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
Does it really matter ?
At the end of the day, a majority of parliament can trump a Speaker's ruling (as Bercow himself explicitly recognised this afternoon regarding MV3). Bercow has put Parliament back in charge of what happens next (if it can make its mind up).
The alternative is making Parliament the plaything of the executive, even when it doesn't command a majority on the issue in question.
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.
The danger for Bercow is the law of unintended consequencies
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.
The danger for Bercow is the law of unintended consequencies
You might say that about the entire Brexit saga.
He is at least forcing the issue, though I'm not convinced it makes No Deal and more or less likely.
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
Not really you can use a standing order . Bercow said the Commons can do that . If there’s a majority for the deal then the majority can vote to change the standing order which then allows the vote .
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.
The danger for Bercow is the law of unintended consequencies
As long as it stops Brexit he won't care,he'll get the hero status he wants.
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
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.
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
Does it really matter ?
At the end of the day, a majority of parliament can trump a Speaker's ruling (as Bercow himself explicitly recognised this afternoon regarding MV3). Bercow has put Parliament back in charge of what happens next (if it can make its mind up).
The alternative is making Parliament the plaything of the executive, even when it doesn't command a majority on the issue in question.
It doesn't matter on this particular issue (as you say there are ways around what he has decided), but it does matter generally because he is demonstrating that he will selectively choose when to follow precedent and when he won't (last time admitting he had not thought about any longer term implications) for his own political ends.
Of course, there is one other way of keeping her WA alive. Forgive me if this has already occurred to everyone else.
She brings it back to the House with the clause that it will go to a people's vote. Labour might support that especially if Remain is the other option.
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 ...
No, that's not what it has done. The same referendum motion could not be brought back, but a substantially different one could. That is considerably less of a barrier than that to holding MV3, which literally means doing the MV thing all over again.
But in reality, either require a majority in the House to have any meaning.
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.
Isn't he just singing from the Brexiteer Hymn Book?
The result of the Referendum must be respected, the Leavers say. So the result of the Meaningful Vote must be respected, no? You can't keep presenting the same question until you get the answer you want, can you?
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.
The danger for Bercow is the law of unintended consequencies
You might say that about the entire Brexit saga.
He is at least forcing the issue, though I'm not convinced it makes No Deal and more or less likely.
I think no deal will be off the table next week when TM returns from the EU, at which time I expect her to table MV3 with amended detail including the extension delay
This has been perfect for her as Bercow pulled the vote thereby protecting her from attack that she was kicking the can down the road
I expect MV3 will pass next week and we leave on the 30th June
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 really is as simple as that.
It's as simple as I explained it yes. Something can be an ok call but still troubling. Bercow makes calls that please plenty of people (this one I find less pleasing but I thought beforehand that he had plenty of justification to make that call), but he should not make decisions based solely on advancing his own aims, which he clearly does.
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.
Keep telling yourself it.
Eventually the penny will drop.
I will excuse your ignorance as you clearly don't follow things very closely. But I am not in favour of No Deal.
What I am stating are the facts. If Parliament does not pass an alternative by 29th March then we will No Deal. The only person who can stop that is May and I am not confident that she will. As it stands Parliament cannot force her to do so. They can only VONC her and at this point even that is too late if she truly decides she will not revoke.
All the votes against No Deal are meaningless if she does not want to revoke.
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.
It’s not new but why is the “tsar” used? Given the fate of the Romanovs, it hardly seems like a happy title. Equally, I’m disappointed that Kaiser or Imperator hasn’t retired to common currency.
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.
The danger for Bercow is the law of unintended consequencies
You might say that about the entire Brexit saga.
He is at least forcing the issue, though I'm not convinced it makes No Deal and more or less likely.
I think no deal will be off the table next week when TM returns from the EU, at which time I expect her to table MV3 with amended detail including the extension delay
This has been perfect for her as Bercow pulled the vote thereby protecting her from attack that she was kicking the can down the road
I expect MV3 will pass next week and we leave on the 30th June
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.
