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.
How can history view a bully quite well
Because I don't give a flying **** if, say, Horatio Nelson was a bully.
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.
In a Hung Parliament the Speaker has huge power - as do parties like the DUP. The government must surely have been advised of this possibility. It’s hard to believe it has not sought to find out what the situation might be. It’s been a matter of public discourse for months.
Moral of the story: Not very liquid markets have funny oddities.
Elizabeth Warren is a back at 30-1. Tulsi Gabbard is a lay at 36-1. (Or even 360-1) John Hickenlooper is a back at 75-1. Hilary Clinton is a lay at 85-1. Julian Castro is probably a buy at 130-1 Michelle Obama is a lay at 150-1, but why tie your money up for 18 months for a 0.75% return?
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.
How can history view a bully quite well
Because I don't give a flying **** if, say, Horatio Nelson was a bully.
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
John Bercow is the complete opposite of the previous Speaker Michael Martin, who was completely useless in all respects. He was there for nearly a decade and never did or said anything of any consequence.
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.
How can history view a bully quite well
Because I don't give a flying **** if, say, Horatio Nelson was a bully.
Indeed. Genghis Khan is well thought of in Mongolia.
You're welcome. You can predict the EU's reaction on the basis of what's best for them. It's not unreasonable, but when you sup with them, you need a long spoon. Mrs May was a pussy cat in with a tiger.
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.
How can history view a bully quite well
History does view bullies quite well. Steve Jobs, for instance. Or Edison, if you take the definition of bully far enough into a previous culture.
In fact, I'd argue that 'bullying'-style behaviour is very common amongst the successful, as often you need to tread on others in order to reach the top. Witness the trouble that Hollywood's got itself into.
It doesn't have to be like that, but all too often it is.
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.
No Deal is off the table. So is May's deal.
No Deal is still in rude good health. Westminster has said it should be shot, discussed weaponry but so far nobody has actually drawn a bead on it....
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.
How can history view a bully quite well
Because I don't give a flying **** if, say, Horatio Nelson was a bully.
Indeed. Genghis Khan is well thought of in Mongolia.
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.
There is no "deal". There is instead an interim capitulation on the terms of further negotiations. Entering the next phase of negotiations with the UK's arm tied behind our back, it offers the prospect of a settlement every bit as good or probably better for the EU than Remain. The EU would be quite happy for the UK to sign up for that, both in its own terms and also because it would avoid the risk to the EU that the UK could leave before any interim deal is struck.
"Every single important issue is still up for negotiation; and whether by accident or design, the UK will enter the second phase of the talks – if this deal goes through – in a position of almost unbearable weakness. We will have handed over huge sums of taxpayers’ money (far more than was necessary) for nothing in return. We will be legally and politically at the mercy of Brussels, since we will be obliged to accept all EU legislation, during the so-called implementation period: the first time since the Norman Conquest that a foreign power has passed the laws of this country. Worst of all, the Irish backstop arrangement gives the EU an indefinite means of blackmail, so that they will be able to keep us locked in the customs union and large parts of the single market, unless we are prepared to abandon Northern Ireland; and they will use this blackmail to get their way throughout the negotiations, notably over the free movement of people."
I prefer to see it as an Apollo 13 situation. They are trapped on board and have to be creative, and involve rubber bands, cornflakes packets and sticky-back plastic to sort this out.
Yep the HoC will certainly legislate against No Deal in the next week if the EU doesn't do it by extension. So it's risible to see Brexiteers still clinging to this.
The real cat among the pigeons would be outright revocation. Blimey. I have to say that as someone who wants us to Remain I don't think we should revoke. I'd rather a vote on it. Otherwise there's a very reasonable case for a riot ...
I prefer to see it as an Apollo 13 situation. They are trapped on board and have to be creative, and involve rubber bands, cornflakes packets and sticky-back plastic to sort this out.
As for next steps, Mrs May is going to have to try something different. She can propose leaving with no deal, she can propose offering her deal for further consideration but only if ratified by a referendum or she can propose to revoke for a further heated debate all round. Perhaps she can think of something different but she hasn't been marked by imagination up to this point.
You're welcome. You can predict the EU's reaction on the basis of what's best for them. It's not unreasonable, but when you sup with them, you need a long spoon. Mrs May was a pussy cat in with a tiger.
When we were part of the club there were many things that were done with no publicity that were in our interest and in the interest of the other 27, but not in the interest of those outside the club. The bizarre thing about all this is that governments are supposed to act in the best interests of the country. Brexit is the antithesis of this concept, which is why it has become a dogs dinner, and why May is in a lose-lose. She knows it and so do the remainder of the EU.
As for next steps, Mrs May is going to have to try something different. She can propose leaving with no deal, she can propose offering her deal for further consideration but only if ratified by a referendum or she can propose to revoke for a further heated debate all round. Perhaps she can think of something different but she hasn't been marked by imagination up to this point.
Aiming for CU in the PD agreed with JC is another option. That has the advantage that both COrbyn and May would be whipping in favour, so it should pass.
Today, those MPs who have actually read Erskine May are at a distinct advantage.
Which probably means about 10% of them ...
I bet JRM has it on his bedside table...
Probably. Which makes it seem odd that he and his fellow ERGers have painted themselves (and us) into this corner.
Which means I should probably amend my original sentence to: "Today, those MPs who have actually read and understood Erskine May are at a distinct advantage."
You're welcome. You can predict the EU's reaction on the basis of what's best for them. It's not unreasonable, but when you sup with them, you need a long spoon. Mrs May was a pussy cat in with a tiger.
When we were part of the club there were many things that were done with no publicity that were in our interest and in the interest of the other 27, but not in the interest of those outside the club. The bizarre thing about all this is that governments are supposed to act in the best interests of the country. Brexit is the antithesis of this concept, which is why it has become a dogs dinner, and why May is in a lose-lose. She knows it and so do the remainder of the EU.
Sadly they were of no interest to much of the British Press. Unless they could be twisted to appear to our detriment.
If we are in no position to leave the EU at this point, it is solely down to a dissembling Remainer PM and Chancellor who utterly failed to make proper preparations for that course.
As for next steps, Mrs May is going to have to try something different. She can propose leaving with no deal, she can propose offering her deal for further consideration but only if ratified by a referendum or she can propose to revoke for a further heated debate all round. Perhaps she can think of something different but she hasn't been marked by imagination up to this point.
Aiming for CU in the PD agreed with JC is another option. That has the advantage that both COrbyn and May would be whipping in favour, so it should pass.
Cobbling together a cross party fudge for the PD could do it “explore options including.....”
As for next steps, Mrs May is going to have to try something different. She can propose leaving with no deal, she can propose offering her deal for further consideration but only if ratified by a referendum or she can propose to revoke for a further heated debate all round. Perhaps she can think of something different but she hasn't been marked by imagination up to this point.
I don't think a proposal to leave with no deal would pass the Bercow test. The House convincingly rejected that last week.
Just to be clear, although a Remainer I'm very uncomfortable about revoking Article 50 unless it's solely to prevent No Deal, which would clearly damage this country.
Fact is, we did have a vote and, whilst deeply flawed, we can't move on unless there's an informed debate and a new vote on options.
Otherwise the already damaged trust in our democracy will be wrecked.
As for next steps, Mrs May is going to have to try something different. She can propose leaving with no deal, she can propose offering her deal for further consideration but only if ratified by a referendum or she can propose to revoke for a further heated debate all round. Perhaps she can think of something different but she hasn't been marked by imagination up to this point.
I don't think a proposal to leave with no deal would pass the Bercow test. The House convincingly rejected that last week.
I expect the Speaker would allow a reprise of a proposal previously voted upon if it now had the endorsement of the government and it didn't previously. The new circumstance would be that this represented a change in government policy.
Meanwhile, on the Betfair Democratic nomination market, Andrew Yang was last traded at 15. Is he going to be 2020's Rand Paul?
I doubt he is going to do anything.
Superficially he comes across well, his big thing is the oncoming rise of Machine Learning / AI making many jobs obsolete and how a universal basic income is the solution.
The problem is his main proposal on that is totally unworkable, and then once you get past that into other areas, it soon goes to even more unrealistic territory.
As for next steps, Mrs May is going to have to try something different. She can propose leaving with no deal, she can propose offering her deal for further consideration but only if ratified by a referendum or she can propose to revoke for a further heated debate all round. Perhaps she can think of something different but she hasn't been marked by imagination up to this point.
