She has no choice now, unless she can 'pull' something out with EU to convice Bercow to allow it,.
What does she go to the EU for an extension FOR though ? Another referendum clearly doesn't have the numbers unless the Gov't whips for, and I can't see that happening.
Would another vote on a referendum be allowed? Would it be substantially different to the previous vote?
You would have hoped the government would have been abreast of this convention. But, these days, no level of abject incompetence surprises me.
Bercow adheres to convention, and changes convention, as it suits his purposes.
One thing ought to be clear. The Speakership is now a partisan role.
I'd say if anything Bercow was partisanly in favour of the government by allowing MV2 in the first (second?) place.
He himself just explained why MV2 did not fall foul of this rather pointless convention
I doubt you'd think it pointless if the Corbyn administration saw the Socialism (Red in Tooth and Claw) Bill just fail its third reading.
The way around that is a suitable form of PR. It provides a barrier to extremism even if the speaker is partisan, i.e. it's a further check on the executive.
Brussels has PR, Whitehall doesn't.
Blair ditched the Jenkins report, setting out how to implement PR here, when he saw the size of his majority. The other main UK party has never been interested although Hannan supports PR.
You would have hoped the government would have been abreast of this convention. But, these days, no level of abject incompetence surprises me.
Bercow adheres to convention, and changes convention, as it suits his purposes.
One thing ought to be clear. The Speakership is now a partisan role.
I'd say if anything Bercow was partisanly in favour of the government by allowing MV2 in the first (second?) place.
He himself just explained why MV2 did not fall foul of this rather pointless convention
I doubt you'd think it pointless if the Corbyn administration saw the Socialism (Red in Tooth and Claw) Bill just fail its third reading.
The way around that is a suitable form of PR. It provides a barrier to extremism even if the speaker is partisan, i.e. it's a further check on the executive.
Brussels has PR, Whitehall doesn't.
Blair ditched the Jenkins report, setting out how to implement PR here, when he saw the size of his majority. The other main UK party has never been interested although Hannan supports PR.
Wasn't the main problem that John Prescott was adamantly against it?
Yes, I think so. But she needs to make clear what the extension is supposed to be for, which is why I think an election is quite likely. The only other thing an extension could be used for is a referendum, but there's no way the party will accept that, and almost certainly not Labour and therefore parliament either.
Deal vs Remain. She isn't going to voluntarily have a GE. Crazy as it sounds (given where we are) there are too many unknowns and Jezza back up on the stump would be in his element.
MV3 must come somehow and it must be side letter-related.
Tentative timetable:
- May agrees extension on March 21st - Big People's Vote rally on March 23rd - May makes MV3 on March 25th a free vote subject to a second referendum
Yes, I think so. But she needs to make clear what the extension is supposed to be for, which is why I think an election is quite likely. The only other thing an extension could be used for is a referendum, but there's no way the party will accept that, and almost certainly not Labour and therefore parliament either.
Deal vs Remain. She isn't going to voluntarily have a GE. Crazy as it sounds (given where we are) there are too many unknowns and Jezza back up on the stump would be in his element.
MV3 must come somehow and it must be side letter-related.
Tentative timetable:
- May agrees extension on March 21st - Big People's Vote rally on March 23rd - May makes MV3 on March 25th a free vote subject to a second referendum
TM cannot bring back MV3 so all ideas on amendments including a referendum fall as well
Yes, I think so. But she needs to make clear what the extension is supposed to be for, which is why I think an election is quite likely. The only other thing an extension could be used for is a referendum, but there's no way the party will accept that, and almost certainly not Labour and therefore parliament either.
Deal vs Remain. She isn't going to voluntarily have a GE. Crazy as it sounds (given where we are) there are too many unknowns and Jezza back up on the stump would be in his element.
MV3 must come somehow and it must be side letter-related.
Tentative timetable:
- May agrees extension on March 21st - Big People's Vote rally on March 23rd - May makes MV3 on March 25th a free vote subject to a second referendum
Is there any way that No Dealers could at some point filibuster the business of the House until 30th March? Does a variation of the 29th March date need to go through the House to be validated?
