PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   BREXIT (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/619673-brexit.html)

ATNotts 21st Oct 2019 16:23


Originally Posted by jolihokistix (Post 10599889)
We need a neutral speaker for the House of Commons.

But where would you find one from? If you're selecting from the ranks of MPs then each candidate would be of a political background, and could be accused of being biased by one side or the other.

I'm not of the opinion that Bercow is necessarily biased; more that, in the very polarised period we are living through every potentially contentious decision any speaker made could be construed by the aggrieved side as being biased against them.

747 jock 21st Oct 2019 16:29


Originally Posted by ATNotts (Post 10599925)
I'm not of the opinion that Bercow is necessarily biased;

Not biased?
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e0d8c3f004.png


Krystal n chips 21st Oct 2019 16:51


Originally Posted by 747 jock (Post 10599929)

A truly commendable sentiment would you not say.......one I'm in complete agreement with...along with several million other residents in the UK


KelvinD 21st Oct 2019 17:07

I watched the whole thing on TV this afternoon and Bercow was correct. He even quoted the page in Erskine May that led him to his finding, presumably for the benefit of those who couldn't be bothered to look it up.
I also watched the disaffected Tories accusing him of bias. And I also watched Tories saying he was correct. But, if they think for a minute, isn't it possible that if you or your party are finding decisions from the chair going against you more frequently than decisions against the other side, is it possible that the reason for this is that your party are ignoring or perhaps are ignorant of the rules more frequently than the other lot?
As for the speaker's independence, it seems to me that it is his own party falling foul of the law/parliamentary convention so often, yet he shows no favour toward his own party when ruling against them? If his decision today was wrong (and I mean wrong in terms of parliamentary convention/law), then the opportunity was there for a proper legal challenge to be mounted against his decision.
Summed up; the government are trying all manner of ruses and wheezes to get their own way and are merely throwing tantrums when they are found out and corrected. Sadly, the whole anti-Speaker thing in parliament is, I believe, part of government's campaign to show that the whole parliamentary set up is wrong and is working solely to thwart the ability to govern according to whatever diktat they wish to push.
And let's not forget who nominated, voted for and placed the Speaker in the chair. Multiple times!

Sallyann1234 21st Oct 2019 17:11

Surely those who insist there should not be a second Brexit referendum now because the first one was democratically decided, would uphold the same principle for the House of Commons.

The Government proposal was decided by a clear majority* on Saturday, so why should it be voted on again today in the hope that it might get a different result?

* Much greater that the Brexit majority.

mothminor 21st Oct 2019 17:42


Surely those who insist there should not be a second Brexit referendum now because the first one was democratically decided, would uphold the same principle for the House of Commons.

The Government proposal was decided by a clear majority* on Saturday, so why should it be voted on again today in the hope that it might get a different result?
i.e. as you cannot vote on the same thing twice, you cannot have a second referendum.

LowNSlow 21st Oct 2019 17:43

Sallyann; actually the Government proposal was not decided by a clear majority as it was not voted on, the Letwin amendment was.

yellowtriumph 21st Oct 2019 17:45


Originally Posted by Sallyann1234 (Post 10599946)
Surely those who insist there should not be a second Brexit referendum now because the first one was democratically decided, would uphold the same principle for the House of Commons.

The Government proposal was decided by a clear majority* on Saturday, so why should it be voted on again today in the hope that it might get a different result?

* Much greater that the Brexit majority.

*The vote on Saturday was 322 v 306 which I make 51.3% v 48.7% Unless I'm missing some irony here?

