Bercow has simply ruled that the government can't have an rerun of the vote they tabled on Saturday afternoon. The Commons ammended it and nodded the amended version through two days ago. The government is basically wasting everyone's time asking for it again.
Exactly. I thought they wanted to get on with delivering Brexit?
They do, passing that would have probably made it a whole lot easier.
Bercow has simply ruled that the government can't have an rerun of the vote they tabled on Saturday afternoon. The Commons ammended it and nodded the amended version through two days ago. The government is basically wasting everyone's time asking for it again.
Exactly. I thought they wanted to get on with delivering Brexit?
More than that, they want to foster grievance and play hard done by.
I can understand now , why Johnson wanted this rushed through on Saturday. The more people and MPs have knowledge of its effects , the less they may like it. To railroad this on a few hours sitting in crisis mode , is no way for a country to make such fundamental change. I am glad Letwin has enabled parliament , to fully consider Johnson's deal.
I can understand now , why Johnson wanted this rushed through on Saturday. The more people and MPs have knowledge of its effects , the less they may like it. To railroad this on a few hours sitting in crisis mode , is no way for a country to make such fundamental change. I am glad Letwin has enabled parliament , to fully consider Johnson's deal.
MPs have had three years to come to terms with Brexit.
85% of those they elected stood on a platform of honouring the 2016 referendum, but only a minority of those have been true to their word. The only blame that can attach to voters for the impasse is the blame to those who were naive enough as to believe what they were told by such devious remainer MPs.
Ideally every referendum should propose the enactment of an already written Bill that will, if it wins the vote, come into force at a specific time. Then you avoid all the post-result hoo-hah about implementation. People know exactly what they're voting for. Or at least in a sense they do.
Unfortunately that's not possible where the implementation of a proposal depends on a to-be-negotiated agreement with other countries.
In that case, negotiate the exact form of implementation, or at least the overall framework for it, and put it back to the electorate. That isn't betraying anyone. The new referendum should be Deal versus Revoke. Or if Parliament chooses No Deal to be the Leave option, then it should be No Deal versus Revoke. If you want some other kind of Leave from the one that's on offer, you should either vote for the option you prefer out of the two that are on your plate, or else you should abstain, and since you won't be happy with either possible result you should vote for a party in the next general election that will give you what you want. Leavers can be such whingers. What's the big rush? If you want Britain to leave the EU then fine, have your say, but there is no pressing need to exit with great urgency.
The need for a second referendum applies a fortiori with Brexit, when the ballot paper didn't even specify - when it quite easily could have done - whether or not the proposal was for Britain or any part of it to be in or out of either the CU or the SM. That was rubbish governance by the David Cameron administration but it can't be changed retrospectively. Brexit could have meant BINO or at the other end of the scale it could have meant WTO. It doesn't matter much what was or wasn't promised by either of the campaigns. The ballot paper only asked Leave or Remain.
I can understand now , why Johnson wanted this rushed through on Saturday. The more people and MPs have knowledge of its effects , the less they may like it. To railroad this on a few hours sitting in crisis mode , is no way for a country to make such fundamental change. I am glad Letwin has enabled parliament , to fully consider Johnson's deal.
Agreed. Legislation done in a hurry is bad legislation. Conservatives used to understand this, why have they taken leave of their senses?
The interesting question is why did the government propose another vote?
It would have known that it was not in order. It’s just another cynical attempt by the government to increase the divisions, return to an atmosphere of hostility and feed the mob.
Is to commence a full investigation into Bercow tomorrow
Tbh, Bercow doesn't exactly seem bothered.
Bercow's off in ten days time.
His final day should be fun when Con MPs get to say good riddance to him.
Bit of a bind for BoJo - give him a peerage to get him out of the way, and trigger a by-election in Bucks, or have him on the backbenches sitting with Soames and Ken Clarke, being a pain in the arse.
For all the talk of Conservatives all being together, and the speaker the big end of level baddie it’s the damage Letwin knowingly done (with Rudd and gauke) still reverberating today isn’t it Big G?
I think there’s definitely a cross party group emerging of wavy mavisis, the problem is they actually liked what Letwins amendment did.
To try and put my finger on what I think the problem is, I think the clue is in that amendment Letwin introduced what matters them the WAB contains the mechanisms for Parliamentary oversight on FR the PM promised on Sat, in other words without that promise built in they might carry on stalling maybe?
But the problem is Boris don’t want them to have much of that, he can’t go down a road endless scrutiny deal changing and more negotiation with ERG and Europe to keep them on board.
