Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

UK Politics Hamsterwheel MkII

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

UK Politics Hamsterwheel MkII

Old 13th Jan 2019, 19:00
  #2781 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: n/a
Posts: 14
Here is an accurate, verifiable, summary of the extent to which May has used every instrument to obstruct parliament.

THREAD

Need another detail to confirm her intent? How about the Home Office waiting until the day after Boxing Day to double down on marriages between UK citizens and EU citizens.
sfm818 is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 19:11
  #2782 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sunny Sussex
Posts: 778
Originally Posted by sfm818 View Post
Here is an accurate, verifiable, summary of the extent to which May has used every instrument to obstruct parliament.
.
That's where I nicked them from. Far too many for my memory to keep up with & f you read the replies, many more are added by correspondents.

YT, you persist with this insinuation Bercow is gaming the system. He is not. I will say this until I am blue in the face - his job is to protect the primacy of Parliament. He broke with precedent to thwart a minority executive itself expressly attempting to obstruct MP's by running the clock down on the single biggest question in a generation. If you can't see the fire you're playing with, then I don't know where we go from here. Bercow struck a blow for democracy & we should be celebrating it.
Parapunter is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 19:27
  #2783 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,389
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator View Post
You make my point most eloquently. It is not whether these were true or false but the demonstrable fact that remainers, led by the Lily livered PM who subsequently jumped ship, failed to refute.
We did.

We said "there won't be £350m/week for the NHS, the bus is lying, Boris is lying, Humphreys is lying, here's the facts ...".

The response? "Project Fear! Project Fear! Project Fear!"

(But I agree that overall the remain campaign was crap.)
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 19:49
  #2784 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 66
Posts: 58
The one overriding point that nobody can get over is that Brexit was a done deal, it was a shoo in until the day in June 2017 when Theresa decided that she would make absolutely certain by increasing her majority in the HoC. I don't think that anybody doubted that she would achieve that, personally I thought she would get an overall majority of at least 80.

We cannot get away from the fact that Remainer votes propelled Labour to almost within touching distance of power. This to me demonstrates that the appetite to remain is strong. Voters nevertheless were misled once again by Corbyn in his pretence that Labour were actually a party of Remain. And in indeed they are.a party of Remain . The membership is Remain as is the voter base, the only thing that isn't about Labour is Corbyn, and he has now been exposed as what he is, Bennite Leaver. Corbyn has shown his hand, from here on in it's all downhill for him. Labour must ditch him now and support their membership and voter base.
Effluent Man is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 21:23
  #2785 (permalink)  
Está servira para distraerle.
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a perambulator.
Posts: 7,046
In light hearted emulation of a remainer, anything other than the ideas in the letter below are feeble minded, jingoist, racist, bigoted nonsense emanating from totally uneducated and poor quality people, who don't speak French, don't have large houses in Brittany or elsewhere in the French and Spanish countryside. These would be people who simply could never have any comprehension of the intelligence, intellectual acumen and sociopathic needs of either the urban elite or academia and who have allowed concepts of social liberalism to be superimposed upon those of democracy.

Dear Colleague

On 15 January, the House will vote on the Prime Minister’s proposed Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration. This will be a historic decision which will affect future generations. We urge colleagues to look beyond the day-to-day news cycle, to consider the long-run future of our country, and to vote against this agreement.

There are many weaknesses in this deal. The main ones are well known and nothing that has been said or achieved since the original vote was postponed has changed them.

First, we will be signing up to a democratically and constitutionally unacceptable backstop which would create barriers between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As the Attorney General said in his legal advice 1 , “for regulatory purposes Great Britain is essentially treated as a third country by Northern Ireland for goods passing from Great Britain to Northern Ireland”. As the UK would remain in the customs union while in the backstop, the EU would have the power to determine the legal basis for all of our world trade including our tariffs and quotas. That is why the US Ambassador to the UK has said 2 that a major free trade deal with the US “doesn’t look like it will be possible” under this agreement. And as is well known the UK would be unable to leave the backstop without the EU’s permission, and EU “reassurances” on this point are not legally binding.

Second, the backstop constrains the future agreement. As David Henig of ECIPE wrote on 9 January 3 , “the backstop … sets out a minimum level of future relationship, with a UK-wide Customs Union, and Northern Ireland in the UK single market.” Since we cannot leave the backstop except with the EU’s permission, endorsing this deal signs away all our bargaining power, with next to nothing in return. It would be madness to give away our negotiating leverage in this way, as former Trade Minister Greg Hands explains in his attached Conservative Home article.

