Except they are - and they are aided and abetted by the fact that 'Leave' was in no way clearly defined. As I said weeks ago, it would be perfectly legitimate to engineer the softest of soft departures, then go back to their Leave voting constituents and say "see - I done a Brexit" - and no one could legitimately complain; and I suspect that the PM would have done exactly that, had she not decided to keep her party together over the national interest.

It's far too simplistic to rail against the whole political class - many of whom are, I'm sure, doing their best to minimise the damage caused by a few of their colleagues; mostly tax-dodging millionaires like, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Don't despair - Mr Speaker will save us all, then go into hiding to avoid the Daily Mail incited lynch mob.

Shall we play a game of guess the newspaper this morning from the headlines:

1. Berc-oh.
2. The Brexit destroyer.
3. Smirk that says — Brexit be damned.
4. Women forced to sell sex in benefits crisis. (at least they deviated from brexit)
5. May’s Brexit hits block as Bercow rules out third vote on same deal.
6. Brexplosion.
7. Time to go, dozens of MPs tell May.
8. 400-year-old rule blocks Brexit vote 3.
9. “A major constitutional crisis.”
10. Brexit chaos as speaker stops May in her tracks.
11. Bercow’s hammer blow for May’s Brexit deal.
12. B*ll*cks to Bercow.
13. Bercow is sabotaging Brexit deal, says No. 10.

I like this one - I'm on trial for murder next week, which I believe has been prohibited by law for quite some time too - maybe I can argue that it should no longer be valid?

Ah. John Bercow. The man who broke Parliamentary convention in January when allowing a vote in favour of the Remain agenda, and who said he was 'going against precedent...precedent should sometimes be ignored, since otherwise manifestly nothing would ever change.'

Then digs up 400 year old precedent to support his agenda.

Which is irrelevant in this instance. May has put the same deal forward twice now and it’s been voted down. If May can put the same deal forward 3 times for a vote to try and get a different result why can’t the public be asked their opinion for a second time?

Why can't were have a general election every 2 years, why can't the SDP have another referendum because they lost the last one.

What would be interesting to find out is how he Became aware of this ancient rule. in using the same rule has he over ruled it by allowing her to bring it back a second time.

I do agree by the way, she can't keep bringing back the same proposal time and time again.

The former Attorney General, The chief legal advisor to this Government, also said Bercow was spot on applying the ruling.

I don't remember saying he wasn't.

Ah I assume you were referring and answering my comment re allowing her to bring it back a second time was setting some sort of president. Apologies, thank you.

there is a clue there, "former" who has an axe to grind. Just close Parliamemt down, they don't deliver the will of the people.