HOUSE of Commons Speaker John Bercow has ruled out another vote on Theresa May's Brexit withdrawal agreement if the motion is substantially the same as last time.

He told the House of Commons: "If the Government wishes to bring forward a new proposition that is neither the same nor substantially the same as that disposed of by the House on March 12, this would be entirely in order.

"What the Government cannot legitimately do is resubmit to the House the same proposition - or substantially the same proposition - as that of last week, which was rejected by 149 votes.

"This ruling should not be regarded as my last word on the subject. It is simply meant to indicate the test which the Government must meet in order for me to rule that a third meaningful vote can legitimately be held in this parliamentary session."

SNP MP Pete Wishart tweeted: "Devastating. The Government 'can not' bring forward another motion if is is substantially the same. Another meaningful vote probably gone."

Liberal Democrat deputy leader Jo Swinson tweeted: "Few workplaces have the chitchat: 'I was wondering with reference to the precedent of 1604...'

"But under all the parliamentary pomposity of points of order, this is good sense. PM can't keep asking the same question, hoping for a different answer."

She added: "Real answer is a #PeoplesVote".

Mr Bercow said he was sparked into action by a question asked by Labour MP Angela Eagle last week, who wanted to know if the Government was allowed to keep bringing back the same motion again and again.

He said he consulted Erskine May, the Parliamentary procedural handbook, and found that a motion "which is the same in substance" may not be brought forward again "during that same session".

The Speaker said the convention dated back to April 2, 1604, and said it had been confirmed again many times, including 1864, 1870, 1882, 1891 and 1912.

"Each time the Speaker of the day ruled that a motion could not be brought back because it had already been decided in that same session of Parliament," he continued.

"Indeed, Erskine May makes reference to no fewer than 12 such rulings up to the year 1920.

"One of the reasons the rule has lasted so long is that it is a necessary rule to ensure the sensible use of the House's time and the proper respect for the decisions it takes."

Mr Bercow said last week's second meaningful vote "did not fall foul of the convention about matters having already been decided" because there were a number of legal changes to the deal, as well as the publication of three new documents.

But he said because it has been "strongly rumoured" the Government plans to attempt to schedule a third and possibly a fourth vote, he was prompted to make today's statement "to signal what would be orderly and what would not".

  • More to follow