That whole career outside politics sounds great..... until you look the President of the United States.
This is getting funny - it appears that Bercow has boxed himself into a corner with this ruling. Several MP's have pointed out that if May's deal cannot be revoted on again then the same applies to motions from Brexit opponents - how can we have another vote on a new referendum or Parliament taking control etc. all hav been voted on and failed to pass.
And the problem is?... 
Who has pointed that out? Whoever it is needs to understand the difference between a motion and amendment.
Self evident.
There is no difference, the same principle applies that you cannot keep voting on the same thing hoping for a different result.
Well I dont want to derail the thread - but you can only vote for what is put in front of you. Hence the result in 2016.
This is getting interesting now. Quite rightly IMHO Bercow has disallowed May trying to get her deal through by repeatedly bringing it back to the house, unless there are significant changes.
Of course there are no changes because the EU have this treaty tied down.
May's plan was to get MPs on side using some sort of deal/ bribe/promise/whip or whatever. That should not be allowed. We know the MP's view on the deal. Its bad for the country.
It should not be bulldozed through because she is offering sweeteners.
There's a huge difference. Erskine May is a constitutional check that exists to protect Parliament from being incapacitated by the Executive. The same cannot be said for amends to Government motions. Indeed, such freedom is the very essence if a Parliamentary democracy.
This applies to Bills and Government Motions, not amendments. But I think Bercow will address amendments fairly soon.
Anyway the Erskine May ruling in question A treatise on the law, privileges, proceedings and usage of Parliament : May, Thomas Erskine, 1815-1886 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive