Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
Speaker to Decide If New Vote on Brexit Plan Goes Ahead; Parliament Could Vote on Johnson's Brexit Plan Today; U.S. Troops have Crossed into Iraq from Northern Syria; Anger Swells into Fifth Day of Demonstration in Lebanon; Speaker Refuses Vote on Johnson's Brexit Deal. Aired 10-11a ET
Aired October 21, 2019 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[10:00:00]
RICHARD QUEST, CNN HOST: Hello and a warm welcome to London. I'm Richard Quest. The hour ahead, if the British Prime Minister has another shot,
another vote, another go.
BIANCA NOBILO, CNN HOST: Yes, another go. And I'm Bianca Nobilo. We're live outside the U.K. Houses of Parliament keeping you up to date on the
very latest Brexit developments. And they are coming thick and fast.
QUEST: So in the next hour as we move ahead, we will know if lawmakers will hold an MV, a "meaningful vote" on Boris Johnson's plans of Brexit.
NOBILO: That decision is down to one man, the Speaker John Bercow. In this follows a rather eventful Saturday. Some of you may have been
watching with us when the so-called Letwin amendment forced Prime Minister Boris Johnson to write to the EU requesting a further Brexit delay. Which
he then did on Saturday evening, sending three letters, the key one unsigned.
QUEST: So Anna Stewart is with us and our political analyst Carole Walker too, as we try to understand. Let's start -- oh, dear, I just dropped
something of not much significance. Let's start with you, Carole Walker, talking of things of significance in the House, why would the Speaker not
allow today's vote or today's motion to be put forward?
CAROLE WALKER, POLITICAL ANALYST: Well certainly many ardent Brexiteers can think of all kinds of reasons and will be accusing him of trying to
thwart Brexit. But what the Speaker said on Saturday when it was clear that the government wanted to try to get this big vote today, is that he
said that it would be curious or irregular. And the reason for that is that the motion that's down on the order paper which is basically the rules
that govern the day's sitting is the basically the same thing they were hoping to vote on, on Saturday. Of course we then had this amendment put
down by Oliver Letwin which forced a delay, forced him to send those delay letters.
QUEST: But what's the rule?
WALKER: Well the rule is, is that you can't put the same motion again in the same sitting of Parliament. You can't just repeat it over and over
again. Now, the expectation is that he is quite likely to look at those rules and say there's no reason this should go ahead. Of course many
people are saying look, this is a huge issue. The -- not just Parliament but the country is waiting to find out whether MPs are going to back this
deal. And that there have been plenty of occasions when the Speaker has sought to overrule precedent. So whatever the technicalities are, he could
turn it either way but the expectation is that we'll then have to wait until tomorrow to get the big vote.
NOBILO: But couldn't it be the case, Anna, because the circumstances outside of Parliament have changed considerably in that Boris Johnson has
asked the European Union for an extension. They're considering that. Could that be enough to allow Bercow to allow this?
ANNA STEWART, CNN REPORTER: It could be but ultimately that decision is up to one man, one man only and he has surprised us before. If the vote is
allowed, if we do get a "meaningful vote" for today, it'll be curious to see what happens. We think Boris Johnson has the numbers and we did learn
a bit from the Letwin amendment on Monday that perhaps more Labour rebels are on board as well.
QUEST: All right, so assume that he doesn't allow this to go on. Well here's how today could play out in the U.K. Parliament if it walks through.
Boris Johnson's government is requesting the vote on the Brexit deal agreed with the EU last week. Now that is going to happen -- what, in 25 minutes
from now. The Speaker of the House will announce if he'll allow it. If he does and the vote passes, a quick Brexit is likely. While a no vote
probable means a long delay if the vote -- if the speaker blocks that from happening.
NOBILO: Now Johnson's government is expected to propose a program notion. That would schedule debate on legislation needed to implement the deal if
it's eventually approved. A yes, there would keep Brexit in play, but it could still face many roadblocks from opposition amendments and no vote
means Brexit will probably be delayed again.
QUEST: All right, now back to Carol and Anna. The situation is, if we don't -- let's just say he votes against it and we're off to the races on
the actual withdraw bill itself, Anna, that will come out when, tomorrow?
STEWART: That happens the second reading will kick off tomorrow. It'll be announced today, the first reading and tomorrow we'll get that. And the
big question is, will there be amendments.
[10:05:00]
If there are how much will that derail Brexit. Could it scuffle it altogether.
ANDERSON: And that's the important point for our viewers. So the distinction is, is if Boris Johnson could have a vote on just his deal
alone, then amendments can't be tacked on to it and that would allow this somewhat momentum that he's managed to create to continue. But if it does
go to this other vote on Tuesday, then it increases the parliamentary time for people to attack and amend the deal.