You would have hoped the government would have been abreast of this convention. But, these days, no level of abject incompetence surprises me.
Bercow adheres to convention, and changes convention, as it suits his purposes.
One thing ought to be clear. The Speakership is now a partisan role.
I'd say if anything Bercow was partisanly in favour of the government by allowing MV2 in the first (second?) place.
He himself just explained why MV2 did not fall foul of this rather pointless convention
I doubt you'd think it pointless if the Corbyn administration saw the Socialism (Red in Tooth and Claw) Bill just fail its third reading.
The way around that is a suitable form of PR. It provides a barrier to extremism even if the speaker is partisan, i.e. it's a further check on the executive.
Brussels has PR, Whitehall doesn't.
Blair ditched the Jenkins report, setting out how to implement PR here, when he saw the size of his majority. The other main UK party has never been interested although Hannan supports PR.
Wasn't the main problem that John Prescott was adamantly against it?
That is because he is a knob more interested in the sound of his own voice than respecting Parliament. He isn't a progressive - he is an interventionist who is determined to use the chair for his own ends rather than really working for the benefit of Parliament and voters.
On our friend timmo's "report from a LD insider" (ok) that Tom Brake may stand in the leadership election, fine. I helped in a very small way to get Tom into Parliament in 1997 and he's survived five Conservative attempts to unseat him. He would be a valuable addition to the race and I would certainly like to hear what he has to say.
If MV3 (4,5,6 or whatever) is off the table, the options narrow even further.
So will the EU grant May a long extension? One option might be she would have to revoke A50 now and perhaps in 6-12 months re-start the process with a clearer sense of what we want and what the EU will accept which might mean A50 (2) can be completed in less than 24 months. This is the Clarke/Tusk option.
I can't see the EU granting a long extension without something from the UK and I don't know what conditions might be such that May finds them unacceptable. Forcing a second referendum might be seen to be trampling all over Parliamentary sovereignty.
Taking an EU summit to 28/3 seems wholly unnecessary brinkmanship - if we have to leave without a Deal, so be it otherwise let's take our time, reflect and start the process again in a few months with a much clearer idea of what we want.
Tom Brake standing? It would be the only memorable thing he's done in a 22 year parliamentary career. Other than not wearing a tie
Is there any way that No Dealers could at some point filibuster the business of the House until 30th March? Does a variation of the 29th March date need to go through the House to be validated?
No it can be done by a minister without further reference to the House.
You would have hoped the government would have been abreast of this convention. But, these days, no level of abject incompetence surprises me.
Bercow adheres to convention, and changes convention, as it suits his purposes.
One thing ought to be clear. The Speakership is now a partisan role.
I'd say if anything Bercow was partisanly in favour of the government by allowing MV2 in the first (second?) place.
He himself just explained why MV2 did not fall foul of this rather pointless convention
I doubt you'd think it pointless if the Corbyn administration saw the Socialism (Red in Tooth and Claw) Bill just fail its third reading.
The way around that is a suitable form of PR. It provides a barrier to extremism even if the speaker is partisan, i.e. it's a further check on the executive.
Brussels has PR, Whitehall doesn't.
Blair ditched the Jenkins report, setting out how to implement PR here, when he saw the size of his majority. The other main UK party has never been interested although Hannan supports PR.
Wasn't the main problem that John Prescott was adamantly against it?
Actually, we and the government and the commentariat should have seen this coming - after all, a number of MPs have been pointing to this convention for a while.
Yes, I think so. But she needs to make clear what the extension is supposed to be for, which is why I think an election is quite likely. The only other thing an extension could be used for is a referendum, but there's no way the party will accept that, and almost certainly not Labour and therefore parliament either.
Deal vs Remain. She isn't going to voluntarily have a GE. Crazy as it sounds (given where we are) there are too many unknowns and Jezza back up on the stump would be in his element.
MV3 must come somehow and it must be side letter-related.
Tentative timetable:
- May agrees extension on March 21st - Big People's Vote rally on March 23rd - May makes MV3 on March 25th a free vote subject to a second referendum
Rory is spot on. We are wasting Parliamentary time with this statement. Why not spend every minute between now and 29th March debating and voting to get this thing resolved?