I don't think a proposal to leave with no deal would pass the Bercow test. The House convincingly rejected that last week.
I expect the Speaker would allow a reprise of a proposal previously voted upon if it now had the endorsement of the government and it didn't previously. The new circumstance would be that this represented a change in government policy.
And if tabled by the Government rather than an amendment to a motion. Ticks his boxes.
Bercow is just trolling the Tories, 10 Jan he;s not bound by precendent, today he is.
Just shows then idiots should have removed him when they had the chance
As I hinted below with Bill Cash today he seems to be quite liked by some in the ERG and Bercow returns the favour in that oily way of his. I think if all 317 Tory MPs had voted to remove him he would have been gone.
Moral of the story: Not very liquid markets have funny oddities.
Elizabeth Warren is a back at 30-1. Tulsi Gabbard is a lay at 36-1. (Or even 360-1) John Hickenlooper is a back at 75-1. Hilary Clinton is a lay at 85-1. Julian Castro is probably a buy at 130-1 Michelle Obama is a lay at 150-1, but why tie your money up for 18 months for a 0.75% return?
I'm red on Michelle Obama, but only because I'd already laid someone else so could bet the same money again against her without tying up anything more. Increases the return on the main lay by 0.75% over 18 months...
Today, those MPs who have actually read Erskine May are at a distinct advantage.
Which probably means about 10% of them ...
I bet JRM has it on his bedside table...
Probably. Which makes it seem odd that he and his fellow ERGers have painted themselves (and us) into this corner.
Which means I should probably amend my original sentence to: "Today, those MPs who have actually read and understood Erskine May are at a distinct advantage."
The percentage who do would be significantly lower than 10%.
My hot take on Bercow’s ruling: it makes very little practical difference, but does provide a lot of cover for a lot of people to justify decisions they were going to make anyway.
Meanwhile, on the Betfair Democratic nomination market, Andrew Yang was last traded at 15. Is he going to be 2020's Rand Paul?
As the man whose money it was matched at 15 (on the lay side), I hope not. Of course, I lost thousands laying Trump for the nominee in 2016, so never say never.
If he targeted a relative and shot people who tried to intervene, it doesn't sound like a classic terrorist attack.
Caveat is that it is a family member in Turkey saying this. The other reports are that he has been a Jihadi and known ISIS supporter.
However, perhaps in this case, known terrorist face who is a career criminal, does something criminal, rather than terrorist motivated, but given his past the authorities jump to the wrong motivate.
Meanwhile, on the Betfair Democratic nomination market, Andrew Yang was last traded at 15. Is he going to be 2020's Rand Paul?
I'm red on him.
Isn't everyone?
I think everyone on this site, fortunately there are true believers in wacky causes out there who fund us lot. Some true believers in wacky causes here too, come to think of it. I've been one of them, come to think of it again.
Meanwhile, on the Betfair Democratic nomination market, Andrew Yang was last traded at 15. Is he going to be 2020's Rand Paul?
As the man whose money it was matched at 15 (on the lay side), I hope not. Of course, I lost thousands laying Trump for the nominee in 2016, so never say never.
Meanwhile, on the Betfair Democratic nomination market, Andrew Yang was last traded at 15. Is he going to be 2020's Rand Paul?
As the man whose money it was matched at 15 (on the lay side), I hope not. Of course, I lost thousands laying Trump for the nominee in 2016, so never say never.
You wouldn't have lost money laying Rand Paul.
Or Ron Paul in 2008, who Yang's supporters remind me of.
As for next steps, Mrs May is going to have to try something different. She can propose leaving with no deal, she can propose offering her deal for further consideration but only if ratified by a referendum or she can propose to revoke for a further heated debate all round. Perhaps she can think of something different but she hasn't been marked by imagination up to this point.
I don't think a proposal to leave with no deal would pass the Bercow test. The House convincingly rejected that last week.
I expect the Speaker would allow a reprise of a proposal previously voted upon if it now had the endorsement of the government and it didn't previously. The new circumstance would be that this represented a change in government policy.
Possibly yes. But the government will not propose no deal, it will be either revocation or delay. And in either case May will have to go I think. She could be forced into the humiliating position of asking the EU for a delay so she can resign and a successor can try and come up with a new plan.
