The real problem comes when Bercow has to decide next week whether MV3 (delayed) is substantially different.
Just what I was thinking. The pressure on him is going to be absolutely enormous, if so, but does a delay inside the deal really mean change in the "substantive deal" ? I don't know what the legal precedents are here.
Exactly. I bet Erskin May leaves plenty of wiggle room for the judgment of the Speaker.
Last time for the road. I don't think it gives him any guidance, it's his call p397 matters already decided during the same session A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session. Since 1994 this rule has been applied so that, in the case of ten minute rule motions under Standing Order No 23, refusal by the House of leave to introduce a bill should be treated as the rejection of that bill at a substantive stage, with the effect that a bill with the same or a very similar long title could not be presented again in the same season. Attempts have been made made to evade this rule by raising again, with verbal alterations, the essential portions of motions which have been negatived. Whether the second motion is substantially the same as the first is finally a matter for the judgement of the Chair. In some cases the second motion has been ruled to be substantially the same as an earlier motion. The same rule has been applied to an amendment reviewing reviewing a motion which had been already negatived. Some motions, however, have been framed with sufficient ingenuity to avoid the rule. On rare occasions where the House has been offered a series of alternative proposals for its consideration, an order was made specifically directing the Chair to put the questions or later motions notwithstanding any decision of the House on earlier motions.
However, a question which has not been definitely decided may be raised again. Thus, a motion or amendment which has been withdrawn, or on which the Chair has declared the question not decided when it appeared that fewer than 40 Members had taken part in a division, or for some other reason, may be repeated. In such cases a Member may speak again on the second occasion. Where a certain course in relation to the procedure of the House has been rejected on a particular day, it may be revived on a subsequent day.
"If" the government has a majority. "If" is doing a lot of work there.
Seal deal with DUP is too tbf.
Particularly when they have no reason to stick their necks out now. It's not like they care what form Brexit takes, or if we Remain.
They may have a couple of billion reasons to stick their necks out now.
Before Bercow's action. My guess is not everyone who might have voted for the deal would vote to suspend standing orders to allow themselves to vote for it - particularly as some no dealers and some remainers think the path to their preferred outcome has been opened up more now - so the DUP switching now probably wouldn't save it. Why go out on a limb now for a deal that won't pass, and if that doens't happen the government might not even survive long enough to deliver the money I am sure they have been promised.
She cannot be seriously contemplating another 9months of uncertainty for business . This needs sorting one way or another in the next 3months maximum .
Others in parliament want even longer extensions. Uncertainty for the rest of the year at least, in the minds of MPs, probably trumps unpleasant certainties.
She cannot be seriously contemplating another 9months of uncertainty for business . This needs sorting one way or another in the next 3months maximum .
Others in parliament want even longer extensions. Uncertainty for the rest of the year at least, in the minds of MPs, probably trumps unpleasant certainties.
What will the extension be for? It can’t be another meaningful vote on the same deal. So what will the time be used for?
Last time for the road. I don't think it gives him any guidance, it's his call p397 matters already decided during the same session A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session. Since 1994 this rule has been applied so that, in the case of ten minute rule motions under Standing Order No 23, refusal by the House of leave to introduce a bill should be treated as the rejection of that bill at a substantive stage, with the effect that a bill with the same or a very similar long title could not be presented again in the same season. Attempts have been made made to evade this rule by raising again, with verbal alterations, the essential portions of motions which have been negatived. Whether the second motion is substantially the same as the first is finally a matter for the judgement of the Chair. In some cases the second motion has been ruled to be substantially the same as an earlier motion. The same rule has been applied to an amendment reviewing reviewing a motion which had been already negatived. Some motions, however, have been framed with sufficient ingenuity to avoid the rule. On rare occasions where the House has been offered a series of alternative proposals for its consideration, an order was made specifically directing the Chair to put the questions or later motions notwithstanding any decision of the House on earlier motions.
However, a question which has not been definitely decided may be raised again. Thus, a motion or amendment which has been withdrawn, or on which the Chair has declared the question not decided when it appeared that fewer than 40 Members had taken part in a division, or for some other reason, may be repeated. In such cases a Member may speak again on the second occasion. Where a certain course in relation to the procedure of the House has been rejected on a particular day, it may be revived on a subsequent day.
If the plan is to raise exactly the same thing, there's nothing for the speaker to use his judgement on, is there? I mean, the referee judges whether it's a goal, and maybe it kind of grazed the line and they have to make the call, but if the attacker (or in this case the defender) kicks it straight into the back off the net then there's only one way they're supposed to judge.
Isn't this a straightforward hatchet job? I hold no brief for Corbyn and think he's the wrong man in the wrong job, but I would be wary of believing colleagues saying "don't you think he looks tired"...
U.S. federal authorities began exploring a criminal investigation of how Boeing’s 737 MAX was certified to fly passengers before the latest crash in Ethiopia involving the new jet, according to people familiar with the probe.
The investigation was prompted by information obtained after a Lion Air 737 MAX 8 crashed shortly after takeoff from Jakarta on Oct. 29, said one person, who wasn’t authorized to speak about the investigation and asked not to be named.
Comments
Nevertheless, let's be pleased that we are getting things sorted.
(And remember how much better a position we'd be in if Dr Fox had been doing this two years ago.)
p397
matters already decided during the same session
A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session. Since 1994 this rule has been applied so that, in the case of ten minute rule motions under Standing Order No 23, refusal by the House of leave to introduce a bill should be treated as the rejection of that bill at a substantive stage, with the effect that a bill with the same or a very similar long title could not be presented again in the same season. Attempts have been made made to evade this rule by raising again, with verbal alterations, the essential portions of motions which have been negatived. Whether the second motion is substantially the same as the first is finally a matter for the judgement of the Chair. In some cases the second motion has been ruled to be substantially the same as an earlier motion. The same rule has been applied to an amendment reviewing reviewing a motion which had been already negatived. Some motions, however, have been framed with sufficient ingenuity to avoid the rule. On rare occasions where the House has been offered a series of alternative proposals for its consideration, an order was made specifically directing the Chair to put the questions or later motions notwithstanding any decision of the House on earlier motions.
However, a question which has not been definitely decided may be raised again. Thus, a motion or amendment which has been withdrawn, or on which the Chair has declared the question not decided when it appeared that fewer than 40 Members had taken part in a division, or for some other reason, may be repeated. In such cases a Member may speak again on the second occasion. Where a certain course in relation to the procedure of the House has been rejected on a particular day, it may be revived on a subsequent day.
Senior members of the shadow cabinet have told The Londoner that they understand Jeremy Corbyn would like to step down as leader of the Labour Party.
One member of the shadow cabinet told us: “He’s tired and fed up.” Another: “Corbyn is ready to step down. He wants to step down.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/the-londoner-corbyn-ponders-leadership-exit-a4094546.html
https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1107740598453325829
https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1107741361355276289
U.S. federal authorities began exploring a criminal investigation of how Boeing’s 737 MAX was certified to fly passengers before the latest crash in Ethiopia involving the new jet, according to people familiar with the probe.
The investigation was prompted by information obtained after a Lion Air 737 MAX 8 crashed shortly after takeoff from Jakarta on Oct. 29, said one person, who wasn’t authorized to speak about the investigation and asked not to be named.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/probe-of-faas-oversight-of-boeing-737-began-before-second-crash/