Bercow probably does better than most independents, but not well enough I think.
If there's a GE and the Tories win a majority bercow wouldn't get back in as speaker even if he stood and won in Buckingham If no majority then it barely matters as we'd either have PM jezza or chaos
Is there any way that No Dealers could at some point filibuster the business of the House until 30th March? Does a variation of the 29th March date need to go through the House to be validated?
Yes. The order to change the exit date has to be confirmed by both houses.
I don’t think filibustering is allowed inthe Commons though.
What does May go to the EU with ? What on earth does she say now !
Bercow certainly knows how to place a cat amongst the feathery beings.
A cat isn't the animal that springs to mind. Bercow reminds me more of that old internet meme about "honey badger don't care... honey badger don't give a s---".
If we do somehow finish up going out with No Deal I can see Bercow being thrown to the wolves by Parliament the very next day in the same way Speaker Martin was (rather unfairly) thrown to the wolves over all those dodgy expenses fiddlers...
Martin should never have been there in the first place, he was a roaster of the top order, filled his pockets to the brim and did zilch for his constituents.
You would have hoped the government would have been abreast of this convention. But, these days, no level of abject incompetence surprises me.
Bercow adheres to convention, and changes convention, as it suits his purposes.
One thing ought to be clear. The Speakership is now a partisan role.
I'd say if anything Bercow was partisanly in favour of the government by allowing MV2 in the first (second?) place.
He himself just explained why MV2 did not fall foul of this rather pointless convention
I doubt you'd think it pointless if the Corbyn administration saw the Socialism (Red in Tooth and Claw) Bill just fail its third reading.
The way around that is a suitable form of PR. It provides a barrier to extremism even if the speaker is partisan, i.e. it's a further check on the executive.
Brussels has PR, Whitehall doesn't.
Blair ditched the Jenkins report, setting out how to implement PR here, when he saw the size of his majority. The other main UK party has never been interested although Hannan supports PR.
Do not assume that you can make your electoral system prevent an outcome you don't want. Think Labour in Scotland. They thought they'd be in power for ever after they rigged the Holyrood voting system. Then the SNP outflanked them.
If we do somehow finish up going out with No Deal I can see Bercow being thrown to the wolves by Parliament the very next day in the same way Speaker Martin was (rather unfairly) thrown to the wolves over all those dodgy expenses fiddlers...
Martin should never have been there in the first place, he was a roaster of the top order, filled his pockets to the brim and did zilch for his constituents.
Indeed. But it was still unfair the way a Parliament of expenses fiddlers threw him out to try and save their own skins.
I think Speaker B is heading for a very similar end.
With the benefit of hindsight, the bailout of RBS might have been more profitably managed.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47609536 A payment processing firm that used to be owned by Royal Bank of Scotland has been sold in a deal worth $43bn (£32bn)...
She gets a shot at keeping her job if she jumps to 4).
What are the ERG going to do? What can they do? VONC the government? Perhaps so but then we get GE anyway.
What is the procedure for a second referendum?
Potentially, May bringing forward a MV which is substantially different by including something like "subject to a referendum". I can't see it happening but to be honest I've given up predicting what's happening half an hour out from now...
She gets a shot at keeping her job if she jumps to 4).
What are the ERG going to do? What can they do? VONC the government? Perhaps so but then we get GE anyway.
What is the procedure for a second referendum?
I have no idea how realistic it was but it was mooted that the 1922 Committee could change the rules on challenging the PM and so bring forward another leadership challenge.
On a far more important note, Sam Smith has said he is neither man nor woman. This is in spite of his beard and hairy chest certainly giving him the appearance of one of the two "traditional" gender identities. Still if he wants to be called "Loretta", then we will fight the oppressors for his right....
You would have hoped the government would have been abreast of this convention. But, these days, no level of abject incompetence surprises me.
Bercow adheres to convention, and changes convention, as it suits his purposes.
One thing ought to be clear. The Speakership is now a partisan role.