Third, the deal commits us to paying £39bn plus other sums to the EU. It is clear that extending the transition period would require additional payments on top of this, and while we are in the customs union we we will still have to hand a share of tariffs collected at our border to Brussels.

This agreement is a blind alley. It cannot be the basis for a sustainable and successful relationship between the UK and the EU after Brexit. It is better to acknowledge that now rather than create further and bigger difficulties in the future.

The Grieve amendment approved on 9 January makes no substantive difference to the vote on Tuesday, which is purely about whether to approve or not the Prime Minister’s deal. The amendment merely reduces the time available for the Government to outline an alternative strategy.

And good alternatives are still available. The UK still has a clear path to a better future and a successful Brexit. We should remember that whatever happens, we leave the EU on 29th March 2019 and that date is in our own primary legislation.

So, the real question should be what kind of Brexit do we want and what is our vision? By voting down this flawed Withdrawal Agreement we can encourage the EU to renegotiate. A revised Agreement is still possible, preserving elements such as citizens’ rights and a transition period. But the EU will need to remove the most problematic parts, notably the backstop, or provide a method by which the UK has the unilateral right to leave it.

The right vision for the future remains the one that is in practice precluded by this deal: an advanced Free Trade Agreement covering goods and services, customs facilitation, regulatory cooperation, and a facilitated Irish border. By using tried and trusted techniques and procedures, we can also ensure that rules of origin and customs checks are conducted away from the Northern Ireland border. This then makes unnecessary the hard border that everyone agrees must be avoided. This is a reasonable and sensible deal for the UK.

In the event that the EU is unwilling to commit to this, then we can and must fulfil the democratic wishes of the people of the UK. Parliament has an obligation to deliver on the 2016 referendum result to take back control over borders, laws, and money. The Conservative Party Manifesto and the Prime Minister in several speeches (including Lancaster House, Mansion House and Florence) promised to be true to that vote and to ensure the UK does indeed take back control to become a self-governing nation again. The manifesto committed us to leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union. Disregarding such promises risks having dire electoral consequences.

That is why, if it is the only way forward, we must have the confidence to be ready to leave on WTO terms. A managed WTO Brexit may give rise to some short-term inconvenience and disruption, but the much greater risks arise from being locked into a very bad deal.

Thankfully the UK and other EU governments, and the EU itself, are all accelerating plans for a managed no deal exit. Colleagues should be reassured by the example over the preparedness of the Calais Ports Authority. The President of the Port of Calais and Boulogne has stated: “We have been preparing for No Deal for one year. Additional customs declarations will in no way slow down traffic”. We welcome all these efforts to avoid disruption at ports, to phase in only the most necessary customs and other checks over a sensible period, to ensure flights continue uninterrupted and medicines and foodstuffs arrive unimpeded, and to underpin the rights of citizens living abroad.

Moreover, a managed WTO Brexit will end business and political uncertainty more quickly than any other option. It also saves much of the £39 billion, which can be spent to support the UK economy, business, and consumers instead. Please see the article on the ‘30 No Deal Truths’ by the former Trade and Industry Secretary of State Lord Lilley.

In short, colleagues should be confident on 15 January that it is right to vote down this bad deal and that in doing so we will unlock a better future for our party, our country and its people. It will not lead to no Brexit or to an early General Election. Indeed, it would be by agreeing to this punative and highly one-sided deal that we would do most damage to the Conservative Party’s prospects at the next election.

