The Speaker of the British House of Commons has laid down why Members of Parliament shouldn’t be repeatedly asked the same question by the Government in a move which may very well put paid to the Government’s plans to force a third vote on Theresa May’s twice-rejected Brexit deal, making the United Kingdom a non-voting member of the European Union under the pretext of honouring the Brexit vote.

Perhaps unfortunately for the pro-European Union Speaker, John Bercow, in doing so he has also inadvertently and very eloquently made it clear that it is — or at least should be — equally unacceptable for MPs to treat voters like dumb cattle who need to keep voting on Brexit until they get it right.

In Bercow’s words, largely drawn from a 19th-century epic study of the workings of British parliamentary democracy which now serves as the de facto rulebook of Westminster-style parliaments the world over:

“…there has been much speculation over the past week about the possibility of the government bringing before the house a motion on Brexit for another so-called ‘meaningful vote’… members on both sides of the house and indeed on both sides of the Brexit argument have expressed their concerns to me about the house being repeatedly asked to pronounce on the same fundamental proposition… a motion or an amendment which is the same in substance as a question which has been decided during a session, may not be brought forward again during that same session.”

This is a convention, Bercow said, which dated back as far as 1604, and had been reasserted several times since, and so not something to be taken lightly. Explaining why this is the case, he continued:

“…one of the reasons why 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 which it takes.”

Clearly, Members of Parliament wish to be treated with respect when they vote. So why don’t they propose to offer the same respect to their electors?

Unfortunately, there is also an odd lack of consistency to Bercow’s commendable notion that votes shouldn’t be ignored and re-run because they are inconvenient to the powers that be.

As Speaker of the House, Bercow has the ability to pick and choose which amendments to Government business are allowed. Why is it, then, that he has allowed amendments attempting to rule out a so-called “No Deal” — that is to say, an actual Brexit where Britain leaves the European Union no strings attached — to come before the House multiple times until they succeeded?

British political gossip blog Guido Fawkes notes how Bercow has played fast and loose with the British constitution throughout the Brexit period, to the advantage of the Remain establishment, and this sudden interest in following the rulebook to the letter is out of character.

True, there has been understandable amazement at Theresa May’s apparent desire — now quashed — to bring her “deal” back to Parliament for a third time, because to do so is absurd and self-destructive. But for some reason, much of Britain’s political class — led by the fabulously influential and massively wealthy former prime minister Tony Blair — are determined to see the 2016 Brexit referendum re-run.

And not just a second time — maybe a third, too, if the people won’t play ball and go back to passively accepting the globalist status quo.

The British people should not be treated with such contempt — not by the European Union which is even now salivating at the prospect of a neverendum situation in which they or their political enablers in Westminster can kill off the idea of Brexit for good.

We deserve better.

Oliver JJ Lane is the editor of Breitbart London — Follow him on Twitter and Facebook