The danger for Bercow is the law of unintended consequencies
You might say that about the entire Brexit saga.
He is at least forcing the issue, though I'm not convinced it makes No Deal and more or less likely.
I think no deal will be off the table next week when TM returns from the EU, at which time I expect her to table MV3 with amended detail including the extension delay
This has been perfect for her as Bercow pulled the vote thereby protecting her from attack that she was kicking the can down the road
I expect MV3 will pass next week and we leave on the 30th June
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.
Isn't he just singing from the Brexiteer Hymn Book?
The result of the Referendum must be respected, the Leavers say. So the result of the Meaningful Vote must be respected, no? You can't keep presenting the same question until you get the answer you want, can you?
As I have said, Bercow's call was not unjustified under the rules, I cannot criticise him for making it. I retain concerns because he picks and chooses based on his personal politics which rules he wants to follow.
But it also doesn't make the comparison between parliamentary votes and referenda any less silly. The two are not comparable in scale or type.
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)..
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.
The danger for Bercow is the law of unintended consequencies
You might say that about the entire Brexit saga.
He is at least forcing the issue, though I'm not convinced it makes No Deal and more or less likely.
I think no deal will be off the table next week when TM returns from the EU, at which time I expect her to table MV3 with amended detail including the extension delay
This has been perfect for her as Bercow pulled the vote thereby protecting her from attack that she was kicking the can down the road
I expect MV3 will pass next week and we leave on the 30th June
If that happens I'll share a drink with you Big_G
I may well be wrong but again it is an instinctive feeling that once no deal has gone brexiteers will vote for the WDA, amended if necessary
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.
Isn't he just singing from the Brexiteer Hymn Book?
The result of the Referendum must be respected, the Leavers say. So the result of the Meaningful Vote must be respected, no? You can't keep presenting the same question until you get the answer you want, can you?
As I have said, Bercow's call was not unjustified under the rules, I cannot criticise him for making it. I retain concerns because he picks and chooses based on his personal politics which rules he wants to follow.
But it also doesn't make the comparison between parliamentary votes and referenda any less silly. The two are not comparable in scale or type.
Precisely.
Bercow's decision now chimes with what Erskine May and precedent says.
Bercow's decisions recently don't.
A previous speaker making this ruling would be respected. Those are the rules and that's the precedent. Given Bercow's penchant for dispensing with precedent when it suited him, Bercow won't be respected for this. That is entirely his own making.
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)..
Yes if they choose that course.
Which they obviously won't.
I don't think anyone needs to be hit over the head with the rule book that yes yes yes we're due to leave without a deal on March 29th.
The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their say
The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their say
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.
Since Sir John Gorst resigned the whip in December 1996, depriving John Major of his majority, the Conservative Party have held a majority in the House of Commons for a grand total of two years. In those two years what achievements have they shown? They (1) instituted a referendum with no plan of what to do if one option won, and (2) triggered Article 50 with little or no plan of what to do at the end of the 2 year period it mandated. That's what happens when you put this shower in charge. The organisation is a danger to national security.
The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their say
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be made
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 really is as simple as that.
It's as simple as I explained it yes. Something can be an ok call but still troubling. Bercow makes calls that please plenty of people (this one I find less pleasing but I thought beforehand that he had plenty of justification to make that call), but he should not make decisions based solely on advancing his own aims, which he clearly does.
I don't disagree, and as soon as we've got a parliament where there's a stable majority for one party or another, he'll be gone.
In the meantime, despite his annoying idiosyncrasies, and erratic arguments, he does seem to hold fairly fast to the principle of defending Parliament's rights under a minority government. At the moment, that is no bad thing.
The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their say
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be made
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
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.
Isn't he just singing from the Brexiteer Hymn Book?
The result of the Referendum must be respected, the Leavers say. So the result of the Meaningful Vote must be respected, no? You can't keep presenting the same question until you get the answer you want, can you?
