A bid by rebel MPs to take control of parliamentary time to stop Britain leaving the European Union without a deal is constitutionally irregular.

That's the view of the leader of the House of Commons Jacob-Rees Mogg who told MPs they "risk subverting parliament's proper role in scrutinising the executive".

He also told Conservative West Dorset MP Oliver Letwin, who tabled the bill, that he was guilty of "stunning arrogance".

He said: "I wish to be clear what is proposed today is constitutionally irregular".

READ MORE: Election beckons as Boris Johnson loses crucial no-deal bill vote

"This is irregular both in terms of the approach to allowing SO24 [Standing Order 24] on substantive motions, and in terms of the subversion of parliament's proper role in scrutinising the executive."

He then appeared to raise questions about speaker John Bercow's decision to allow the emergency debate and votable motion.

"It would be wrong to question your impartiality," he said.

The Herald:

"But like with the umpires at Edgbaston [at the Ashes] who saw eight of their decisions overturn, accepting impartiality is not the same as accepting their infallibility."

Mr Rees-Mogg suggests the Speaker was wrong to allow today's emergency debate to have an amendable motion.

He said to the Speaker: "You particularly have a responsibility to uphold the norms and conventions that underpin our constitution.

"And it does considerable damage when some chose to subvert rather than reinforce our constitution."

But Mr Bercow defended his position saying: "I have taken advice of a professional kind and I'm entirely satisfied that the judgment I have made is consistent with that advice.

"My attitude is simply to seek to facilitate the house.

"I have sought to exercise my judgment in discharging my responsibility to facilitate the House of Commons, to facilitate the legislature. I have done it, I am doing it and I will do it to the best of my ability without fear or favour - to coin a phrase, come what may, do or die."

Mr Rees-Mogg visited the Queen at Balmoral to request parliament is suspended for a Queen's speech, with critics saying it was a plan to restrict parliamentary debating time ahead of the Brexit October 31 deadline.

READ MORE: Government loses working majority as ex-minister defects to the Lib Dems

After Mr Rees-Mogg is asked if the government will stop the bill from getting Royal Assent, he said: "The law will be followed.

"This country is a country that follows the rule of law and this government assiduously follows constitutional conventions.

"Unlike some in this House," he added.

The Herald:

Mr Rees-Mogg said the bill is "a deliberate attempt to sow the seeds for a second referendum or to stop us leaving at all.

"It is all about denying Brexit."

A bill requires Royal Assent - the Queen's agreement - to become law.

The Queen can refuse Royal Assent, but a monarch has not done this since 1707.