Is this a thoughtful point? Unless these rebels with willingness to drag out scrutiny unbothered by Boris die in ditch self imposed deadline are beaten or back down, I think we may be hasty counting the numbers 🤔.
The interesting question is why did the government propose another vote?
It would have known that it was not in order. It’s just another cynical attempt by the government to increase the divisions, return to an atmosphere of hostility and feed the mob.
Parliament did that all by themselves on Saturday.
The interesting question is why did the government propose another vote?
It would have known that it was not in order. It’s just another cynical attempt by the government to increase the divisions and atmosphere of hostility and feed the mob.
That's about it. The Conservative tactic at the moment relies on keeping heat in the system. It's not conducive to good quality politics so I can only conclude they think there is a fundamental weakness in their position.
I can understand now , why Johnson wanted this rushed through on Saturday. The more people and MPs have knowledge of its effects , the less they may like it. To railroad this on a few hours sitting in crisis mode , is no way for a country to make such fundamental change. I am glad Letwin has enabled parliament , to fully consider Johnson's deal.
MPs have had three years to come to terms with Brexit.
Agreed , however this was a new deal. It deserves more consideration , than a rushed Saturday.
The interesting question is why did the government propose another vote?
It would have known that it was not in order. It’s just another cynical attempt by the government to increase the divisions, return to an atmosphere of hostility and feed the mob.
I don't think it was obvious that it was out of order. Yes, it's the same motion, but it's arguable that the circumstances are substantially different, since the extension has now been requested.
Heard today from a civil servant that volunteers for Yellowhammer are being sought. Extra hours, extra pay. 9 days to go, and the Government is planning to gear up to start initial preparations for no deal.
Nothing like being prepared. And this is nothing like being prepared.
For all the talk of Conservatives all being together, and the speaker the big end of level baddie it’s the damage Letwin knowingly done (with Rudd and gauke) still reverberating today isn’t it Big G?
I think there’s definitely a cross party group emerging of wavy mavisis, the problem is they actually liked what Letwins amendment did.
To try and put my finger on what I think the problem is, I think the clue is in that amendment Letwin introduced what matters them the WAB contains the mechanisms for Parliamentary oversight on FR the PM promised on Sat, in other words without that promise built in they might carry on stalling maybe?
But the problem is Boris don’t want them to have much of that, he can’t go down a road endless scrutiny deal changing and more negotiation with ERG and Europe to keep them on board.
Is this a thoughtful point? Unless these rebels with willingness to drag out scrutiny unbothered by Boris die in ditch self imposed deadline are beaten or back down, I think we may be hasty counting the numbers 🤔.
I support Bercow today but his record of impartiality is suspect
As far as Letwin is concerned both he and Rudd are fully on board with the deal and with Lisa Nandy confirming she will vote for the deal I expect the deal to pass but with a limited technical extension
Is to commence a full investigation into Bercow tomorrow
Tbh, Bercow doesn't exactly seem bothered.
Bercow's off in ten days time.
His final day should be fun when Con MPs get to say good riddance to him.
Bit of a bind for BoJo - give him a peerage to get him out of the way, and trigger a by-election in Bucks, or have him on the backbenches sitting with Soames and Ken Clarke, being a pain in the arse.
With the SNP flashing a bit of leg to Boris on an election today hopefully we'll be in a general election campaign soon.
The interesting question is why did the government propose another vote?
It would have known that it was not in order. It’s just another cynical attempt by the government to increase the divisions, return to an atmosphere of hostility and feed the mob.
I don't think it was obvious that it was out of order. Yes, it's the same motion, but it's arguable that the circumstances are substantially different, since the extension has now been requested.
Everyone could see it was not in order the moment it was suggested.
Since the govt gave notice before the letter was sent and did everything to then underplay the significance of that letter , I can't reasonably see that was their true motive.
Whereas they have form when it comes to stirring things up.
The interesting question is why did the government propose another vote?
It would have known that it was not in order. It’s just another cynical attempt by the government to increase the divisions, return to an atmosphere of hostility and feed the mob.
I don't think it was obvious that it was out of order. Yes, it's the same motion, but it's arguable that the circumstances are substantially different, since the extension has now been requested.
The Commons agreed that it withholds approval unless and until implementing legislation is passed.
The implementing legislation is not passed. I don't see how it could be clearer.
For all the talk of Conservatives all being together, and the speaker the big end of level baddie it’s the damage Letwin knowingly done (with Rudd and gauke) still reverberating today isn’t it Big G?
I think there’s definitely a cross party group emerging of wavy mavisis, the problem is they actually liked what Letwins amendment did.