I'd say if anything Bercow was partisanly in favour of the government by allowing MV2 in the first (second?) place.
He himself just explained why MV2 did not fall foul of this rather pointless convention
I doubt you'd think it pointless if the Corbyn administration saw the Socialism (Red in Tooth and Claw) Bill just fail its third reading.
The way around that is a suitable form of PR. It provides a barrier to extremism even if the speaker is partisan, i.e. it's a further check on the executive.
Brussels has PR, Whitehall doesn't.
Blair ditched the Jenkins report, setting out how to implement PR here, when he saw the size of his majority. The other main UK party has never been interested although Hannan supports PR.
Weimar had PR, didn't it?
What you're seeing in this parliament is a glimpse into what Britain under PR would be like: large parties in hock to small-to-medium-sized fringe ones. The collapse of the Lib Dems means that there isn't a big enough centre.
I'm not sure if it'll be defined by what he's done to Brexit, or by what gets done to him.
It's a stupid rule but it is there in black and white so he has a duty to enforce it.
The "if only I'd known" group will now reflect on what their least worst option is. I can't for the life of me think what it is, that said.
But here is my prediction - May will come on to our screens, say nothing has changed and that work is ongoing to arrive at an agreement with the EU that will a) satisfy the ERG and DUP; and b) fulfil Bercow's requirement for the deal substantially to have changed.
You would have hoped the government would have been abreast of this convention. But, these days, no level of abject incompetence surprises me.
Bercow adheres to convention, and changes convention, as it suits his purposes.
One thing ought to be clear. The Speakership is now a partisan role.
I'd say if anything Bercow was partisanly in favour of the government by allowing MV2 in the first (second?) place.
He himself just explained why MV2 did not fall foul of this rather pointless convention
I doubt you'd think it pointless if the Corbyn administration saw the Socialism (Red in Tooth and Claw) Bill just fail its third reading.
The way around that is a suitable form of PR. It provides a barrier to extremism even if the speaker is partisan, i.e. it's a further check on the executive.
Brussels has PR, Whitehall doesn't.
Blair ditched the Jenkins report, setting out how to implement PR here, when he saw the size of his majority. The other main UK party has never been interested although Hannan supports PR.
Weimar had PR, didn't it?
What you're seeing in this parliament is a glimpse into what Britain under PR would be like: large parties in hock to small-to-medium-sized fringe ones. The collapse of the Lib Dems means that there isn't a big enough centre.
On a far more important note, Sam Smith has said he is neither man nor woman. This is in spite of his beard and hairy chest certainly giving him the appearance of one of the two "traditional" gender identities. Still if he wants to be called "Loretta", then we will fight the oppressors for his right....
I actually thought the biggest news of today was BA's new business class seats... or in TSE's the new ipad or in SeanT's case the porn filtering stuff....
It matters in so far as there is no deal in place and we leave in 11 days, unless TM obtains an extension later this week, with no deal at which point the blame will fall on Bercow
@bbclaurak 23m23 minutes ago More One govt minister tells me Bercow is ‘breaking the constitution’ by stopping them putting forward another vote on the deal
I'm not sure if it'll be defined by what he's done to Brexit, or by what gets done to him.
It's a stupid rule but it is there in black and white so he has a duty to enforce it.
The "if only I'd known" group will now reflect on what their least worst option is. I can't for the life of me think what it is, that said.
But here is my prediction - May will come on to our screens, say nothing has changed and that work is ongoing to arrive at an agreement with the EU that will a) satisfy the ERG and DUP; and b) fulfil Bercow's requirement for the deal substantially to have changed.
I think you are right to say he has to enforce it. The problem is that he has chosen not to enforce it on other occasions.
@bbclaurak Follow Follow @bbclaurak More Laura Kuenssberg Retweeted BBC Politics This might sound a bit boring but it's massive - minister tells me he's now made this a 'constitutional crisis' - as the law stands we are leaving the EU in ten days - Speaker has just said the PM cant have another go at getting her deal through
On a far more important note, Sam Smith has said he is neither man nor woman. This is in spite of his beard and hairy chest certainly giving him the appearance of one of the two "traditional" gender identities. Still if he wants to be called "Loretta", then we will fight the oppressors for his right....
