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.
It's not a stupid rule - it's pretty standard in politics, even humble Labour party branches have it - prevents idiots with bees in their bonnet bringing back the same old boll*cks at every meeting. Or trying to browbeat people into voting for something they don't really think is a good idea just to get the topic to go away.
It is also good for the UK's negotiating position because the EU knows now that the deal is dead unless they offer more. The EU are effectively negotiating now with Bercow as to what constitutes "significant change".
MV3 cannot come back so nothing to amend. Remainers haven't thought it through
Remainers think all roads lead to Remain...
But unless something changes we're leaving the EU in (almost) ten days time with or without a deal...
Wrong assumption, there at e a lot of us who have opposed the lunacy but realise we cannot remain. People who support leave have made us such a laughing stock we cannot remain in the EU. It is now a question of what type of leave we have to endure with damage limitation. We will probably have to grovel our way back in in 20 years time.
As I have said many times, there is no mandate for leaving without a deal, and hopefully not even this government with it's tendency to appease thickos will not let it happen. Extension of A50 or a further embarrassment of revocation followed by reissue. It will turn into the Brexit hokey cokey .
Ha, knew Bercow would act to stop the government getting a third go. Anyone who balked at MV2 on the basis they intended to go for MV3 looking silly. Not sure why theres surprise, he as much as said he'd do this.
Frankly the way Erskine mentions it you could justify bringing anything back if you really wanted but there is that presumption and it is up to the speaker to decide.
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.
That's what I suggested immediately. This could be helpful to May as if the EU want the deal signing they need to now agree a change rather than just relying on MPs changing their minds.
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.
There are, I think, signs of a LD revival.
Nope, there are signs of Con/Lab uselessness, and signs of LD activists being motivated by meaningless district council by-elections in the middle of winter.
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)...
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....
And all this for an agreement about withdrawing. We have to fo it all agai gor the future relationship. As my old man would say screw that for a game of soldiers
Can I amend a previous comment? I said MPs were now thought of somewhere between lawyers and child-molesters. I think child-molesters just moved up one place.
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....
James Gray talking utter bollocks on R5L. Speaker is thwarting Brexit, by preventing a vote on this. Something he has voted against twice! (Which played NO part whatsoever in thwarting it obvs).
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.
GIN , he will go out a hero
He should not make such decisions to be a remainer hero. But in this case he has more to justify his decision anyway.
The Kyle Amendment (Pass MV subject to a referendum), as others have noted downthread, is DEAD too now.
It isn't because isn't substantially different to the TIG amendment.
Yes but the main motion is dead, so there is nothing to attach an amendment too.
I see what you mean. Yes, but if the government wan't to bring another meaningful vote it will need to pre-amend its own motion to make it different, so it could go for something like the Kyle amendment.
Ha, knew Bercow would act to stop the government getting a third go. Anyone who balked at MV2 on the basis they intended to go for MV3 looking silly. Not sure why theres surprise, he as much as said he'd do this.
Frankly the way Erskine mentions it you could justify bringing anything back if you really wanted but there is that presumption and it is up to the speaker to decide.
No Brexit here we come.
Or if May is so minded (I don't think she is but....) No Deal.
My take on this is that Bercow is a) enforcing the constitutional rules and b) telling May that if she wants MV3 she needs to be sure she has a majority/or is very close to a majority.
I think he'll allow a vote if she has the numbers.
To be fair it is taking the piss bringing a vote back just to get mullered again.
@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
She didn't want this but she did warn people not to keep voting down her deal. That would take away any part of it being bercows call.
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 now need to dust off the most arcane bits of parliamentary convention - what's involved in proroguing and starting a new session, and how long does it take?
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....
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....
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....
Who is Sam Smith?
A singer. Or a "pop singer" if you are the sort of person who still insists on calling the radio "the wireless"
My take on this is that Bercow is a) enforcing the constitutional rules and b) telling May that if she wants MV3 she needs to be sure she has a majority/or is very close to a majority.
I think he'll allow a vote if she has the numbers.
To be fair it is taking the piss bringing a vote back just to get mullered again.
The problem (and joy) of our constitution is that our rules are not rules.
There is too much power in the hands of the Speaker on this particular subject - particularly when we have a Speaker who chooses to only follow convention when it suits him.
We are living through dangerous times when the Speaker is seeking to be so active in political matters.
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.
It's not a stupid rule - it's pretty standard in politics, even humble Labour party branches have it - prevents idiots with bees in their bonnet bringing back the same old boll*cks at every meeting. Or trying to browbeat people into voting for something they don't really think is a good idea just to get the topic to go away.