If he targeted a relative and shot people who tried to intervene, it doesn't sound like a classic terrorist attack.
Caveat is that it is a family member in Turkey saying this. The other reports are that he has been a Jihadi and known ISIS supporter.
However, perhaps in this case, known terrorist face who is a career criminal, does something criminal, rather than terrorist motivated, but given his past the authorities jump to the wrong motivate.
Yep. Time will tell.
It might even be had dual motivations: I hate person A, and can get my own back on him and perform an act my ISIS buddies will like...
If we are in no position to leave the EU at this point, it is solely down to a dissembling Remainer PM and Chancellor who utterly failed to make proper preparations for that course.
If May is a Remainer then she's played a blinder by making it look like it was the Leaver fanatics that torpedoed their own Brexit. Whilst I grant that anyone who can climb the greasy pole must have some nous about them, I think that would be simply out of her league.
If he targeted a relative and shot people who tried to intervene, it doesn't sound like a classic terrorist attack.
Caveat is that it is a family member in Turkey saying this. The other reports are that he has been a Jihadi and known ISIS supporter.
However, perhaps in this case, known terrorist face who is a career criminal, does something criminal, rather than terrorist motivated, but given his past the authorities jump to the wrong motivate.
Yep. Time will tell.
It might even be had dual motivations: I hate person A, and can get my own back on him and perform an act my ISIS buddies will like...
Or rather I can justify my criminality by pretending it's for a greater, god-ordained cause.
If we are in no position to leave the EU at this point, it is solely down to a dissembling Remainer PM and Chancellor who utterly failed to make proper preparations for that course.
If May is a Remainer then she's played a blinder by making it look like it was the Leaver fanatics that torpedoed their own Brexit. Whilst I grant that anyone who can climb the greasy pole must have some nous about them, I think that would be simply out of her league.
Yes, the ERG have certainly played their part on behalf of Remain.
As for next steps, Mrs May is going to have to try something different. She can propose leaving with no deal, she can propose offering her deal for further consideration but only if ratified by a referendum or she can propose to revoke for a further heated debate all round. Perhaps she can think of something different but she hasn't been marked by imagination up to this point.
I don't think a proposal to leave with no deal would pass the Bercow test. The House convincingly rejected that last week.
I expect the Speaker would allow a reprise of a proposal previously voted upon if it now had the endorsement of the government and it didn't previously. The new circumstance would be that this represented a change in government policy.
Possibly yes. But the government will not propose no deal, it will be either revocation or delay. And in either case May will have to go I think. She could be forced into the humiliating position of asking the EU for a delay so she can resign and a successor can try and come up with a new plan.
The Government does not have to propose no deal. It simply has to do nothing and No Deal happens on 29th March.
As for next steps, Mrs May is going to have to try something different. She can propose leaving with no deal, she can propose offering her deal for further consideration but only if ratified by a referendum or she can propose to revoke for a further heated debate all round. Perhaps she can think of something different but she hasn't been marked by imagination up to this point.
I don't think a proposal to leave with no deal would pass the Bercow test. The House convincingly rejected that last week.
I expect the Speaker would allow a reprise of a proposal previously voted upon if it now had the endorsement of the government and it didn't previously. The new circumstance would be that this represented a change in government policy.
And if tabled by the Government rather than an amendment to a motion. Ticks his boxes.
No Deal won't happen. Rightly so too.
I don't want no deal any more than you do. However the optics of article 50 being revoked on 29 March in order to block no deal are dangerous for the Tory party even if Tory MPs are powerless in this matter. I seriously don't think it will come to that stage.
Andrew Yang won't be the nominee, but if he gets a job as perhaps an entrepreneur tsar in say a Biden administration then he can remove some of Trump's base in the General. It's a very specific part of Trump's base, but I contend it definitely exists.
As for next steps, Mrs May is going to have to try something different. She can propose leaving with no deal, she can propose offering her deal for further consideration but only if ratified by a referendum or she can propose to revoke for a further heated debate all round. Perhaps she can think of something different but she hasn't been marked by imagination up to this point.
I don't think a proposal to leave with no deal would pass the Bercow test. The House convincingly rejected that last week.