We all really ought to have seen this coming. Plenty of people raised it as a possibility. The convention was always there. Everyone simply psychologically shrugged it off. As if we wanted to pretend it wasn't there. There is not a majority for leaving the EU in Parliament.
If we do somehow finish up going out with No Deal I can see Bercow being thrown to the wolves by Parliament the very next day in the same way Speaker Martin was (rather unfairly) thrown to the wolves over all those dodgy expenses fiddlers...
Martin should never have been there in the first place, he was a roaster of the top order, filled his pockets to the brim and did zilch for his constituents.
Indeed. But it was still unfair the way a Parliament of expenses fiddlers threw him out to try and save their own skins.
I think Speaker B is heading for a very similar end.
It matters in so far as there is no deal in place and we leave in 11 days, unless TM obtains an extension later this week, with no deal at which point the blame will fall on Bercow
Folks at Spectator seemed to think there was a plan already if MV3 failed for MV4 at the point May came back from EU summit with "its this or a 2 year delay - fancy another go"
Comments
Brussels has PR, Whitehall doesn't.
Blair ditched the Jenkins report, setting out how to implement PR here, when he saw the size of his majority. The other main UK party has never been interested although Hannan supports PR.
This is how Brexit ends.
This is how Brexit ends.
Not with a bang, but with a procedural ruling from the Speaker.
So we're not getting anything before July... Extention or No deal is ONLY option now.
- May agrees extension on March 21st
- Big People's Vote rally on March 23rd
- May makes MV3 on March 25th a free vote subject to a second referendum
F**k me....
Not sure this helps remain
General Election
New Speaker
Referendum
How long is the current session of Parliament scheduled to last?
Surely that is the best use of time.
If no majority then it barely matters as we'd either have PM jezza or chaos
I don’t think filibustering is allowed inthe Commons though.
But unless something changes we're leaving the EU in (almost) ten days time with or without a deal...
He really is a knob.
What are the ERG going to do? What can they do? VONC the government? Perhaps so but then we get GE anyway.
What is the procedure for a second referendum?
I think Speaker B is heading for a very similar end.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47609536
A payment processing firm that used to be owned by Royal Bank of Scotland has been sold in a deal worth $43bn (£32bn)...
We can have it on the same day as the EU elections, just for LOLZ.
2 MASSIVE DEFEATS
Motion not changed lets abuse Parliament
I'm not sure if it'll be defined by what he's done to Brexit, or by what gets done to him.
MV3 was going to fail anyway.
But that is what happens when a government doesn't command a parliamentary majority.
What you're seeing in this parliament is a glimpse into what Britain under PR would be like: large parties in hock to small-to-medium-sized fringe ones. The collapse of the Lib Dems means that there isn't a big enough centre.
Bercow was at risk of going over bullying allegations, but strong Labour support helped him to Remain.
The "if only I'd known" group will now reflect on what their least worst option is. I can't for the life of me think what it is, that said.
But here is my prediction - May will come on to our screens, say nothing has changed and that work is ongoing to arrive at an agreement with the EU that will a) satisfy the ERG and DUP; and b) fulfil Bercow's requirement for the deal substantially to have changed.
Prorogue if you dont change your ruling because of time pressure
Bercow Its not me thats caused the time pressure
March 29 and before: 3.3 / 4.3
March 30 and after: 1.32. / 1.47
Verified account
@bbclaurak
23m23 minutes ago
More
One govt minister tells me Bercow is ‘breaking the constitution’ by stopping them putting forward another vote on the deal
Verified account
@bbclaurak
Follow Follow @bbclaurak
More Laura Kuenssberg Retweeted BBC Politics
This might sound a bit boring but it's massive - minister tells me he's now made this a 'constitutional crisis' - as the law stands we are leaving the EU in ten days - Speaker has just said the PM cant have another go at getting her deal through
Everyone simply psychologically shrugged it off.
As if we wanted to pretend it wasn't there.
There is not a majority for leaving the EU in Parliament.