Just like May is doing with the WA..
I appreciate it might be sensible if Mrs Dickensworth wants it to be party policy to distribute fruit fancies outside Morrisons, but we are talking about the immediate future of our country and in that context it is stupid.
No point holding on to one sensible element in a world of madness because it breaks the space-time continuum.
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.
That's what I suggested immediately. This could be helpful to May as if the EU want the deal signing they need to now agree a change rather than just relying on MPs changing their minds.
We now need to dust off the most arcane bits of parliamentary convention - what's involved in proroguing and starting a new session, and how long does it take?
James Gray talking utter bollocks on R5L. Speaker is thwarting Brexit, by preventing a vote on this. Something he has voted against twice! (Which played NO part whatsoever in thwarting it obvs).
What does May go to the EU with ? What on earth does she say now !
Amend the deal.
They won't. Try another idea.
Prorogue Parliament to 1 April.
And how does that help?
Start the new session having Brexited and address how we move on rather than whether to extend/revoke/leave with a deal/leave without a deal. Will end the uncertainty and actually do something.
If Parliament were prorogued would the Speaker have to be dragged to the chair [ie could he be challenged] at the start of the new session, or does that only happen after elections?
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....
Who is Sam Smith?
A singer. Or a "pop singer" if you are the sort of person who still insists on calling the radio "the wireless"
Anyone who thinks a Brexit reversal that will lead to a halving of the Tory membership and their vote collapsing on 2nd May is unimportant should note recent history has demonstrated parties don't recover well from the decimation of their activist and councillor base. One of the reasons the Lib Dem revival has not yet occurred.
Bercow's got immense power at the moment, and I think that he might be enjoying wielding it.
He has grown on me. Mainly because he seems to wind up some fairly repulsive people on the Tory right I have to confess! That aside, I think history will judge him quite well if it overlooks his alleged bullying.
Has any parliament ever tied itself up in so many knots as this one ? It's not even all remain way traffic with a blocking majority against the EU-ref and the Benn amendment.
It was very distasteful and the way he spoke to her is going to cause great concern among female mps. He is arrogant and has got himself too deeply into controversy
Bercow's little eyes were sparking and he seemed to be enjoying himself. At keast, someone was happy. I can't see the EU changing anything now they have the backwind from the UK Parliament. So why should they?
Instead, they'll force Mrs May to hold another referendum (they have form), and hope for a narrow Remain vote. Relish a neutered UK presence in the EU. Gins all round for Juncker and his pals.
Bercow has been clear he is servant of the house. If, and it is not clear they would agree, the house by majority demanded they be allowed to vote on the deal again, and make whatever procedural changes necessary to allow that, how does he then say no given his usual logic?
Not that that seems a very sensible course, messing around like that in a panic rarely helps
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.
That's what I suggested immediately. This could be helpful to May as if the EU want the deal signing they need to now agree a change rather than just relying on MPs changing their minds.
They may not want a deal though.
Including permanent membership of the customs union would be a significant change.
Honestly, the ERG have shown themselves for months to be total incompetents. Think about the complete fiasco over No Confidence in Theresa May.
They are now desperately clinging to the idea that we will exit on No Deal.
No we won't. The House of Commons has already rejected that option and it will only take an MP to table an emergency measure for revocation or statute.
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.
That's what I suggested immediately. This could be helpful to May as if the EU want the deal signing they need to now agree a change rather than just relying on MPs changing their minds.
They may not want a deal though.
They dont. They want us to remain.
Na, I think we might well have overstayed our welcome. I think many in the EU will happily see the backs of "us", or at least where "us" means the head banging swivel-eyed fraternity that are irrationally convinced of British superiority in all matters.
This deal is only the first stage of leaving the EU: the real work begins afterwards. And yet we've proven unable to get even this deal past parliament, and all this farting about will have seriously pissed off the EU. They must be heartily sick of us now.
Even if it now passes by either a bending of parliamentary convention or an EU concession, it does not bode well for the rest of the process: either on our side or the EU's.
A clean start might be the best way out of this mess.
Methinks Prologuing Parliment is the only solution.
Otherwise, Parliment cannot do anything....simple as that.
Wouldn’t that require a state opening and Queen’s Speech to kick off the “new” session though?
That's a problem. It is convention for a QS to contain some government policies.
"My government will bring forward the WA, again.... er that's it."