As I have said, Bercow's call was not unjustified under the rules, I cannot criticise him for making it. I retain concerns because he picks and chooses based on his personal politics which rules he wants to follow.
But it also doesn't make the comparison between parliamentary votes and referenda any less silly. The two are not comparable in scale or type.
Precisely.
Bercow's decision now chimes with what Erskine May and precedent says.
Bercow's decisions recently don't.
A previous speaker making this ruling would be respected. Those are the rules and that's the precedent. Given Bercow's penchant for dispensing with precedent when it suited him, Bercow won't be respected for this. That is entirely his own making.
Absolutely. He has abused precedent too many times for this to be anything other than him playing politics.
Rutte has said that he is going to ask her WHY she is requesting the extension.
How the hell does she answer that one.
She has to come up with a new plan before she gets there. So whatever that new plan is will be her answer.
The only things she listed at the despatch box as an alternative to the deal were revocation and a second referendum, so if she's going to request an extension, it can only be for a referendum.
Nuclear option for the ERG. No confidence in HMG. If there is no functioning government who will push through the SI's needed to delay Brexit?
The nuclear response to that might just be the formation of a government of national unity for the sole purpose of revoking A50 before a general election...
The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their say
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be made
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
Did you not read what Bercow said this afternoon ?
Alex Burghart, a Conservative, asks if the house can suspend the standing orders preventing a motiong being brought back for a repeat vote.
Bercow says the house is the custodian of its own standing orders, and so the answer is yes.
So, if (and only if) there is a majority to back it in the House, there is also a procedure to bring it to the vote.
"Absolute shock " is a telling phrase. It obviously has not been even discussed, let alone war gamed, despite it being raised numerous times as a possibility on here and by MPs. Shambolic in every way.
Since Sir John Gorst resigned the whip in December 1996, depriving John Major of his majority, the Conservative Party have held a majority in the House of Commons for a grand total of two years. In those two years what achievements have they shown? They (1) instituted a referendum with no plan of what to do if one option won, and (2) triggered Article 50 with little or no plan of what to do at the end of the 2 year period it mandated. That's what happens when you put this shower in charge. The organisation is a danger to national security.
How anyone could accuse the Conseratives of being a danger to national security when the alternative is Jeremy Corbyn is beyond me.
The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their say
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be made
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
Did you not read what Bercow said this afternoon ?
Alex Burghart, a Conservative, asks if the house can suspend the standing orders preventing a motiong being brought back for a repeat vote.
Bercow says the house is the custodian of its own standing orders, and so the answer is yes.
So, if (and only if) there is a majority to back it in the House, there is also a procedure to bring it to the vote.
Hang on. So you're suggesting a deal which the house has already rejected by 230 and 149 strong majorities (the 1st and 4th greatest ever defeats for a government) would be voted back to the house by the house?
Rutte has said that he is going to ask her WHY she is requesting the extension.
How the hell does she answer that one.
She has to come up with a new plan before she gets there. So whatever that new plan is will be her answer.
Had not the EU already said that they must be convinced that a majority of Parliament will back any plan behind A50 extension, as a condition of agreeing it ? In effect Bercow has simply reinforced that message.
Since Sir John Gorst resigned the whip in December 1996, depriving John Major of his majority, the Conservative Party have held a majority in the House of Commons for a grand total of two years. In those two years what achievements have they shown? They (1) instituted a referendum with no plan of what to do if one option won, and (2) triggered Article 50 with little or no plan of what to do at the end of the 2 year period it mandated. That's what happens when you put this shower in charge. The organisation is a danger to national security.
How anyone could accuse the Conseratives of being a danger to national security when the alternative is Jeremy Corbyn is beyond me.
The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their say
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be made
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
No. He has said that Parliament can vote to suspend that standing order.
The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their say
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be made
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
No. He has said that Parliament can vote to suspend that standing order.
Yes but you're not listening. They're not going to suspend the s.o. simply to bring back the same motion they already kicked out by 230 and 149 majorities
The HoC hates the wretched deal and Bercow has just helped them not have to vote on the darned thing ever again.