I expect the Speaker would allow a reprise of a proposal previously voted upon if it now had the endorsement of the government and it didn't previously. The new circumstance would be that this represented a change in government policy.
Possibly yes. But the government will not propose no deal, it will be either revocation or delay. And in either case May will have to go I think. She could be forced into the humiliating position of asking the EU for a delay so she can resign and a successor can try and come up with a new plan.
The Government does not have to propose no deal. It simply has to do nothing and No Deal happens on 29th March.
In breach of Parliament's stated desire last Thursday (not that desire = something that will occur)..
As for next steps, Mrs May is going to have to try something different. She can propose leaving with no deal, she can propose offering her deal for further consideration but only if ratified by a referendum or she can propose to revoke for a further heated debate all round. Perhaps she can think of something different but she hasn't been marked by imagination up to this point.
I don't think a proposal to leave with no deal would pass the Bercow test. The House convincingly rejected that last week.
I expect the Speaker would allow a reprise of a proposal previously voted upon if it now had the endorsement of the government and it didn't previously. The new circumstance would be that this represented a change in government policy.
Possibly yes. But the government will not propose no deal, it will be either revocation or delay. And in either case May will have to go I think. She could be forced into the humiliating position of asking the EU for a delay so she can resign and a successor can try and come up with a new plan.
The Government does not have to propose no deal. It simply has to do nothing and No Deal happens on 29th March.
As for next steps, Mrs May is going to have to try something different. She can propose leaving with no deal, she can propose offering her deal for further consideration but only if ratified by a referendum or she can propose to revoke for a further heated debate all round. Perhaps she can think of something different but she hasn't been marked by imagination up to this point.
I don't think a proposal to leave with no deal would pass the Bercow test. The House convincingly rejected that last week.
I expect the Speaker would allow a reprise of a proposal previously voted upon if it now had the endorsement of the government and it didn't previously. The new circumstance would be that this represented a change in government policy.
Possibly yes. But the government will not propose no deal, it will be either revocation or delay. And in either case May will have to go I think. She could be forced into the humiliating position of asking the EU for a delay so she can resign and a successor can try and come up with a new plan.
The Government does not have to propose no deal. It simply has to do nothing and No Deal happens on 29th March.
If the government does nothing parliament will certainly do something. If it comes to it, it will send Bercow to Brussels bearing a revocation letter.
My hot take on Bercow’s ruling: it makes very little practical difference, but does provide a lot of cover for a lot of people to justify decisions they were going to make anyway.
That is the way I see it and TM is probably quietly pleased as it has stopped the MV hastle this week so she can go to the EU and see where it takes her.
Sky saying that it had also stopped a second referendum and indeed if an attempt was made to bring it back Bercow's ruling would make it inadmissable as it has already been voted on
In truth Bercow may have trumped both no deal ERG members and remainers in one ruling
As for next steps, Mrs May is going to have to try something different. She can propose leaving with no deal, she can propose offering her deal for further consideration but only if ratified by a referendum or she can propose to revoke for a further heated debate all round. Perhaps she can think of something different but she hasn't been marked by imagination up to this point.
I don't think a proposal to leave with no deal would pass the Bercow test. The House convincingly rejected that last week.
I expect the Speaker would allow a reprise of a proposal previously voted upon if it now had the endorsement of the government and it didn't previously. The new circumstance would be that this represented a change in government policy.
Possibly yes. But the government will not propose no deal, it will be either revocation or delay. And in either case May will have to go I think. She could be forced into the humiliating position of asking the EU for a delay so she can resign and a successor can try and come up with a new plan.
The Government does not have to propose no deal. It simply has to do nothing and No Deal happens on 29th March.
In breach of Parliament's stated desire last Thursday (not that desire = something that will occur)..
Parliament advised the government last week that they didn't want No Deal... But they agreed to No Deal in law when they invoked A50.
It's not as simple as all that. It's true MV3 looked like it would fail, and Bercow has something to back up his view this time. But it is also true that he doesn't care about precedent when it causes something he wants, so it is also fair to question his actions
It's interesting that across the internet there's surprisingly little anger directed at Bercow on this occasion.
I think it's because, let's face it, this was an unloved deal. For just about everyone.