Yours sincerely,

Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP

Rt Hon David Davis MP

Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP

Rt Hon Esther McVey MP

Rt Hon Priti Patel MP

Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP

Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP

Rt Hon John Whittingdale MP

Rt Hon Mark Francois MP

Mr Steve Baker MP

Mr Shailesh Vara MP

Mrs Suella Braverman MP
cavortingcheetah is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 21:40
  #2786 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 71
Posts: 639
Re Bercow; Parapunter is spot on. For those who think otherwise, might I suggest reading Hansard for that day? The whole hissy fit display was a result of the government putting forward an amendment and the Tory foot stampers persisted in saying that a motion could not be put forward to change the government's motion.
“No motion to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.”
The reply from the Speaker was "Yeah, you are right. Except this relates to an amendment, not a motion" (or words to that effect).
Even Ken Clarke became exasperated by the endless stream of government apologists bleating on an on about it, suggesting that, if they don't like the way the House wants to express an opinion, they should don a yellow jacket and go and join the others outside.
And as for this comment
I don’t think anyone here would dispute that Bercow ignored the advice of his professional advisors
, I would dispute it. You don't know what was the advice of the Clerk of the House or any other of those advisors. It has always been regarded as totally private and remains so on this particular issue. That is why Bercow would neither confirm nor deny that he and the Clerk were in agreement over anything, only that he had discussed the issue.
I think another of Bercow's points was that those who disliked the Grieve amendment could simply vote against it.
No, the baying mob didn't like even that idea. You see, the problem was the government was trying to move an amendment with no debate allowed on it. Here is how that arose:
By way of explanation to the hon. Gentleman and to the House, the motion in the Prime Minister’s name is indeed a variation of the order agreed by the House on 4 December. Under paragraph (9) of that order, the question on any motion to vary the order “shall be put forthwith.” I interpret that to mean that there can be no debate, but I must advise the House that the terms of the order do not say that no amendment can be selected or moved. I cannot allow debate, but I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield. At the appropriate point, I will invite him to move it once the motion has been moved. That is the position.
Later in the proceedings, there was this:
No, for the very simple reason that the terms for today, specified by the Government Chief Whip, specify no debate. If the hon. Lady asks me whether there will be a debate, the honest answer is no, but that is not my fault.
So, it can be seen from the above, the government was desperate to get a motion and a variation to that motion through the House with no debate. Just "shut up and take it". Parliament is to have no say in what happens with this and government will rule unopposed.
Thank God we have a Speaker like John Bercow who, it seems to me, is keen on ensuring Parliament is not railroaded by a government hell bent on having their own way. I think Bercow is one of the best Speakers I can remember. He has brought that office out of the 16th century and into the 21st. He actually takes time out to visit schools and other establishments to speak on topics such as how Parliament works, his duties as Speaker etc. And, in my view, totally impartial.
KelvinD is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 21:46
  #2787 (permalink)  
Está servira para distraerle.
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a perambulator.
Posts: 7,046
He certainly is always a good adjunct to the usual Wednesday comedy team. A very funny chap, as one might say.
cavortingcheetah is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 21:56
  #2788 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 3
Thank God we have a speaker like John Bercow..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33649258

..one must be rather biased indeed..
weemonkey is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 22:31
  #2789 (permalink)  
Está servira para distraerle.
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a perambulator.
Posts: 7,046
Bercow at his best, merrily making the trouble make appear an absolute idiot while scoring a politically correct, if slightly wayward, point.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-sticker-video
cavortingcheetah is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 07:16
  #2790 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 71
Posts: 639
weemonkey: Given that Bercow is a Tory and I am most certainly not, I would find it hard to be biased toward him. I appreciate Bercow because of the way he conducts the Speaker's duties and what I see as an even handed approach to MPs of all sides.
One of my favourite moments of his was when Cameron was droning on about something during PMQs. After an interruption, Cameron got back to his feet and was clearly about to make another point, rather than stick to the single question, single answer routine. He was interrupted by Bercow and Cameron responded with a big silly grin on his face, saying "I am not finished". Bercow's response was "The Prime Minister says he is not finished. He is now". That wiped the smirk off Cameron's face!
As for his expenses, they do seem high but they must have been legitimate or else they would not have got through Parliamentary scrutiny. Presumably, he charged what it cost to travel to Australia etc and I am sure receipts would have been included in his claim. I wonder what Mrs. May's jaunts to and from Brussels etc cost?
Let's be honest; there is a hardcore of Tory MPs (those who voted Bercow into the Speaker's position) who seem to feel aggrieved that, despite being a fellow Tory, Bercow won't bend to accommodate their particular agendas.
KelvinD is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 08:44
  #2791 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 66
Posts: 58
I like Bercow as a speaker. It's got nothing to do with the Brexit shenanigans. He followed Michael Martin who personified the dour Scot and that has probably made him even more welcome. His conduct of business is always carried out with a certain levity that serves to add an entertaining aspect to everyday proceedings. His language it is true does at times verge on the Rumpolesque but for me that only adds to the attraction.
Effluent Man is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 09:09
  #2792 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by Effluent Man View Post
I like Bercow as a speaker. It's got nothing to do with the Brexit shenanigans. He followed Michael Martin who personified the dour Scot and that has probably made him even more welcome. His conduct of business is always carried out with a certain levity that serves to add an entertaining aspect to everyday proceedings. His language it is true does at times verge on the Rumpolesque but for me that only adds to the attraction.
To you perhaps. He doesn't even have the courage to admit his bias...still birds of a feather and all that.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-pol...ngs-to-my-wife
weemonkey is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 09:13
  #2793 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 66
Posts: 58
As P.G.Wodehouse observed, you are never likely to mistake a Scotsman with a grievance fir a Ray of sunshine.
Effluent Man is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 09:32
  #2794 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,594
Originally Posted by weemonkey View Post
To you perhaps. He doesn't even have the courage to admit his bias...still birds of a feather and all that.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-pol...ngs-to-my-wife
He says that the anti Brexit sticker is his wife's; how hard is it to take that at face value?