QUEST: But it would be highly irregular for a major piece of legislation likes the Withdraw Act -- withdraw amendment bill, not to be amendable
surely, Carol. It's over 100 pages long.
WALKER: Yes, I mean there's no doubt that this Withdraw Agreement bill which will be put down tomorrow is going to be hugely controversial. And
there's no doubt that various MPs with different agendas will try and tack all sorts of things on it. What we should get through tomorrow, is that
that second reading amendment, as the technical term, is actually the first time that MPs get to vote on it. That is always seen as a vote in
principle on the legislation. Do we want this deal to go ahead and go through. MPs then, it is inevitable, the Parliamentary process cannot
prevent MPs putting down lots of different amendments.
The difficulty there, of course, is that this is the deal that Boris Johnson has agreed with the EU. If you get MPs suddenly saying all right
well, I support it but the U.K. has got to stay in a Customs Union, then that is a different animal to the one that was agreed with the EU and it
could jeopardize the entire agreement.
NOBILO: Quite. Because if the shape of Boris Johnson's deal changes dramatically then the question is, could it be ratified and will the EU
play ball. So it's more on that.
Let's go to Nina dos Santos who's in Brussels for us. Nina, how is all of this being received by the EU. It seems interesting they're still
considering Boris Johnson's rather reluctant request for an extension. What are they looking out for mainly today?
NINA DOS SANTOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well for them it's a matter of procedure. Remember that they're dealing with a fiendishly complicated
situation back in the United Kingdom. Where obviously they're negotiating with an unelected Prime Minister who has been known to pit Parliament
against the people and he's also setting out his potential electoral storm. They don't want to be dragged into that. Add to that the fact that they've
been here before and granted the U.K. an extension on previous occasions as well.
The latest that we understand is from EU officials is that the European Parliament at the moment is doing two things. On the one hand, pushing
ahead to try to ratify the current Brexit deal with the European Commission negotiated with Boris Johnson at the EU Summit last week and then it's also
on the sidelines considering that extension.
When it commits to the ratification of the Brexit deal, assuming that it does pass all the necessary hurdles by the end of this very month, it says
that they will -- EU officials say that the European Parliament will not ratify the Brexit deal unless they have clarity over how the votes are
going in Westminster. That's very little surprise, as you would imagine.
There's a series of meetings here that are taking place in Brussels right throughout the course of the day. The next one happens in about half an
hour's time to take into consideration that decision there by EU officials and the Brexit steering group in the European Parliament about their
position, watching and waiting in Westminster. Earlier today we heard from the spokeswoman of the European Commission the executive arm of the EU on
where they view the ratification process of the deal that they have on the table now, and where the extension could go.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MINA ANDREEVA, EUROPEAN COMMISSION CHIEF SPOKESWOMAN: We have taken note of the House of Common vote on Saturday and they request to extend Article
50 until the 31st of January 2020. President Tusk is now consulting leaders of the EU 27 on this and it is first and foremost for the U.K. to
explain the next steps. We from our side will, of course, follow all the events in London this week very closely.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: The situation is at best -- yes, I believe I am. The situation is at best confused. Can you hear me, Nina?
DOS SANTOS: Yes, I can. I can.
QUEST: Oh, good, good. And yes, the situation is at best confused. Let's face it, ambassadors and other countries are told on the left hand here's a
letter asking for an extension and on the right hand please ignore me I don't mean it and I don't want it anyway. But I suppose that they're going
to have to grant or not on the basis of the EU's best interests not Boris Johnson's?
DOS SANTOS: Yes, you're absolutely right, Richard. And remember, they've got to get it through 27 Parliaments themselves or 27 heads of state and in
some cases.
[10:10:00]
Obviously, the European Parliament -- as I was pointing out before -- will have to ratify this. So this is a complex legal procedure that is taking
place. I should point out crucially after the last EU summit it will be taking place if writing. We were heading into this process a few weeks ago
expecting there to potentially be a mini emergency Brexit summit this week. Well know, everything is going to happen in writing this time so that, of
course, we can't have any political games being played on the sidelines.
In terms of an extension whether or not the U.K. will get one, that will depend largely on the big power brokers of Europe. Germany on the one
hand, that has indicated repeatedly it may be pro an extension for the U.K. and France of course, that has a lot less to lose than Germany if the U.K.
has a hard Brexit and they're prepared to play a bit harder ball -- Richard.
All right. Nina, thank you, in Brussels. One could only imagine the sort of eye widening, gob smacking --
NOBILO: Eye rolling, I think.
QUEST: Yes, eye rolling. To roll and to widen first at the chutzpah and then roll at the what do we do next.
NOBILO: Brexit one eye widen and eye roll.
QUEST: One after the other.
