Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[SocketRocket]

Which thye've just posted on twitter

Guido hears that when he was doorstepped, Bercow was returning from gym this morning. His normal route through the tunnel from Portcullis House underneath Westminster Bridge Road. Despite the rain he chose today to go the longer, outside route entering by St Stephens...

I wonder why.

 

[Hacker Khan]

I would suggest he should have allowed the vote on the basis it may pass and bring an end to this matter dragging on. I suspect that he is blocking it not as a mater of procedure but as a way to frustrate Brexit and hopefully kill it off.

I imagine that's what the Sun, Express, Mail etc want people to think based on their headlines today.

Imagine the fuss there would be if he ignored constitutional precedent to let the house vote on a subject with no substantial changes where they have previously rejected it with the first and 4th largest defeats ever in history for a government motion. On the off chance it may get through now.

As all golfers should know, rules are rules and are not there to be ignored now and then just because the PM has decided that attrition and fear of the alternative is the only desperate tactic she has left. He's there to stick up for parliament as a whole, not bail out any current government, no matter how incompetent they are.

 

[ColchesterFC]

I imagine that's what the Sun, Express, Mail etc want people to think based on their headlines today.

Imagine the fuss there would be if he ignored constitutional precedent to let the house vote on a subject with no substantial changes where they have previously rejected it with the first and 4th largest defeats ever in history for a government motion. On the off chance it may get through now.

You mean like he was accused of doing in January when he ignored legal advice and precedent to allow votes on amendments to a government motion and afterwards said "if we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change"?

 

[SocketRocket]

I imagine that's what the Sun, Express, Mail etc want people to think based on their headlines today.

Imagine the fuss there would be if he ignored constitutional precedent to let the house vote on a subject with no substantial changes where they have previously rejected it with the first and 4th largest defeats ever in history for a government motion. On the off chance it may get through now.

As all golfers should know, rules are rules and are not there to be ignored now and then just because the PM has decided that attrition and fear of the alternative is the only desperate tactic she has left. He's there to stick up for parliament as a whole, not bail out any current government, no matter how incompetent they are.

I am not interested what newspapers say and the last time this rule was applied was 1912, he does not have to apply it. This isn't some minor bit of parliamentary business but the biggest issue in our constitutional history for over a century. It's not the time for showboating and playing games, this vote is very important not only to parliament but to try and create some certainty to business and peoples lives. IMO the man is bloated with his own importance and using his position to support his personal standing on Brexit. I just cant understand anyone not seeing that.

 

[Hacker Khan]

I am not interested what newspapers say and the last time this rule was applied was 1912, he does not have to apply it. This isn't some minor bit of parliamentary business but the biggest issue in our constitutional history for over a century. It's not the time for showboating and playing games, this vote is very important not only to parliament but to try and create some certainty to business and peoples lives. IMO the man is bloated with his own importance and using his position to support his personal standing on Brexit. I just cant understand anyone not seeing that.

I know it is, that's why we've had it twice already, once more than the referendum in fact.

 

[SocketRocket]

I know it is, that's why we've had it twice already, once more than the referendum in fact.

OK, maybe I should have said its a way of delivering the peoples choice frustrated by their representatives

 

[Tashyboy]

Are they? I thought they had given the responsibility for negotiating a deal to the negotiating team. And have been kept up to date with progress at times through the process.


Seems he was correct though!

No he said we should not of had the second vote when it had been changed. The vote that has been stopped is correct. Nothing has been changed. As much as i voted Brexit. The law is the law. Stopping the vote is correct.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I am not interested what newspapers say and the last time this rule was applied was 1912, he does not have to apply it. This isn't some minor bit of parliamentary business but the biggest issue in our constitutional history for over a century. It's not the time for showboating and playing games, this vote is very important not only to parliament but to try and create some certainty to business and peoples lives. IMO the man is bloated with his own importance and using his position to support his personal standing on Brexit. I just cant understand anyone not seeing that.

So any deal even a bad is acceptable so long as we are out!

 

[Deleted member 21784]

So any deal even a bad is acceptable so long as we are out!

Some would rather we completely screw over the country, send us into recession and put us back decades so long as we are out.