The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their say
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be made
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
Did you not read what Bercow said this afternoon ?
Alex Burghart, a Conservative, asks if the house can suspend the standing orders preventing a motiong being brought back for a repeat vote.
Bercow says the house is the custodian of its own standing orders, and so the answer is yes.
So, if (and only if) there is a majority to back it in the House, there is also a procedure to bring it to the vote.
Hang on. So you're suggesting a deal which the house has already rejected by 230 and 149 strong majorities (the 1st and 4th greatest ever defeats for a government) would be voted back to the house by the house?
All I can say is ... lol.
No. Simply that Bercow is right in not allowing time to be wasted on a third vote on a motion which is not going to pass. If May can change that, then he will.
The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their say
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be made
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
No. He has said that Parliament can vote to suspend that standing order.
Yes but you're not listening. They're not going to suspend the s.o. simply to bring back the same motion they already kicked out by 230 and 149 majorities
The HoC hates the wretched deal and Bercow has just helped them not have to vote on the darned thing ever again.
The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their say
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be made
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
Did you not read what Bercow said this afternoon ?
Alex Burghart, a Conservative, asks if the house can suspend the standing orders preventing a motiong being brought back for a repeat vote.
Bercow says the house is the custodian of its own standing orders, and so the answer is yes.
So, if (and only if) there is a majority to back it in the House, there is also a procedure to bring it to the vote.
Hang on. So you're suggesting a deal which the house has already rejected by 230 and 149 strong majorities (the 1st and 4th greatest ever defeats for a government) would be voted back to the house by the house?
All I can say is ... lol.
No. Simply that Bercow is right in not allowing time to be wasted on a third vote on a motion which is not going to pass. If May can change that, then he will.
I get that but that's the point. May won't get any change to the deal out of the EU.
The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their say
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be made
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
Did you not read what Bercow said this afternoon ?
Alex Burghart, a Conservative, asks if the house can suspend the standing orders preventing a motiong being brought back for a repeat vote.
Bercow says the house is the custodian of its own standing orders, and so the answer is yes.
So, if (and only if) there is a majority to back it in the House, there is also a procedure to bring it to the vote.
Hang on. So you're suggesting a deal which the house has already rejected by 230 and 149 strong majorities (the 1st and 4th greatest ever defeats for a government) would be voted back to the house by the house?
All I can say is ... lol.
No. Simply that Bercow is right in not allowing time to be wasted on a third vote on a motion which is not going to pass. If May can change that, then he will.
I get that but that's the point. May won't get any change to the deal out of the EU.
It's over.
I can’t see how it’s over any more than it was earlier today.
If she can pass a deal she can pass a vote allowing for a vote on the deal. MPs would just have to march through the lobbies twice rather than once.
If she can’t (and it looks like she can’t at this stage) then she won’t be able to, but I don’t see the seismic change.
The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their say
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be made
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
Did you not read what Bercow said this afternoon ?
Alex Burghart, a Conservative, asks if the house can suspend the standing orders preventing a motiong being brought back for a repeat vote.
Bercow says the house is the custodian of its own standing orders, and so the answer is yes.
So, if (and only if) there is a majority to back it in the House, there is also a procedure to bring it to the vote.
Hang on. So you're suggesting a deal which the house has already rejected by 230 and 149 strong majorities (the 1st and 4th greatest ever defeats for a government) would be voted back to the house by the house?
All I can say is ... lol.
No. Simply that Bercow is right in not allowing time to be wasted on a third vote on a motion which is not going to pass. If May can change that, then he will.
I get that but that's the point. May won't get any change to the deal out of the EU.
It's over.
It doesn’t have to be the WA (which won’t change) - it can be to the PD - which can easily change.
The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their say
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be made
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
Did you not read what Bercow said this afternoon ?
Alex Burghart, a Conservative, asks if the house can suspend the standing orders preventing a motiong being brought back for a repeat vote.
Bercow says the house is the custodian of its own standing orders, and so the answer is yes.