We're minutes away from that expected decision. The House of Commons Speaker John Bercow will be bringing a "meaningful vote". I'm not sure --
I mean, he could go anyway on this, Carole Walker.
WALKER: John Bercow has proven to be a law unto himself.
QUEST: A law unto himself -- Anna.
STEWART: Definitely. I have no idea which way this is going to go and I'm normally a betting woman.
NOBILO: The one thing we can know for sure about the Speaker is that he always champions the back benches. He tries to facilitate the widest array
of voices within the House of Commons. And that's subjected him to a lot of criticism because this government doesn't have the minority so it does
tend to hold back any kind of progress. So the question really is, does he think that by denying the governments the opportunity to have this
"meaningful vote" today, that that would be championing the back benches, that would be allowing Parliament to express its will.
WALKER: It'll be fascinating to see which way John Bercow moves. He has shown himself to be someone who is prepared to challenge precedence, upset
precedence, establish his own. He could, for example, take the view, yes, that there are large numbers of backbench MPs who desperately want to have
a chance to have their say on this big new deal which, of course, MPs have not in its entirety had a proper vote on yet. Equally he could decide that
it would be in their wider interests. Perhaps he now has such grandiose ideas of his importance. He may decide it's in the interest of the country
to not have a vote tonight to put the Withdraw Agreement bill through because I think he thinks in that way then the chances of going out without
a deal might be reduced.
NOBILO: And we've got less than two weeks from the job.
QUEST: We will -- we will find out in about 15 minutes from now. Other news stories of course making news today. We'll have those for you as
well. This is CNN.
[10:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NOBILO: Welcome back to our Brexit coverage. We are just minutes away now from the critical decision by the House of Commons Speaker John Bercow on
whether or not he will allow a "meaningful vote" on the withdraw deal today. We'll have that and the reaction, responses from members of
Parliament when it happens.
QUEST: For the moment there is a lot else happening in the world. Zain Asher is at CNN, New York to bring us up to date, please -- Zain.
ZAIN ASHER, CNN ANCHOR: Richard, Bianca, thank you so much. As you mentioned, that decision by John Bercow could go either way. We'll of
course be watching. In the meantime the latest stories from the Middle East.
While the massive U.S. troop withdraw from Syria wraps up, the Secretary of Defense says some American troops will temporarily remain in Syria in part
to protect oil fields from ISIS. But it's apparent no one is sticking around to protect vulnerable Kurdish civilians. CNN's Nick Paton Walsh
reports from northern Syria.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): They really didn't want to go but had to all the same. Hundreds of U.S.
vehicles rallying here near Ras al-Ain Sunday, before the drive north. Orders from thousands of miles away given without warning made this messier
than elite troops would have it.
(on camera) This campaign cut so abruptly short, so perilously and this exit, frankly, so hasty, a messy job for any military to have to undertake.
(voice-over): And this is where the massive U.S. policy towards Syria's Kurds will have to be cleaned up. A thousand men left out on their own
here once President Trump dropped the Syrian Kurds mostly headed for the exit. They now the convoy in the city of Qamishli. A mixed reception.
Syrian Kurds aware these troops didn't choose to leave. But having no other Americans to vent their rage at movements and aerial support carried
on until dawn. The convoy rolled through (INAUDIBLE) out into neighboring Iraqi/Kurdistan, not on their way home, but to reposition. Where they
would have to continue to fight against ISIS in Syria as it regroups, but from a much worse position. It's the enduring fault of this policy move
ISIS isn't finished and nobody is really coming home.
In this Qamishli hospital, Sara hasn't gone home yet either. She doesn't know yet that her brother Mohammad died in the same mortar attack allegedly
by pro-Turkish forces that also took her leg. She can't look at her missing limb without screaming and tells those her around her to stop
standing up. Her mother blames herself for not leaving town earlier.
My heart is in pain, she says. They took the light from my eyes. The candle in my life is out forever. What was our guilt? What did we do for
this?
There is global anguish over the fate of Syrian Kurds and Sara's plight has been well publicized. But they and she are still here. Nobody has come to
help yet. She has toys a plenty, but a future the shape of which she cannot feel yet.
Nick Paton Walsh, CNN, Qamishli, northern Syria.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ASHER: The U.S. brokered cease-fire ends tomorrow and Turkey's President has said his country will resume the military operation in Syria. And
we'll bring you a live update on the crisis in the next hour.
The government of Lebanon has approved several reforms including cutting former and current ministers' wages by half, as mass protests consume the
country for 1/5 day. The economy there is faltering as demonstrators say basic services are barely functioning and a proposed tax hike on mobile
message apps was the tipping point. CNN international correspondent Ben Wedeman is in their Beirut for us. So, Ben, just set the scene for us in
terms of the protests happening now.
BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, certainly what these protests show is that in the last four days, these protests have been
able to bring about perhaps more change in the way this country has been run than in the last 20 years of political horse trading between the elite
at the top of society. Now there were 70 points in the Prime Minister Saad Hariri's program. Which he read out on television live to the nation that
includes 50 percent salary cuts for ministers, present and former, for the three Presidents of Lebanon, the President of the Republic, the President
of Parliament and President of the Council of Ministers, in other words, the Prime Minister.
[10:20:00]
He also proposed new taxes on the Lebanese banking sector that in theory would raise about $3.4 billion, which he says may allow Lebanon to achieve
an almost zero deficit budget in 2020. He also proposed or is talking about a draft law that would allow the government to somehow bring back the
billions of dollars squirrelled away by many Lebanese political leaders incidentally in foreign bank accounts.
Now let's just give you an idea of how the -- these protesters have reacted to this. Well, they continue to chant to the leaders of this country are
thieves, that they want revolution, and they want to bring down the government. During the speech, however, we did see that some people were
clapping as they heard some of the points, but it appears that perhaps now that the people have tasted power -- oh. They're -- they -- now that
they've tasted power, they may want more from this government.
But certainly as I said, these protests broke out Thursday night. Here we are Monday evening. And already massive ground has been given by this
government. So it certainly does prove that if people go out in the street, block the roads, burn tires, something can be achieved -- Zain.
ASHER: All right, we'll see what happens. Ben Wedeman live for us there.
Let's get you back now to Westminster for the latest on Brexit developments. Let me hand you over to our Richard Quest and Bianca Nobilo
who are both outside Parliament for you.
QUEST: Thank you.
NOBILO: Thanks, Zain. Yes, we are just moments away now waiting for John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, to make his decision on
whether or not to allow the government to have its "meaningful vote".
QUEST: Now the predominance of view is that he's not going to allow this to go ahead, isn't it?
NOBILO: Because when he's had opportunity over the last two years to decide in the government's favor, he hasn't elected to take this
opportunity.
QUEST: He would say, though, that he is protecting the rights of MPs, not aiming to frustrate the government. When we come back, we'll be there. Oh
good Lord, it's starting to rain rather harshly.
NOBILO: Good timing.
QUEST: Perhaps a metaphor for the moment in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:25:00]
NOBILO: Welcome back to our Brexit coverage. I'm Bianca Nobilo with Richard Quest outside the Houses of Parliament. We are here, it's
drizzling, it can only mean one thing, there's another potential "meaningful vote" to unfold this afternoon.
QUEST: Now in the House at the moment there are meandering their way through the final few moments of defense questions. There you have the
Defense Minister Mark Lancaster answering questions. This is the opportunity, the regular opportunity that MPs will have to ask questions on
a specific area and the government minister is called to the House to answer questions.
But within moments, Nic Robertson, we will see John Bercow answering the question what.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Answering the question whether or not he'll allow a "meaningful vote" on the Brexit deal that
Boris Johnson brought back from Brussels last week. That almost had a vote. It got debated on Saturday, almost had a vote. The Prime Minister
decided not to call on a vote on it. Has decided now that that's what he wants to do. John Bercow will decide whether or not he will. And over the
weekend on Saturday he called it most irregular.
QUEST: And, Carole Walker, the reason he might not has nothing to do with the politics of the issue.
WALKER: What John Bercow was talking about on Saturday was Commons procedures and rules which say that you can't put the same motion down
twice in one session. And what he is arguing is that the motion that the government wants to have, this big principle vote on Boris Johnson's new
deal, is essentially the same one that they put down on Saturday even though that was then scuffled by the Letwin amendment. So that's what
he'll be looking at.
But he also said at the time, he was asked whether that could go ahead and he said that he would be consulting and taking advice on this. So he has
kept open the option of allowing this big vote which what is the government really wants to happen later on tonight.
NOBILO: And we've been here before.
WALKER: We certainly have.
NOBILO: What happened last time?
ROBERTSON: With the Letwin amendment?
QUEST: No.
NOBILO: I mean obviously physically we've all been here before far too many times, but in terms of when Theresa May wanted to bring back her deal.
ROBERTSON: Well she got three shots at it, 230 down -- 148 down, 59 votes down each time and Bercow in the end said, no, you cannot bring it back
again.
QUEST: They fiddled around with the wording and she got one of them through on the back of a new deal of some fresh words in the Political
Declaration.
NOBILO: Yes, and she then separated the Withdraw Agreement from the Political Declaration. So there might be loopholes for the government to
try and still put this vote forward even if Bercow doesn't outright allow them to. But let's look at this like a sliding door moment for the Prime
Minister. So if Bercow does allow this him this vote today, what direction are things likely to go in?