 

[Hacker Khan]

OK, maybe I should have said its a way of delivering the peoples choice frustrated by their representatives

But even then it is not that simple. It is/was just another vote that may or may not get through. Before Bercow did his thing the noises were that they would not have it next week unless they were completely sure they had bought off the DUP, sorry, got assurances from the DUP that they would support her. Plus there are still a few ERGers making noises that they would not support it. So he could well of allowed the vote, the she would have lost, again, and we would be no nearer to 'delivering the people's choice' but even closer to March 29th. And whlst it will make a charity of my choice £20, I find it baffling that so many MPs would suddenly change their mind on exactly the same proposal purely down to the fact that the vote is held a week or so later.

 

[Foxholer]

No he said we should not of had the second vote when it had been changed. The vote that has been stopped is correct. Nothing has been changed. As much as i voted Brexit. The law is the law. Stopping the vote is correct.

Hang on! Who are you talking about? I was talking about the EU (and their 'team'). You seem to be talking about Bercow and his (quite legitimate imo) rulng.And it's not 'law' as such, but the UK 'constitution' as much as there is one from established principles.

 

[SocketRocket]

So any deal even a bad is acceptable so long as we are out!

Did I say that.

 

[Foxholer]

I am not interested what newspapers say and the last time this rule was applied was 1912, he does not have to apply it. This isn't some minor bit of parliamentary business but the biggest issue in our constitutional history for over a century. It's not the time for showboating and playing games, this vote is very important not only to parliament but to try and create some certainty to business and peoples lives. IMO the man is bloated with his own importance and using his position to support his personal standing on Brexit. I just cant understand anyone not seeing that.

Yes he does!

He was specifically asked for a ruling - and has made that ruling. That's (part of) his job! Which is the reason for 'his' traditional reluctance at the Opening of Parliament. His rulings may not be appreciated!

It doesn't matter horw trivial or important the issue is. The Speaker needs to make his ruling according t0o UK's 'constitution'!

And, in this case, I totally support his ruling - chaos inducing as it could well be!

 

[SocketRocket]

But even then it is not that simple. It is/was just another vote that may or may not get through. Before Bercow did his thing the noises were that they would not have it next week unless they were completely sure they had bought off the DUP, sorry, got assurances from the DUP that they would support her. Plus there are still a few ERGers making noises that they would not support it. So he could well of allowed the vote, the she would have lost, again, and we would be no nearer to 'delivering the people's choice' but even closer to March 29th. And whlst it will make a charity of my choice £20, I find it baffling that so many MPs would suddenly change their mind on exactly the same proposal purely down to the fact that the vote is held a week or so later.

I am no defender of the deal, I am merely saying Bercow is gerrymandering to suit his own agenda. Some may believe he is only doing his job which is true, but make no mistake he is not doing it to uphold parliamentary values.

 

[Foxholer]

...I am merely saying Bercow is gerrymandering to suit his own agenda. Some may believe he is only doing his job which is true, but make no mistake he is not doing it to uphold parliamentary values.

There's only one word that describes my opinion of the above - Twaddle!

It's precisely to 'uphold parliamentary values' that he's been asked - and made, imo, the correct ruling!

 

[Old Skier]

You mean like he was accused of doing in January when he ignored legal advice and precedent to allow votes on amendments to a government motion and afterwards said "if we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change"?

The man only uses procedures that suit his agenda unfortunately. Shame that some seem to want to ignore that fact.

 

[Tashyboy]

Hang on! Who are you talking about? I was talking about the EU (and their 'team'). You seem to be talking about Bercow and his (quite legitimate imo) rulng.And it's not 'law' as such, but the UK 'constitution' as much as there is one from established principles.

My first quote was about the Scottish guy. The second was about Bercow.
👍

 

[Old Skier]

Be interesting to see if he uses the same ruling when they come back to change the date to leave. Quids in that someone will say that there is no fundamental change as the deal is still about leaving.

 

[drdel]

The man only uses procedures that suit his agenda unfortunately. Shame that some seem to want to ignore that fact.

This is the same Bercow who drives a car with an anti-Brexit sticker -his defence was its his wife's car - someone in his position would surely realise the impact of such a juvenile and deliberate action. Its either arrogance and stupidity but whichever it is, it is hardly the prudent action of a senior Parliamentarian whose 'unbiased' judgement we are supposed to accept unchallenged!!

 

[Hacker Khan]

Be interesting to see if he uses the same ruling when they come back to change the date to leave. Quids in that someone will say that there is no fundamental change as the deal is still about leaving.

He's made it pretty clear that whatever comes back needs 'substantial' changes, be it second referendums, meaningful votes etc etc.