losing a vote by more than 200 and losing it a second time by 149? For me, the biggest irony of all is that the Government repeatedly say, “The people can’t have a second vote”, but the House of Commons? “Oh, we’ll keep them voting until they come up with the right answer”. We should stand by tradition—Conservatives should be a bit more conservative about the traditions of the House—and stop this ludicrous, gyratory motion.