ROBERTSON: Then one of the questions will be, can amendments be attached to this bill as it goes through? And if the answer is yes, then here's
another potential for Boris Johnson to say, OK, I don't want a "meaningful vote" to go through because the amendments could be significant ones. Such
as Britain remains in the Customs Union, such as a call for an amendment that would essentially allow for once the deal is concluded, to have
another referendum, is this what the people of the United Kingdom wanted when they voted for Brexit.
You know, the Customs Union one perhaps has the best chance, 276 to 273, it lost just a few months ago. But for the Prime Minister, that is in essence
means, A, a delay -- and he said he wants it all done by October 31st. And B, going back to the European Union and asking them to reopen negotiations.
Which is what he said very clearly Saturday, he was not about to do.
WALKER: I should say I think that those moves are much more likely to come when we get to the legislation if we ever get that far. The important
thing about today is that Boris Johnson, the government, really want this big, symbolic vote tonight. The key decision maker on that really is going
to be Speaker John Bercow who we'll hear from shortly. I think those more technical points about Customs Union are likely to come during the point of
legislation. But there are MPs always find ways of amending. That's what Oliver Letwin did on Saturday, that effectively nullified the chances of a
proper big vote and I think that's what we have to watch out for tonight.
ROBERTSON: In the vote of course is critical for European Union leaders --
QUEST: Right.
ROBERTSON: -- as they watch this and evaluate how to respond to that letter asking for an extension.
[10:30:00]
QUEST: I was reading Betty Boothroyd's autobiography this morning --
WALKER: Former Speaker, of course.
QUEST: -- former speaker, in which she was -- she was he extolling the significance and importance of the Speaker following precedent and she had
several occasions notably the Michael Mates incident in the House over Cyprus. Where she said, the significance was, you do have to follow
precedent to make the whole thing work properly.
WALKER: I think the point is, Betty Boothroyd no longer the Speaker. John Bercow has enraged Brexiteers throughout the process. Because he has
looked at all kinds of different obscure bits of Parliamentary procedure. And as I think we were saying a while ago, you were mentioning, Bianca, he
has always said that his role, he sees it as championing the rights of backbenches, the ordinary MPs rather than the executive, rather than the
government, and that he always tries to be fair to all sides of the House. But I think when people look at the pattern of the decisions that he has
made, certainly the Brexiteers, this government feel that they've -- they're going to have a hard task in order to get him on their side.
NOBILO: The issue with precedent, which Richard raises, is an interesting one. Because even though John Bercow has been criticized, he does employ
precedent to buttress is decisions. In fact when he decided not to allow Theresa May to bring back the iteration in the Brexit deal, he invoked a
precedent from the early part of the 17th century. And then obviously, by making that call, by making that decision just months ago, he's established
yet another precedent.
QUEST: I think we may be coming towards the end of defense questions. If I'm not mistaken, I think I might have heard the Speaker say final
question. But I could be wrong on that. The -- what will happen now is that the Speaker will make a statement in which he will say whether it will
be allowed or not. If he does -- he still wants us to invoke Article 50. I don't think that's can happen today -- Bianca.
NOBILO: Not today, no, but depending on what the Speaker does, does it become more or less likely. The Speaker has also --
QUEST: Here we go to the House of chamber.
NOBILO: Let's take a listen.
JOHN BERCOW, SPEAKER, BRITISH HOUSE OF PARLIAMENT: I wish to make a statement to the House. On Saturday last, at column 658, the leader of the
House rose on a point of order to announce the government's intention to bring forward a motion today under section 13.1B of the European Union
Withdraw Act 2018. Unfortunately, the point of order did not prove to be a prelude to an emergency business statement on which colleagues could
question, probe and scrutinize the leader.
Rather, for approximately an hour, 30 points of order were raised by no fewer than 24 colleagues with me expressing disquiet and consternation that
the government intended to require the House to consider again on Monday the same matter which it had decided 48 hours earlier on the immediately
preceding sitting day.
It was my privilege to listen and respond to the views of colleagues. I then undertook to reflect further on what members had said and to give a
ruling this afternoon which I shall now do.
There are two issues. One of substance and the other of circumstances to consider. I shall address each in turn.
First, I have to judge whether the motion tabled under section 13.1B of the 2018 act for debate today is the same in of substance as that which was
decided on Saturday. Page 397 of Erskine May is clear but such a motion may not be brought forward again during that same session. It is equally
clear that adjudication of cases is a matter for the chair.
I invoked Erskine May and ruled on the issue as recently as March the 18th this year. Saturday's motion sought approval for the Withdrawal Agreement,
the Political Declaration on the future relationship between the EU and the U.K., and the declaration concerning the operation of the democratic
consent in Northern Ireland provision.