yellowtriumph 21st Oct 2019 17:49


Originally Posted by KelvinD (Post 10599945)
I watched the whole thing on TV this afternoon and Bercow was correct. He even quoted the page in Erskine May that led him to his finding, presumably for the benefit of those who couldn't be bothered to look it up.
I also watched the disaffected Tories accusing him of bias. And I also watched Tories saying he was correct. But, if they think for a minute, isn't it possible that if you or your party are finding decisions from the chair going against you more frequently than decisions against the other side, is it possible that the reason for this is that your party are ignoring or perhaps are ignorant of the rules more frequently than the other lot?
As for the speaker's independence, it seems to me that it is his own party falling foul of the law/parliamentary convention so often, yet he shows no favour toward his own party when ruling against them? If his decision today was wrong (and I mean wrong in terms of parliamentary convention/law), then the opportunity was there for a proper legal challenge to be mounted against his decision.
Summed up; the government are trying all manner of ruses and wheezes to get their own way and are merely throwing tantrums when they are found out and corrected. Sadly, the whole anti-Speaker thing in parliament is, I believe, part of government's campaign to show that the whole parliamentary set up is wrong and is working solely to thwart the ability to govern according to whatever diktat they wish to push.
And let's not forget who nominated, voted for and placed the Speaker in the chair. Multiple times!

I think the point here is that Bercow is on record as saying that if Parliament always followed past convention (rules maybe?) then progress can never be made. But sometimes he does follows past precedent. He seems to make it up on the spot which is not really what an independent arbitrator should be doing as it just brings uncertainty and chaos to parliamentary process if rules are to be randomly ignored or implemented on a whim really. Unless of course the 'whim-meister' is biassed?

Sallyann1234 21st Oct 2019 17:53


Originally Posted by yellowtriumph (Post 10599966)
*The vote on Saturday was 322 v 306 which I make 51.3% v 48.7% Unless I'm missing some irony here?

Your calculator is more accurate than my mental arithmetic. :ok:
That doesn't affect the principle of second chances.

yellowtriumph 21st Oct 2019 17:53

The HoC has already rejected a second Brexit referendum:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-pol...34-votes-to-85

So under Bercow's rules they can't vote for one again. Unless he changes his interpretation of the HoC's rules. Again.

Avionker 21st Oct 2019 18:15


Originally Posted by yellowtriumph (Post 10599971)
The HoC has already rejected a second Brexit referendum:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-pol...34-votes-to-85

So under Bercow's rules they can't vote for one again. Unless he changes his interpretation of the HoC's rules. Again.

That was in a different parliamentary session, therefore it could, according to Erskine May, be voted on again in this session.

747 jock 21st Oct 2019 18:18


Originally Posted by Krystal n chips (Post 10599939)
A truly commendable sentiment would you not say.......

No, I wouldn't say that.


Originally Posted by Krystal n chips (Post 10599939)
.one I'm in complete agreement with...along with several million other residents in the UK

And it's your right to have and to be able to voice that opinion.
However, if your job required you to be neutral on the subject, then don't you agree that by showing such a clear bias, you wouldn't be able to perform that job correctly?

Exrigger 21st Oct 2019 18:36


Originally Posted by yellowtriumph (Post 10599971)
The HoC has already rejected a second Brexit referendum:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-pol...34-votes-to-85

So under Bercow's rules they can't vote for one again. Unless he changes his interpretation of the HoC's rules. Again.

That won't stop the barrel scraping going on, they also voted down revoking Article 50 when the MP's took control by 298 against 184, although it does seem it is one rule for leave and a different one that takes precedent for remain. The other ones that they seem to forget, was the vote to let May issue Article 50, that was 498 against 114, with 38 abstentions, then the two main parties claimed at the last election that they would honour the referendum vote and on the back of that gained the greater amount of votes between them.

Also, all the petitions on the subject of second referendum and Revoking Article 50 have been rejected by Westminster, obviously forgotten about them as well.

Avionker 21st Oct 2019 18:41


Originally Posted by Exrigger (Post 10599996)
That won't stop the barrel scraping going on, they also voted down revoking Article 50 when the MP's took control by 298 against 184, although it does seem it is one rule for leave and a different one that takes precedent for remain. The other ones that they seem to forget, was the vote to let May issue Article 50, that was 498 against 114, with 38 abstentions, then the two main parties claimed at the last election that they would honour the referendum vote and on the back of that gained the greater amount of votes between them.

Also, all the petitions on the subject of second referendum and Revoking Article 50 have been rejected by Westminster, obviously forgotten about them as well.