Whilst I don't think the Queen will intervene per se, I could see her forcefully advise TM that she's opposed to prorogation as it would draw her into a partisan issue.
Bercow's got immense power at the moment, and I think that he might be enjoying wielding it.
He has grown on me. Mainly because he seems to wind up some fairly repulsive people on the Tory right I have to confess! That aside, I think history will judge him quite well if it overlooks his alleged bullying.
This deal is only the first stage of leaving the EU: the real work begins afterwards. And yet we've proven unable to get even this deal past parliament, and all this farting about will have seriously pissed off the EU. They must be heartily sick of us now.
Even if it now passes by either a bending of parliamentary convention or an EU concession, it does not bode well for the rest of the process: either on our side or the EU's.
A clean start might be the best way out of this mess.
I'm starting to think you're right. A clean slate then rebuild from there.
Hypothetically, if May asks the Commons to vote on revocation of Article 50 (let's say she gives her party a free vote and they split roughly down the middle), what do Labour do in response?
Bercow's got immense power at the moment, and I think that he might be enjoying wielding it.
He has grown on me. Mainly because he seems to wind up some fairly repulsive people on the Tory right I have to confess! That aside, I think history will judge him quite well if it overlooks his alleged bullying.
The alleged bullying that came to light at just the moment it would have been convenient to get him out of the speaker's chair?
Bercow's little eyes were sparking and he seemed to be enjoying himself. At keast, someone was happy. I can't see the EU changing anything now they have the backwind from the UK Parliament. So why should they?
Instead, they'll force Mrs May to hold another referendum (they have form), and hope for a narrow Remain vote. Relish a neutered UK presence in the EU. Gins all round for Juncker and his pals.
Hilarious. Thanks for the best example I have seen in a while of nationalistic paranoia. The interesting thing about nationalism is its mix of superiority and inferiority all wrapped up in one. The cunning furriners are out to get us even through we are much better than they are.
Comments
Just like May is doing with the WA..
As I have said many times, there is no mandate for leaving without a deal, and hopefully not even this government with it's tendency to appease thickos will not let it happen. Extension of A50 or a further embarrassment of revocation followed by reissue. It will turn into the Brexit hokey cokey .
Frankly the way Erskine mentions it you could justify bringing anything back if you really wanted but there is that presumption and it is up to the speaker to decide.
No Brexit here we come.
They may not want a deal though.
As my old man would say screw that for a game of soldiers
Sack 'em all. Start again with a fresh batch.
Indeed labour now asking how they can put their amendments - panic happening
Which is simply nonsense.
Otherwise, Parliment cannot do anything....simple as that.
I think he'll allow a vote if she has the numbers.
To be fair it is taking the piss bringing a vote back just to get mullered again.
Lucky for him to actually have some precedent sometime. It's very important when it aligns with what he wants.
There is too much power in the hands of the Speaker on this particular subject - particularly when we have a Speaker who chooses to only follow convention when it suits him.
We are living through dangerous times when the Speaker is seeking to be so active in political matters.
No point holding on to one sensible element in a world of madness because it breaks the space-time continuum.
In recent decades, when Parliament has met all the year round, the prorogation of one session has usually been followed by the opening of a new session of Parliament a few days later.
Which doesn't help much.
Prorogation is instituted by the Sovereign on the advice of the Privy Council.
Mr. Difficile, maybe he's a berdache?
Instead, they'll force Mrs May to hold another referendum (they have form), and hope for a narrow Remain vote. Relish a neutered UK presence in the EU. Gins all round for Juncker and his pals.
1) Prorogue Parliament until 1 April
2) Failing that, call a GE
Not that that seems a very sensible course, messing around like that in a panic rarely helps
They are now desperately clinging to the idea that we will exit on No Deal.
No we won't. The House of Commons has already rejected that option and it will only take an MP to table an emergency measure for revocation or statute.
No Deal is off the table. So is May's deal.
Even if it now passes by either a bending of parliamentary convention or an EU concession, it does not bode well for the rest of the process: either on our side or the EU's.
A clean start might be the best way out of this mess.
Pre-referendum?
Post vote, pre-article 50?
And they would need a parliamentary majority to vote for a GE.
"How can history view a bully quite well."
The old ones are the best. "Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"
Elizabeth Warren: 30/46
Tulsi Gabbard: 34/36
John Hickenlooper: 75/120
Hillary Clinton: 70/85
Julian Castro: 130/170
Michelle Obama: 140/150
Moral of the story: Not very liquid markets have funny oddities.
(All prices to be nominee)
Well, all of us except the government.