[10:35:02]
Today's motion seeks approval for the Withdraw Agreement, the Political Declaration on the future relationship between the EU and the U.K., and the
declaration concerning operation of the Democratic Consent in Northern Ireland provision. It is clear that the motions are in substance the same.
However, this matter was decided fewer than 49 hours ago. After more than three hours of debate the House voted by 322 to 306 four Sir Oliver
Letwin's amendment which stated that, and I quote. This house is considered the matter but withholds approval unless and until implementing
legislation is passed, unquote.
The second matter for me to consider was whether there had been any change of circumstances that would justify asking the House to reconsider on
Monday what it had decided on Saturday. On the face of it, unless an event or development external to the house had interceded, it is hard to see a
significant change of circumstances that would warrant a reconsideration on the next sitting day.
In this case a reconsideration preannounced by the leader of the House just under 21 minutes after the result of the division was announced. However,
the government might argue, though to date it hasn't put forward any argument or explanation at all, that the change of circumstances is the
Prime Minister's application on Saturday night for an extension of Article 50. This is not persuasive. The application is part of a process rather
than a significant event in itself.
In summary today's motion is -- I'm extraordinarily grateful to the honorable gentlemen if he'd bear starkly with fortitude, I shall complete
my statement -- in summary, today's motion is in substance the same as Saturday's motion and the House has decided the matter. Today's
circumstances are in substance the same as Saturday's circumstances.
My ruling is therefore that the motion will not be debated today as it would be repetitive and disorderly to do so.
For the benefit of colleagues not closely familiar with the so-called same question convention, which is very strong and dates back to 1604, I will
summarize the rationale for it in a sentence. It is a necessary rule to ensure the sensible use of the House's time and proper respect for the
decisions that it takes.
If it is not legitimate for the motion to be contain today, what is it legitimate for the government to do? The answer is that as the Prime
Minister himself signaled in his point of order on Saturday, at Column 653, and in his letter to members that evening, the government can introduce its
EU withdraw and implementation bill. Indeed, it has done just that. Presenting the bill for its first reading today. I have no doubt that the
leader will offer further details of the intended timetable for the bill when he makes a business statement later today. Meanwhile, I hope that
this ruling and explanation are helpful to the House. Order.
PETER BONE, BRITISH CONSERVATIVE MP: Point of order, sir.
Yes, point of order, Mr. Peter Bone.
BONE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I entirely follow the logic of your argument.
BERCOW: Glad someone does.
[10:40:00]
BONE: But what weight did you give to the point that when we were debating on Saturday nobody knew whether the Prime Minister was going to send a
letter or not. And since that has happened, whilst you are quite correct, sir, to say that the motion is the same, an event outside has dramatically
changed it. And given that the motion on Saturday is very clear that final approval can't be done until the deal has gone through in legislation.
Would it not be as you have always said, to let the House decide on this matter, notwithstanding the fact that the previous motion is clear what
actually is going to happen. It would give the country the opportunity to know whether or not this House approves or disapproves of the Prime
Minister's bill.
BERCOW: Be grateful to the honorable gentleman for his point of order. My response is as follows. I did not consider in reaching a judgment on this
matter whether a letter would be sent. The letter was sent on Saturday evening. More widely, however, the question of whether it would be a
material consideration for the chair, whether a minister of the crown would obey the law, the honest answer to the honorable gentleman is that that
consideration had not entered my mind as pertinent to my reflection on the matter.
I note the wider point that honorable gentleman makes and I respect the fact that it is a point of view and I intend no discourtesy to the
honorable gentleman when I say that I think I have made the argument for and explained the rationale behind the judgment that I have made.
I'm not seeking to rubbish the honorable gentleman, I'm simply making -- no, I'm not seeking to rubbish the honorable gentleman, I'm simply making
the point that having reflected on all of the considerations in the interests of the House, I have reached the conclusion I have reached. It
is important that colleagues hear all parts of it and the honorable gentleman didn't like part of it, as he has politely explained in his point
of order. But he will have heard me say what is open to the government to do.
And the government could introduce its bill and the government can propose a program motion for it and the government can proceed with the support of
the House between now and the end of the month as collectively Parliament prescribes. And that seems to me to be entirely proper.
I will come to other colleagues. Yes, I'll come to others. Particularly the illustrious chair of the scrutiny committee. But first of all, a point
of order, Kevin Brennan.
KEVIN BRENNAN, BRITISH LABOUR MP: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you'll recall on Saturday afternoon, I was the honorable member who raised the
issue that the leader of the House shouldn't be making an emergency business statement at that time, rather relying on the device of a point of
order to try to change the business today. I described it at the time as low rent jaggery potpourri, isn't it time --
QUEST: So it would appear, there we are, the precedent has been set.
