The Member of the National Assembly for South Wales East made the point during Thursday’s broadcast from Cardiff. His argument was made in response to whether the tide of opposition would be the same if the referendum had gone in favour of Remain.
He said: “In a democracy, where laws are made and properly interpreted of course, we should obey the law.
“The problem we now have is that people voted to leave the EU were told they were being given the decision, and the Government would implement what they decided.
“But, Brexit is being blocked by people who don’t like Brexit, by people voted Remain and think their views are greater than the majority who voted to leave.
“We’re seeing in parliament the procedures of the House of Commons abused.
“We have had someone in the chair who has allowed his own personal preference for remain to influence how he assesses and frankly breaks the standing orders.”
Fiona Bruce interrupted Mr Reckless and said: “John Bercow has always said he doesn’t have a preference.”
To this the audience burst into laughter with Mr Reckless laughing with them.
He replied: “If you believed that you’d believe anything.”
JUST IN: Brexit Party warning: Boris Johnson issued threat on BBC Question Time
“He says the referendum was misguided and therefore he’s pleased that the powers are being pushed back to parliament because the 52 percent shouldn’t be able to enjoy 100 percent of their victory.
“He thinks parliament should ensure we stay in the customs union and the EEA.
“Now, would he be saying this if it was the other way around?
“Would he be saying we should leave the EU and join the EEA to counter that 48 percent?
“No, of course he wouldn’t.
“He said that election was just a snapchat of public opinion.”
To this the crowd burst into applause and cheered Mr Reckless.
Ms Bruce attempted to shout over the audience to correct Mr Reckless, she said: “He didn’t sit as one of the eleven judges though Mark.”
The former Conservative Party MP countered Ms Bruce’s comments and went into detail on Lord Sumption having sat as one of the judges on Gina Miller’s previous case.
He said: “That was the case where he dismissed the trend and tested rules of statutory interoperation”.
Ms Miller is the businesswoman and campaigner who filed one of two appeals against the English high court’s decision that the prorogation was “purely political” and not a matter for the courts.
She was consequently successful in her appeal, along with the previous victory during an appeal when the Supreme Court ruled in favour of giving MPs a say over triggering Article 50 in 2017.