To try and put my finger on what I think the problem is, I think the clue is in that amendment Letwin introduced what matters them the WAB contains the mechanisms for Parliamentary oversight on FR the PM promised on Sat, in other words without that promise built in they might carry on stalling maybe?
But the problem is Boris don’t want them to have much of that, he can’t go down a road endless scrutiny deal changing and more negotiation with ERG and Europe to keep them on board.
Is this a thoughtful point? Unless these rebels with willingness to drag out scrutiny unbothered by Boris die in ditch self imposed deadline are beaten or back down, I think we may be hasty counting the numbers 🤔.
I support Bercow today but his record of impartiality is suspect
As far as Letwin is concerned both he and Rudd are fully on board with the deal and with Lisa Nandy confirming she will vote for the deal I expect the deal to pass but with a limited technical extension
But there is a cross party camp building there after scrutiny and opportunities to meddle that’s going to create friction with what Boris needs isn’t there, or am I reading it wrong?
It’s seems to me people being counted as supportivevincluding those you mentioned there always seem to qualify it with their love for that scrutiny and meddling.
The next thing I expect to happen is Labour making big hookah about Governments changes to PD they will try and use to be build an alliance.
I know Mays PD has been changed by Boris, exactly what the beef is on the labour benches needs to be spelt out to me. Could some of our Labour friends Who post here explain what Labour’s problem is with the changes Boris made to PD and why it is such an issue?
The interesting question is why did the government propose another vote?
It would have known that it was not in order. It’s just another cynical attempt by the government to increase the divisions, return to an atmosphere of hostility and feed the mob.
I don't think it was obvious that it was out of order. Yes, it's the same motion, but it's arguable that the circumstances are substantially different, since the extension has now been requested.
The Commons agreed that it withholds approval unless and until implementing legislation is passed.
The implementing legislation is not passed. I don't see how it could be clearer.
Yes, but the reason was that they wanted the letter to be sent. That it now has been is a material change of circumstances.
To be clear, I think Bercow was right, but I can see the argument on the other side.
The interesting question is why did the government propose another vote?
It would have known that it was not in order. It’s just another cynical attempt by the government to increase the divisions, return to an atmosphere of hostility and feed the mob.
I don't think it was obvious that it was out of order. Yes, it's the same motion, but it's arguable that the circumstances are substantially different, since the extension has now been requested.
The Commons agreed that it withholds approval unless and until implementing legislation is passed.
The implementing legislation is not passed. I don't see how it could be clearer.
Yes, but the reason was that they wanted the letter to be sent. That it now has been is a material change of circumstances.
To be clear, I think Bercow was right, but I can see the argument on the other side.
Bercow considers his ruling "a necessary rule to ensure the sensible use of the House's time"
Shame he didn't think about that when most of an afternoon was lost to remain MPs telling him just how fabulous he is after he announced his impending retirement.
The interesting question is why did the government propose another vote?
It would have known that it was not in order. It’s just another cynical attempt by the government to increase the divisions, return to an atmosphere of hostility and feed the mob.
I don't think it was obvious that it was out of order. Yes, it's the same motion, but it's arguable that the circumstances are substantially different, since the extension has now been requested.
The Commons agreed that it withholds approval unless and until implementing legislation is passed.
The implementing legislation is not passed. I don't see how it could be clearer.
Yes, but the reason was that they wanted the letter to be sent. That it now has been is a material change of circumstances.
To be clear, I think Bercow was right, but I can see the argument on the other side.
It's a very weak argument indeed.
The strength of the argument doesn't matter to Bercow. He will always interpret the rules to help staying in the EU.
85% of those they elected stood on a platform of honouring the 2016 referendum, but only a minority of those have been true to their word. The only blame that can attach to voters for the impasse is the blame to those who were naive enough as to believe what they were told by such devious remainer MPs.
Ideally every referendum should propose the enactment of an already written Bill that will, if it wins the vote, come into force at a specific time. Then you avoid all the post-result hoo-hah about implementation. People know exactly what they're voting for. Or at least in a sense they do.
Unfortunately that's not possible where the implementation of a proposal depends on a to-be-negotiated agreement with other countries.
In that case, negotiate the exact form of implementation, or at least the overall framework for it, and put it back to the electorate. That isn't betraying anyone. The new referendum should be Deal versus Revoke. Or if Parliament chooses No Deal to be the Leave option, then it should be No Deal versus Revoke. If you want some other kind of Leave from the one that's on offer, you should either vote for the option you prefer out of the two that are on your plate, or else you should abstain, and since you won't be happy with either possible result you should vote for a party in the next general election that will give you what you want. Leavers can be such whingers. What's the big rush? If you want Britain to leave the EU then fine, have your say, but there is no pressing need to exit with great urgency.