NOBILO: It's 1604 for viewers who are keeping --
QUEST: Or recently as you pointed out.
NOBILO: Yes.
QUEST: In March. The gist of what happened just now was that the Speaker said Boris Johnson can't bring his "meaningful vote" back. The rule says
you can't have two bites at the same cherry and he was trying to have another go bringing it forward and you can't do that. So now what?
ROBERTSON: Well, now as we heard him say that the government can -- we will probably hear when Jacob Rees-Mogg gets to the business at hand today,
that he will bring -- that he will raise a question of a program motion which will be the government's asking, saying that we should sit for
longer, sit for more hours, start earlier, finish later, work over the weekends, to get the legislation that will turn this international treaty
into a domestic legislation to get that passed before October 31st. This seems to be the implication of what he was saying.
ANDERSON: And let's just recap slightly because that did descend into the Parliamentary weeds considerably. He was --
QUEST: Which by the way they are continuing to do.
NOBILO: Yes, they are.
QUEST: If you're concerned about the somewhat animated Speaker, that you can also see on your screens, be assured we are monitoring what he is
saying and at the moment it is well and truly into the depths of Parliamentary precedent the likes of which would numb us all.
[10:45:00]
NOBILO: Well not all of us. But the key point that he was making was that there could be two grounds upon which to grant this vote returning to the
House of Commons. Either one of substance, meaning what was being put forward had substantively changed or one of circumstance.
Now the government supporters this morning were out in force saying the circumstances have changed because Boris Johnson did, in in fact send a
letter to the European Union that he was equivocating about sending all the while. But the Speaker says that that doesn't meet the criteria.
ROBERTSON: Well and the Speaker said sort of, oh, one felt almost tongue in cheek that the reason the circumstance doesn't change for that, because
although on Saturday afternoon no one knew if the Prime Minister would send the letter because he said he wasn't going to negotiate with the European
Union. John Bercow played on the point that the Prime Minister's office had always said he would obey the law. So Bercow said I was never in any
doubt. Meaning that he'd never doubted that Prime Minister would follow the letter of the law.
WALKER: I think what's important to remember here is if we take a step back, Boris Johnson wanted a big symbolic vote tonight on that deal which
he got against the odds with EU leaders. He wanted a chance for Parliament to say yes or no to that deal. We've had senior government ministers
saying we think we would have the numbers. And I think it's difficult to overstate how important it would have been if he could have got that big
symbolic vote.
What the Speaker ruled is basically the motion is too similar to the ones that the MPs voted on, on Saturday. He said it would be repetitive and
disorderly to bring it back together. But everything is not lost for the government because tomorrow it will put down its Withdraw Agreement bill
which is the deal put into legislation. What is called a second reading. It's actually the first chance for MPs to vote on it. So that big symbolic
vote we could have had it tonight on a motion and instead we'll get it tomorrow on a bill. And that is going to be a very, very big moment
indeed.
QUEST: But they were -- but does my colleague -- do my colleagues think that Speaker was acting inappropriately? Inappropriately is the wrong
word. He's entitled to do what he likes. Do we think his decision was out of the realms of reasonableness?
WALKER: I don't think many people will be surprised at the decision because I think everyone has looked at his previous rulings and the
precedence that there are going back to 1604. Which say -- which set out in the rules Erskine May as the rulebook of the Houses of Parliament, it
says you can't just keep bringing the same motion back. And I think MPs will look at the motion that was on the order paper on Saturday, the one
that was on the order paper, there are some differences and indeed the Speaker points them out. But as Bianca was saying, he said that overall in
terms of substance and in terms of circumstance it hadn't changed sufficiently to allow the motion to go through tonight.
NOBILO: But that doesn't mean that the answer to your question is no. Because actually he did make a point of chastising the government for a
couple things that seemed to have backfired. First of all he didn't like the way that government conducted itself yesterday, the way in which they
introduced the fact that they wanted this vote today. Also let's not forget that the government members and the benches of the Conservative
Party left the chamber as soon as they knew things weren't going to go their way.
And it also seems that another event that's backfired on the Prime Minister, is the fact that even though at first it was in Boris Johnson's
favor that EU hadn't yet decided whether or not to grant him an extension because that added leverage to MPs who he might be able to get to vote for
his deal, now it's backfiring. Because had they agreed to the extension, then that would have met the criteria for what John Bercow was saying would
have been a change in circumstance.
QUEST: We need to go to Brussels. What will they make of it? I mean, now there's going to be no "meaningful vote." And Nina dos Santos, the
"meaningful vote" would have been indicative that the House could pass the enabling legislation. But now that it's not going to happen, everybody
wonders what can be pass and Brussels must be wondering what on earth is going on.