So, if (and only if) there is a majority to back it in the House, there is also a procedure to bring it to the vote.
Hang on. So you're suggesting a deal which the house has already rejected by 230 and 149 strong majorities (the 1st and 4th greatest ever defeats for a government) would be voted back to the house by the house?
All I can say is ... lol.
No. Simply that Bercow is right in not allowing time to be wasted on a third vote on a motion which is not going to pass. If May can change that, then he will.
I get that but that's the point. May won't get any change to the deal out of the EU.
It's over.
Hypothetically if the EU votes to extend Britain's membership to 31 December 2020, but change the Deal to us leaving by 30 June 2019 if we ratify the Deal on time, then the No Deal clock would be automatically extended to 31 December 2020 but we would be able to exit still in June. Article 50 says a deal takes precedence over the 2 years/extended time period.
Once that is done, a majority might (just might) be found to take the deal now rather than wait until 31 Dec 2020.
The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their say
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be made
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
Did you not read what Bercow said this afternoon ?
Alex Burghart, a Conservative, asks if the house can suspend the standing orders preventing a motiong being brought back for a repeat vote.
Bercow says the house is the custodian of its own standing orders, and so the answer is yes.
So, if (and only if) there is a majority to back it in the House, there is also a procedure to bring it to the vote.
Hang on. So you're suggesting a deal which the house has already rejected by 230 and 149 strong majorities (the 1st and 4th greatest ever defeats for a government) would be voted back to the house by the house?
All I can say is ... lol.
No. Simply that Bercow is right in not allowing time to be wasted on a third vote on a motion which is not going to pass. If May can change that, then he will.
I get that but that's the point. May won't get any change to the deal out of the EU.
It's over.
It doesn’t have to be the WA (which won’t change) - it can be to the PD - which can easily change.
It doesn't have to be a change to either the WA or the PD, it could be a change to the Standing Orders.
The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their say
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be made
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
Did you not read what Bercow said this afternoon ?
Alex Burghart, a Conservative, asks if the house can suspend the standing orders preventing a motiong being brought back for a repeat vote.
Bercow says the house is the custodian of its own standing orders, and so the answer is yes.
So, if (and only if) there is a majority to back it in the House, there is also a procedure to bring it to the vote.
Hang on. So you're suggesting a deal which the house has already rejected by 230 and 149 strong majorities (the 1st and 4th greatest ever defeats for a government) would be voted back to the house by the house?
All I can say is ... lol.
No. Simply that Bercow is right in not allowing time to be wasted on a third vote on a motion which is not going to pass. If May can change that, then he will.
I get that but that's the point. May won't get any change to the deal out of the EU.
It's over.
It doesn’t have to be the WA (which won’t change) - it can be to the PD - which can easily change.
Sorry don't mean to sound patronising but I don't think this is being thought through. Mind you, it's not surprising given the flux we're in.
We already know the EU won't change the deal. The chances of them sending back the WA to the HoC are zero. Why would they?
Which begs the question, why would the EU grant an extension? Well, not for her WA that's for sure.
So please please forget the technical capability of the HoC to suspend the standing order. Right:
So what are the alternatives?
The EU grant an extension with new terms e.g. the HoC has to hold indicative votes. Or the WA Brexit needs 'softening' to a customs union. Or that it must go to a referendum.
Or
Mrs May herself says she will take it to the people in a referendum.
a) agree an extension without going back to parliament first; b) revoke A50 without going back to parliament first?
It seems to me that Speaker Bercow has strengthened her hand for the deal passing next week after the EU summit - as the ERG/Labour Leavers will know exactly the options and conditions for extension - and anything other than a short extension to pass WA/PD and necessary legislation is likely to be long and brutal. If so, the odds of MV3 passing must have increased today.
No deal has surely decreased as if a) is correct, then no deal is stopped by parliament VONCing the government and installing a new PM to extend if it looked like Mrs May was trying to no deal us on 29th.
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.