The need for a second referendum applies a fortiori with Brexit, when the ballot paper didn't even specify - when it quite easily could have done - whether or not the proposal was for Britain or any part of it to be in or out of either the CU or the SM. That was rubbish governance by the David Cameron administration but it can't be changed retrospectively. Brexit could have meant BINO or at the other end of the scale it could have meant WTO. It doesn't matter much what was or wasn't promised by either of the campaigns. The ballot paper only asked Leave or Remain.
If there is any more plebiscites ever again it’s got to have two clear outcomes built in it. The last one was clear on remain, but we didn’t know the leave deal. If a confirmative ref is do you support this deal yes or no,where does a no Take us? 🤤
John Bercow's ruling today is right and obviously so. The government obviously sees political advantage in stirring up the proles against him.
Anyone still think he's going to get a peerage?
I think you have hit the nail on the head and no peerage likely for him from any conservative government
I don't agree, I think the peerage will be immediately granted to kick Bercow "upstairs" and out of the Commons. Last thing I suspect the Commons will want is Bercow sitting in the Commons.
For all the talk of Conservatives all being together, and the speaker the big end of level baddie it’s the damage Letwin knowingly done (with Rudd and gauke) still reverberating today isn’t it Big G?
I think there’s definitely a cross party group emerging of wavy mavisis, the problem is they actually liked what Letwins amendment did.
To try and put my finger on what I think the problem is, I think the clue is in that amendment Letwin introduced what matters them the WAB contains the mechanisms for Parliamentary oversight on FR the PM promised on Sat, in other words without that promise built in they might carry on stalling maybe?
But the problem is Boris don’t want them to have much of that, he can’t go down a road endless scrutiny deal changing and more negotiation with ERG and Europe to keep them on board.
Is this a thoughtful point? Unless these rebels with willingness to drag out scrutiny unbothered by Boris die in ditch self imposed deadline are beaten or back down, I think we may be hasty counting the numbers 🤔.
I support Bercow today but his record of impartiality is suspect
As far as Letwin is concerned both he and Rudd are fully on board with the deal and with Lisa Nandy confirming she will vote for the deal I expect the deal to pass but with a limited technical extension
But there is a cross party camp building there after scrutiny and opportunities to meddle that’s going to create friction with what Boris needs isn’t there, or am I reading it wrong?
It’s seems to me people being counted as supportivevincluding those you mentioned there always seem to qualify it with their love for that scrutiny and meddling.
On my understanding over the last couple of days there does seem to be momentum for the deal and it looks like quite a number of labour mps are wanting to pass this deal and as soon as possible
Of course nothing is certain but there is a growing sense of the deal passing as evidenced in the markets today as the pound rises to 1.30 and 1.16 euros
John Bercow's ruling today is right and obviously so. The government obviously sees political advantage in stirring up the proles against him.
Anyone still think he's going to get a peerage?
I think you have hit the nail on the head and no peerage likely for him from any conservative government
I don't agree, I think the peerage will be immediately granted to kick Bercow "upstairs" and out of the Commons. Last thing I suspect the Commons will want is Bercow sitting in the Commons.
John Bercow's ruling today is right and obviously so. The government obviously sees political advantage in stirring up the proles against him.
Anyone still think he's going to get a peerage?
I think you have hit the nail on the head and no peerage likely for him from any conservative government
I don't agree, I think the peerage will be immediately granted to kick Bercow "upstairs" and out of the Commons. Last thing I suspect the Commons will want is Bercow sitting in the Commons.
I thought he's quitting the Commons?
Speaker normally quits the Commons via taking a peerage. If no peerage is offered then he may decide to remain seated until it is offered.
The next thing I expect to happen is Labour making big hookah about Governments changes to PD they will try and use to be build an alliance.
I know Mays PD has been changed by Boris, exactly what the beef is on the labour benches needs to be spelt out to me. Could some of our Labour friends Who post here explain what Labour’s problem is with the changes Boris made to PD and why it is such an issue?
I believe Labour are concerned because workers rights in Johnson deal are moved from the withdrawal agreement to the political declaration. So if the deal is passed these rights could be eroded. Any Labour MP not fighting for workers rights, is in the wrong party.
John Bercow's ruling today is right and obviously so. The government obviously sees political advantage in stirring up the proles against him.
Anyone still think he's going to get a peerage?
Does Boris bear grudges? I'd expect the usual peerage.
No peerage, then he stays on the backbenches surely. Numberswise that is bad for BoZo, but maybe he isn't bothered, he has after all demolished his own majority already.