DOS SANTOS: Yes, this is a situation that they've seen before. Haven't they. Because Theresa May wasn't allowed to bring her deal back to the
House of Commons a while back as well. And for that reason, the EU Commission spokeswoman, Mina Andreeva, earlier today addressed this very
issue in a press conference telling journalists that they're keeping their eyes glued to the television screens watching and waiting for what might
happen in Westminster.
We also know this evening that as per one EU diplomat, the European Parliament Brexit steering group has decided to postpone its voting to
ratify the current deal that they have on the table with Boris Johnson, that's part of a two-pronged approach the EU is taking. On the one hand
it's pushing forward this plan that they have on the table basically to ready it if in case Boris Johnson can get it through the House of Commons,
perhaps as Carole was suggesting on the vote could happen tomorrow.
[10:50:00]
On the other hand, they're also considering an extension. And you know, even though Boris Johnson has sent three letters and the one asking for an
extension isn't actually signed, the EU is making it very clear, that that to them is irrelevant. The extension has been asked. They're going to
negotiate it among the other 27 member states and France and Germany will have a big say on whether or not the U.K. gets that extension and how long
it could be.
NOBILO: Nina in Brussels, thank you very much. Well will be back after a short break to dissect further what all this means. The fact that the
Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, has said that he will not the government to bring its "meaningful vote" back to Parliament tonight.
Which means the path to ratification for the Prime Minister has been paved with yet more obstacles. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: So welcome back to Westminster where the Speaker said you can't now debate the "meaningful vote". Carroll Walker is with us, Nic Robertson is
here. Carole Walker to you first. What are they going to do for the rest of the afternoon?
WALKER: They've got an action-packed schedule, Richard, because we've got a series of urgent questions. The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has got a
question down about the Withdraw Agreement bill and the letter that the Prime Minister sent. We're not entirely sure what the point of that is.
He's certainly going to be seeking an explanation from ministers about the type of letter which Boris Johnson sent.
We know that he sent an unsigned copy of the one he was required to send requesting a delay. And then an explanatory letter saying that he thought
it would be very bad for both the U.K. and the EU if there was a delay. So there's going to be an urgent question which requires a statement from a
minister. That will take at least an hour or so to discuss. They then got further question down about what's been happening in Northern Ireland
today.
There're then three statements, including what could be a very interesting business statement from Jacob Reese-Mogg. Who I think will be perhaps
giving us a full taste of how the government would like to try race this Withdraw Agreement bill. And I should point out that there's also due to
be another statement from Michael Gove. He's going to be telling us more about what preparations have been made in case there's a no deal Brexit.
And he is insisting that that is still a possibility despite all these legal moves to try to prevent that.
NOBILO: And now, Nic, the point that you were making earlier about this possible Customs Union amendment when we were talking in hypotheticals and
now very much a reality and a concern for the government I presume.
ROBERTSON: It has to be. Because it means number one, Boris Johnson would have to go back to the European Union to negotiate again. It means that
his October 31st deadline now seems to become much harder. This is the thing that has been pressing forward for. So I suppose one of the
questions becomes, how does Boris Johnson get to that no deal scenario on October 31st? It does seem it's block and the block would have to come
from the European Union.
[10:55:00]
The leaders of which were waiting to see how this vote, the "meaningful vote" was going today so that they could take the temperature of Parliament
towards the deal that they had knocked up. Now the reality is that deal is not going to happen as agreed and, therefore, what do they do in terms of
an extension.
QUEST: But the "meaningful vote" was only indicative in the sense he could get it through. Very important, you still had to get the enabling
legislation through. All of which could have been amended even at that second part. So we're really not in a much different situation.
WALKER: I think what's fascinating now is that we will have a big vote on the principle of the bill tomorrow. And it is just possible that the
government might pull off a symbolic victory. But as you've just been discussing, the legislation has got all the nitty gritty details of that
agreement, all the things which are perhaps less contentious like the withdraw bill, how much the U.K. has to pay, the rights of U.K. citizens
and so on. But also, particularly those very contentious arrangements for Northern Ireland. At every stage of that MPs can put down amendments.
If the government doesn't like the amendments all tacked on to it, we could be heading towards a real crunch point again just before October 31st.
Because if the bill has been changed substantially from the original deal, that undermines the whole deal. The government could simply try and let
things run so we leave without, but there will be other moves to try to have a further delay.
So we come towards the top of the hour as we do. More ahead will with be working out exactly where they go from here -- Bianca.
NOBILO: I'm sure the Prime Minister and his team will be trying to do that concurrently. We'll have all the latest developments for you after this
short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Well, welcome to a special edition of CONNECT THE WORLD. I'm Richard Quest.
NOBILO: And I'm Bianca Nobilo. We are live from outside the Houses of Parliament where we've been following all the latest twists and turns and
another setback for Boris Johnson.
END
END