Yes, that's probably right. He is fortunate to be in a position where most people won't really know whether there are any complexities he has ignored (or not) to suit his own ends, and the only people who will care are in parliament, and over half will always back him up over the government anyway.
Comments
https://twitter.com/ecegoksedef/status/1107642439408513024
Tulsi Gabbard is a lay at 36-1. (Or even 360-1)
John Hickenlooper is a back at 75-1.
Hilary Clinton is a lay at 85-1.
Julian Castro is probably a buy at 130-1
Michelle Obama is a lay at 150-1, but why tie your money up for 18 months for a 0.75% return?
Bercow says the house is the custodian of its own standing orders, and so the answer is yes.
So if a majority is happy to vote for a third time, it can happen - otherwise not.
Which seems reasonable.
Even if Bercow is a disagreeably self-important sort.
Citing Nelson as a point of comparison to Bercow is an abuse of history so flagrant even Mr. Eagles would blush to make it!
"Hilarious."
You're welcome. You can predict the EU's reaction on the basis of what's best for them. It's not unreasonable, but when you sup with them, you need a long spoon. Mrs May was a pussy cat in with a tiger.
In fact, I'd argue that 'bullying'-style behaviour is very common amongst the successful, as often you need to tread on others in order to reach the top. Witness the trouble that Hollywood's got itself into.
It doesn't have to be like that, but all too often it is.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/17/back-pms-deal-need-proof-next-stage-brexit-talks-will-radically/
"Every single important issue is still up for negotiation; and whether by accident or design, the UK will enter the second phase of the talks – if this deal goes through – in a position of almost unbearable weakness. We will have handed over huge sums of taxpayers’ money (far more than was necessary) for nothing in return. We will be legally and politically at the mercy of Brussels, since we will be obliged to accept all EU legislation, during the so-called implementation period: the first time since the Norman Conquest that a foreign power has passed the laws of this country. Worst of all, the Irish backstop arrangement gives the EU an indefinite means of blackmail, so that they will be able to keep us locked in the customs union and large parts of the single market, unless we are prepared to abandon Northern Ireland; and they will use this blackmail to get their way throughout the negotiations, notably over the free movement of people."
(Though that would be unfair to our other worst PM of recent times.)
What are the odds they vote to have it, then vote it down?
The real cat among the pigeons would be outright revocation. Blimey. I have to say that as someone who wants us to Remain I don't think we should revoke. I'd rather a vote on it. Otherwise there's a very reasonable case for a riot ...
That would waste another few days. As it is, a solution has to be found now.
Which probably means about 10% of them ...
"I see no shits" ?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/uk-could-be-refused-extension-if-pm-fails-to-get-commons-agreement-a4094596.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1552923813
They're stupid, useless winnets.
Which means I should probably amend my original sentence to: "Today, those MPs who have actually read and understood Erskine May are at a distinct advantage."
Bercow is just trolling the Tories, 10 Jan he;s not bound by precendent, today he is.
Just shows then idiots should have removed him when they had the chance
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6821647/Gunman-opens-fire-tram-Holland-wounding-people.html
Fact is, we did have a vote and, whilst deeply flawed, we can't move on unless there's an informed debate and a new vote on options.
Otherwise the already damaged trust in our democracy will be wrecked.
Superficially he comes across well, his big thing is the oncoming rise of Machine Learning / AI making many jobs obsolete and how a universal basic income is the solution.
The problem is his main proposal on that is totally unworkable, and then once you get past that into other areas, it soon goes to even more unrealistic territory.
No Deal won't happen. Rightly so too.
However, perhaps in this case, known terrorist face who is a career criminal, does something criminal, rather than terrorist motivated, but given his past the authorities jump to the wrong motivate.
It might even be had dual motivations: I hate person A, and can get my own back on him and perform an act my ISIS buddies will like...
She'll love that!
It's a very specific part of Trump's base, but I contend it definitely exists.
Eventually the penny will drop.
If this could be amended then that could be interesting .
Sky saying that it had also stopped a second referendum and indeed if an attempt was made to bring it back Bercow's ruling would make it inadmissable as it has already been voted on
In truth Bercow may have trumped both no deal ERG members and remainers in one ruling
I think it's because, let's face it, this was an unloved deal. For just about everyone.