Well, I think, as a general point, it holds. What I would say is that the Llywydd here hasn't brought my children into the matter. She also has a dignity and respect policy, which, as far as I'm aware, she leads through personal example, whereas, in Parliament, in the Commons, we see a Speaker with the most outrageous and serious allegations from the closest possible sources of appalling bullying behaviour over many years, yet Margaret Beckett, for the Member's party—and, of course, she did lead it for a period, and was a deputy leader for longer—said that Brexit 'trumps bad behaviour'. So, he's been allowed to get away with that, because Labour believes he backs them.

Can I just take four examples of where the Speaker of the House of Commons has broken the rules of that institution? We rely on laws being properly passed according to Standing Orders, yet, in the Commons, we have seen initially an interpretation by the Speaker of Government business motions being moved forthwith. He interrupted that as not forthwith, but 'let's allow an amendment and let's allow someone else to take over the Order paper first', notwithstanding that being in Standing Orders. Similarly, we saw on Tuesday a Standing Order 24 debate, which is required to be in general terms without a vote. He ripped that up and said, 'Well, let's have a vote, a take-over order motion—do want you want', because he agrees with them. He is a biased member of the 'remain' establishment. Parliament is not working because we can't trust the chair to be impartial. We then have a law passed by the Commons—and we're recalled to debate this, we're recalled to debate someone else's prorogation; not my decision, but yours—but what we see the Speaker do is two decisions of huge significance.

Firstly, he determines that Queen's consent is not required. Two key reasons why we have not seen the Crown veto a Bill since Queen Anne's time is, firstly, where the prerogative is materially affected by legislation, Queen's consent is required. Agreeing to an extension, in a treaty, of article 50—not just seeking it, but agreeing it—is clearly treaty-making affecting the prerogative. Yet Bercow's own initiative has decided that it doesn't require Queen's consent, doesn't materially affect the prerogative. That is wrong, but the chair is biased. More important still, we see the decision not to require a money motion for a Bill that will require expenditure net of £1 billion per month for an indefinite period. Bercow has decided, 'Ah, we won't have a money motion'. But actually, the constitution of the UK works on the basis of the Crown, in Parliament, and the prerogatives of both Government and the Commons. That has been ripped up this week. If you allow any Member to move a Bill with significant expenditure, and if that Bill gets through and the Government has to spend the money, there is no control over all expenditure. We have a budget process in this place, as they do in the Commons. Someone decides centrally how much can be afforded, and then that expenditure is divvied up. If instead, on the basis of a backbench Bill, you can spend £1 billion a month without the say-so of the Government, you are ripping up your constitution. And that is what has happened this week, and it is the Speaker of the House Commons who has enabled it.

Turning to the second point of our amendment, we support a clean-break Brexit. Now, this was not my first preference. I would have preferred a deal. I can envisage a deal that would be better than no deal. But, unfortunately, that has not happened, and it has not happened for two interlinked reasons. Firstly, the EU has been intransigent, particularly with a backstop that says we can never leave without their permission the customs union or the single market for Northern Ireland. And we've then seen MPs and other senior figures who voted 'remain' refuse to accept the result. And worse, we have seen a collaboration between the two, of the latter going to the European Union and telling them, 'If you make the deal as bad as possible, then we'll vote it down, and then we'll say "Oh, we can't possibly leave with no deal", and then we won't leave'. That is what they are trying to do. They purport that this is preventing 'no deal', but their real aim is to prevent Brexit. Here you have a motion that says we should in no circumstances leave without a deal, or if you have a Bill in Parliament that says we must accept whatever extension, whatever terms offered by the EU, then we can never leave, or we can only leave on terms that are so awful because they're set by them and we have no right to walk away. So, they move from a position of purporting to accept what was decided in the referendum to a position of blocking Brexit to deny democracy. That is what they are. Thankfully, they're in a bubble, and sooner or later we'll have an election and the people of the country will have their say.