He may well be, as most sensible politicians are, anti Brexit however - however they voted when it came to triggering Art.50. John Bercow of course doesn't have a vote, but he still has a seat in parliament, and the human right of an opinion. Just because he chose to stand up for MPs rather than the government last week doesn't make him biased towards Brexit. I could see him acting in exactly the same (some would say maverick) way were Corbyn in charge and trying to railroad stuff through the House.

The problem here is that Brexiteers, certainly the hardened once can see their prize slipping through their fingers. If they want to ensure Brexit happens then vote for TM's hard won agreement, otherwise face the consequences. MPs wyll fight tooth and nail to prevent no deal, without referral to the public; and in the event there were a new referendum, the likely questions would be "May's deal" or "remain". The public being rather more pragmatic than MPs, are just as likely to accept her deal, and leave as they are to vote remain.
ATNotts is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 09:40
  #2795 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sunny Sussex
Posts: 778
More to the point, how trivial & craven of Adam Holloway to bring up the sticker in the first place. By a thousand of these petty acts do we enable the haters & dividers. Oh for a set of leaders who know the meaning of it.
Parapunter is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 09:44
  #2796 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brighton
Age: 65
Posts: 9,678
He says that the anti Brexit sticker is his wife's; how hard is it to take that at face value?
I would not argue - except to point out that his wife, Sally Bercow, has her own car, a Volvo registration S88 LYY, which she drives to the HoC and parks in he members car park. Bercow bought the vehicle under discussion after his wife acquired her car, and purchased the registration B13 RCO as an act of oneupmanship - and drives it to work and parks it in the Speaker’s reserved parking place.
ORAC is online now  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 10:01
  #2797 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,594
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
I would not argue - except to point out that his wife, Sally Bercow, has her own car, a Volvo registration S88 LYY, which she drives to the HoC and parks in he members car park. Bercow bought the vehicle under discussion after his wife acquired her car, and purchased the registration B13 RCO as an act of oneupmanship - and drives it to work and parks it in the Speaker’s reserved parking place.
I rather suspect that Sally Bercow being the attention seeker that she is, and a mixer to boot, insisted that anti Brexit stickers were on both cars - and he tacitly agreed.
ATNotts is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 10:02
  #2798 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 312
Originally Posted by cavortingcheetah View Post
In short, colleagues should be confident on 15 January that it is right to vote down this bad deal and that in doing so we will unlock a better future for our party, our country and its people. It will not lead to no Brexit or to an early General Election. Indeed, it would be by agreeing to this punative (sic) and highly one-sided deal that we would do most damage to the Conservative Party’s prospects at the next election.

Yours sincerely,

Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP

Rt Hon David Davis MP

Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP

Rt Hon Esther McVey MP

Rt Hon Priti Patel MP

Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP

Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP

Rt Hon John Whittingdale MP

Rt Hon Mark Francois MP

Mr Steve Baker MP

Mr Shailesh Vara MP

Mrs Suella Braverman MP
(my bold)
Well that certainly shows the priorities of the Rt Hon signatories - party first every time.
Sallyann1234 is online now  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 10:38
  #2799 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Northampton
Posts: 506
a better future for our party, our country and its people.
Well if it has that effect it must it must help the Cons. Simple really.
rogerg is online now  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 11:52
  #2800 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by Sallyann1234 View Post
(my bold)
Well that certainly shows the priorities of the Rt Hon signatories - party first every time.
Is it any different from any of the other members of the HoC?. Are Labour members putting the country before Party at this time?
BAengineer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.