It's not relevant. Famously the EU does not deal with parliaments, it deals with member states. The only person allowed to sign treaties is the PM (acting on authority delegated by the Crown). The actions have to be in accordance with the constitutional requirements of the member state, and the UK Parliament does not have the authority to invoke nor revoke article 50.
Cunning plan. May goes to Brussels on the 29th, signs the deal at 5pm.The AG argues in court that the meaningful vote has been held as specified by the court (although no conclusion has been reached) so she has fulfilled the constitutional requirements. By the time anybody gets opposition sorted it's 11pm, we've left, a deal is signed, and the Remainers and pure blood Leavers can go fuck themselves. The courts have to recognise the departure and nobody will unsign the deal because chaos. Sound good?
a) agree an extension without going back to parliament first; b) revoke A50 without going back to parliament first?
It seems to me that Speaker Bercow has strengthened her hand for the deal passing next week after the EU summit - as the ERG/Labour Leavers will know exactly the options and conditions for extension - and anything other than a short extension to pass WA/PD and necessary legislation is likely to be long and brutal. If so, the odds of MV3 passing must have increased today.
No deal has surely decreased as if a) is correct, then no deal is stopped by parliament VONCing the government and installing a new PM to extend if it looked like Mrs May was trying to no deal us on 29th.
Like everything the PMs powers are disputable - the government did not believe it needed parliament to approve triggering Art 50 but the SC thought differently, by a majority.
But probably parliament is not required to approve revocation or extension (IMO) because it does not involve changing our current rights and arrangements.
Which begs the question, why would the EU grant an extension? Well, not for her WA that's for sure.
Because the alternative means an economic shock, when the EU (and the UK) are already not far off a recession. No benefit to refusing really, even if there isn't a clear path forward atm.
After the third or fourth extension they might put their foot down .....
If someone had told me at the start of today that the much disliked Bercow and Fracois would essentially work together to make no deal more likely and May's deal and a 2nd referendum less likely I wouldn't have believed them. We are living through very strange times.
Cunning plan. May goes to Brussels on the 29th, signs the deal at 5pm.The AG argues in court that the meaningful vote has been held as specified by the court (although no conclusion has been reached) so she has fulfilled the constitutional requirements. By the time anybody gets opposition sorted it's 11pm, we've left, a deal is signed, and the Remainers and pure blood Leavers can go fuck themselves. The courts have to recognise the departure and nobody will unsign the deal because chaos. Sound good?
Excellent idea, Baldrick. Here, have some of my rat sandwich.
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.
Keep telling yourself it.
Eventually the penny will drop.
I will excuse your ignorance as you clearly don't follow things very closely. But I am not in favour of No Deal.
What I am stating are the facts. If Parliament does not pass an alternative by 29th March then we will No Deal. The only person who can stop that is May and I am not confident that she will. As it stands Parliament cannot force her to do so. They can only VONC her and at this point even that is too late if she truly decides she will not revoke.
All the votes against No Deal are meaningless if she does not want to revoke.
If the only two options were Revoke or Leave with No Deal, i really don't know which one she would choose.
Comments
At the end of the day, a majority of parliament can trump a Speaker's ruling (as Bercow himself explicitly recognised this afternoon regarding MV3).
Bercow has put Parliament back in charge of what happens next (if it can make its mind up).
The alternative is making Parliament the plaything of the executive, even when it doesn't command a majority on the issue in question.
Listening to a furious Brexiteer on way home just now on R5 wanting to support MV3 now.....
Heart of stone.
He is at least forcing the issue, though I'm not convinced it makes No Deal and more or less likely.
She brings it back to the House with the clause that it will go to a people's vote. Labour might support that especially if Remain is the other option.
The same referendum motion could not be brought back, but a substantially different one could.
That is considerably less of a barrier than that to holding MV3, which literally means doing the MV thing all over again.
But in reality, either require a majority in the House to have any meaning.
The result of the Referendum must be respected, the Leavers say. So the result of the Meaningful Vote must be respected, no? You can't keep presenting the same question until you get the answer you want, can you?