And, once again.....

That was in a different parliamentary session, therefore it could, according to Erskine May, be voted on again in this session.

ORAC 21st Oct 2019 18:56

The problem here is not today, but yesterday.

Boris came back with a deal as asked and requested to put it to the House on a vote. It was t this point, against precedent, that the Speaker allowed the Letwin amendment, which totally reversed the wording of the motion, to take place first.

Once that amendment was passed there, amending the motion, it was impossible for the government to pass a motion accepting the deal. Hence the Benn act came into force, meaning the extension letter had to be sent - and the House could not vote on whether the accepted the deal or not.

Today the government asked for the original motion to be brought t9 the vote again. With the letter sent the circumstances had totally changed - because allowing the vote today, if it passed, would have allowed Boris to withdraw the letter sent yesterday. I would suggest that this was a sufficiently significant change in circumstances to allow the House to express its view.

It was here, today, that the Speaker ruled that the circumstances had. It changed and denied the request.

In short, through manipulation of his powers, the Speaker has denied the House to ever vote on whether the House accepted the deal negotiated with the EU, and on which the EU were waiting to vote on their side.

You may be fervent remain or leave, but to believe the PM should not be able to put his deal to the vote, the House to signify their assent or refusal, and the EU to respond, based on the manipulations of the Speaker, indicates a travesty of our constitution.

ORAC 21st Oct 2019 19:10

We now come to the WAB - the Withdrawal Agreement Bill.

The sole purpose of the WAB is to approve or disapprove the deal negotiated with the EU - not in ant way to amend it. Amendments can be added to define the limits of the government in the subsequent trade negotiations, but not the substance of the bill.

In this area the Speaker again has the power to accept amendments. Crucially, in this case, is the suggested amendment concerning a Customs Union. This is a wrecking amendment which destroys the deal as negotiated and means it will have to be abandoned if accepted and passed.

If the Speaker accepted such an amendment he will, again, have abandoned any attempt at impartiality and signified his support for endeavouring to ensure the House has no possibility at voting for the deal as negotiated - or leaving the EU.

yellowtriumph 21st Oct 2019 19:16


Originally Posted by Avionker (Post 10599998)


And, once again.....

That was in a different parliamentary session, therefore it could, according to Erskine May, be voted on again in this session.

So why doesn't Boris prorogue Parliament for 24 hours? Does that generate a new session? Could he then have his vote on the deal?

Chronus 21st Oct 2019 19:16


Originally Posted by NutLoose (Post 10599679)
But you need to honour the first one first. You vote parties into power without knowing the possible consequences, it's life, I wish manifestos would be written into law and have to be adhered to, but they often are not. I was well aware when I voted to leave that it may be a clean break or a softer break, but I was aware, as for the amount of remainers wishing a vote, that often is down to a hundred odd thousand, marching, the press and who can shout loudest. A Election prior to departure would have told them the mood of the country, a referendum was not and is not needed. Just has some Labour pre electioneering garbage in the mail this morning, item 6 says and I quote



But they were on TV saying they would agree to the latest Johnson deal if there was a referendum, so in effect they are saying it is a good deal because if it wasn't they would campaign against it.. therefore what is the problem?

we have had a decision remember...perhaps the referendum you should have is to ask, should we hold another referendum, then you will know if it is a valid choice, I also do not like the question that Labour was suggesting, Leave with the deal or remain, it should surely also include the leave with no deal option.

" I wish manifestos would be written into law "

That would be a manifest of lies to be written into law. Which would mean mendacity replacing the age old concept of truth in jurisprudence. Not a bad idea perhaps, the worse lie becoming the truth.

Avionker 21st Oct 2019 20:57


Originally Posted by yellowtriumph (Post 10600023)
So why doesn't Boris prorogue Parliament for 24 hours? Does that generate a new session? Could he then have his vote on the deal?

I believe, and stand ready to be corrected if wrong, that a State Opening of Parliament would be required. Not sure how quickly that can be arranged, or if Buck House would be overly keen on playing along.


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:28.


Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.