This has been perfect for her as Bercow pulled the vote thereby protecting her from attack that she was kicking the can down the road
I expect MV3 will pass next week and we leave on the 30th June
What I am stating are the facts. If Parliament does not pass an alternative by 29th March then we will No Deal. The only person who can stop that is May and I am not confident that she will. As it stands Parliament cannot force her to do so. They can only VONC her and at this point even that is too late if she truly decides she will not revoke.
All the votes against No Deal are meaningless if she does not want to revoke.
I would hesitate to predict what happens next.
But it also doesn't make the comparison between parliamentary votes and referenda any less silly. The two are not comparable in scale or type.
Bercow's decision now chimes with what Erskine May and precedent says.
Bercow's decisions recently don't.
A previous speaker making this ruling would be respected. Those are the rules and that's the precedent. Given Bercow's penchant for dispensing with precedent when it suited him, Bercow won't be respected for this. That is entirely his own making.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/9/18256622/andrew-yang-2020-president-meme-yanggang
I don't think anyone needs to be hit over the head with the rule book that yes yes yes we're due to leave without a deal on March 29th.
Just ain't gonna happen buddy.
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1107698997966315520
In the meantime, despite his annoying idiosyncrasies, and erratic arguments, he does seem to hold fairly fast to the principle of defending Parliament's rights under a minority government.
At the moment, that is no bad thing.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
How the hell does she answer that one.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10161346404910543&id=38437995542
Alex Burghart, a Conservative, asks if the house can suspend the standing orders preventing a motiong being brought back for a repeat vote.
Bercow says the house is the custodian of its own standing orders, and so the answer is yes.
So, if (and only if) there is a majority to back it in the House, there is also a procedure to bring it to the vote.
Shambolic in every way.
That has not changed.
All I can say is ... lol.
Is the Speaker not bound by the wishes of the House?
Who is the most obsequious Minister to send?
Can't see any other way the WA remains alive?
In effect Bercow has simply reinforced that message.
https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1107644988266037248
The HoC hates the wretched deal and Bercow has just helped them not have to vote on the darned thing ever again.
Unless she attaches a referendum ...
If May can change that, then he will.
It's over.
That is all
The solution lies within their own hands.
If she can pass a deal she can pass a vote allowing for a vote on the deal. MPs would just have to march through the lobbies twice rather than once.
If she can’t (and it looks like she can’t at this stage) then she won’t be able to, but I don’t see the seismic change.
Once that is done, a majority might (just might) be found to take the deal now rather than wait until 31 Dec 2020.
We already know the EU won't change the deal. The chances of them sending back the WA to the HoC are zero. Why would they?
Which begs the question, why would the EU grant an extension? Well, not for her WA that's for sure.
So please please forget the technical capability of the HoC to suspend the standing order. Right:
So what are the alternatives?
The EU grant an extension with new terms e.g. the HoC has to hold indicative votes. Or the WA Brexit needs 'softening' to a customs union. Or that it must go to a referendum.
Or
Mrs May herself says she will take it to the people in a referendum.
On those grounds the EU might grant an extension.
The power now lies mainly with the EU.
Unless of course we just revoke Article 50.
Does Mrs May have the power to unilaterally:
a) agree an extension without going back to parliament first;
b) revoke A50 without going back to parliament first?
It seems to me that Speaker Bercow has strengthened her hand for the deal passing next week after the EU summit - as the ERG/Labour Leavers will know exactly the options and conditions for extension - and anything other than a short extension to pass WA/PD and necessary legislation is likely to be long and brutal. If so, the odds of MV3 passing must have increased today.
No deal has surely decreased as if a) is correct, then no deal is stopped by parliament VONCing the government and installing a new PM to extend if it looked like Mrs May was trying to no deal us on 29th.
https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1107669278331990017
But probably parliament is not required to approve revocation or extension (IMO) because it does not involve changing our current rights and arrangements.
At least, May's deal is. So is No Deal.
After the third or fourth extension they might put their foot down .....