85% of those they elected stood on a platform of honouring the 2016 referendum, but only a minority of those have been true to their word. The only blame that can attach to voters for the impasse is the blame to those who were naive enough as to believe what they were told by such devious remainer MPs.
Ideally every referendum should propose the enactment of an already written Bill that will, if it wins the vote, come into force at a specific time. Then you avoid all the post-result hoo-hah about implementation. People know exactly what they're voting for. Or at least in a sense they do.
Unfortunately that's not possible where the implementation of a proposal depends on a to-be-negotiated agreement with other countries.
In that case, negotiate the exact form of implementation, or at least the overall framework for it, and put it back to the electorate. That isn't betraying anyone. The new referendum should be Deal versus Revoke. Or if Parliament chooses No Deal to be the Leave option, then it should be No Deal versus Revoke. If you want some other kind of Leave from the one that's on offer, you should either vote for the option you prefer out of the two that are on your plate, or else you should abstain, and since you won't be happy with either possible result you should vote for a party in the next general election that will give you what you want. Leavers can be such whingers. What's the big rush? If you want Britain to leave the EU then fine, have your say, but there is no pressing need to exit with great urgency.
The need for a second referendum applies a fortiori with Brexit, when the ballot paper didn't even specify - when it quite easily could have done - whether or not the proposal was for Britain or any part of it to be in or out of either the CU or the SM. That was rubbish governance by the David Cameron administration but it can't be changed retrospectively. Brexit could have meant BINO or at the other end of the scale it could have meant WTO. It doesn't matter much what was or wasn't promised by either of the campaigns. The ballot paper only asked Leave or Remain.
If there is any more plebiscites ever again it’s got to have two clear outcomes built in it. The last one was clear on remain, but we didn’t know the leave deal. If a confirmative ref is do you support this deal yes or no,where does a no Take us? 🤤
John Bercow's ruling today is right and obviously so. The government obviously sees political advantage in stirring up the proles against him.
Anyone still think he's going to get a peerage?
I think you have hit the nail on the head and no peerage likely for him from any conservative government
I don't agree, I think the peerage will be immediately granted to kick Bercow "upstairs" and out of the Commons. Last thing I suspect the Commons will want is Bercow sitting in the Commons.
I thought he's quitting the Commons?
Speaker normally quits the Commons via taking a peerage. If no peerage is offered then he may decide to remain seated until it is offered.
No, but I mean I thought he said when he announced he was stepping down that he was also leaving the Commons. I might be wrong.
Yes, the logical Ref2 would be on the PD - since this describes the TYPE of Leave.
Ref1 dealt with the FACT of Leave.
But are the public qualified to opine on the detail of our trading arrangements with the EU? In my view not even nearly. Most of them have little or no clue what the Single Market is, what the Customs Union is, what is meant by an 'integrated supply chain' etc etc.
Were the public even qualified to opine (in Ref1) on the FACT of Leave? Again, in my view, no. But at least that is arguable since it is more of a 'gut' question. It was about identity as much as anything and this is clearly something that anyone is qualified to hold an opinion on.
Conclusion?
Ref1 was a mistake. Parliament should decide these things. But we held it and it MUST now be implemented. The EVENT of Brexit must happen. All it does, this Deal, is take us out of the EU and guarantee no hard border in Ireland. Everything else is to be settled via the Future Relationship.
And whilst there is a certain logic to then holding a Ref2 on the Future Relationship - after we have left - the fact that the public do not understand the issues pertaining to it renders that idea impractical and dangerous.
Is to commence a full investigation into Bercow tomorrow
The result of which will no doubt be that Bercow couldn't have done anything else, because the rules are quite clear. Is Jenkin so ignorant of parliamentary procedure, or are the Tories back to making bogus attacks on everyone in sight because they've screwed things up?
The interesting question is why did the government propose another vote?
It would have known that it was not in order. It’s just another cynical attempt by the government to increase the divisions, return to an atmosphere of hostility and feed the mob.
More to the point even if Bercow had ruled it in order, why on earth did they think it would not be amended in exactly the same way again this time - with the additional annoyance of having wasted yet more time on it and probably lost a few more votes for bills and amendments further down the line.
This is very much like the whole prorogation fiasco. Pissing off Parliament and making bad headlines for no practical gain.
John Bercow's ruling today is right and obviously so. The government obviously sees political advantage in stirring up the proles against him.
Anyone still think he's going to get a peerage?
Does Boris bear grudges? I'd expect the usual peerage.
No peerage, then he stays on the backbenches surely. Numberswise that is bad for BoZo, but maybe he isn't bothered, he has after all demolished his own majority already.
Where on earth would he sit? He'd have to be an Independent, surely.Couldn't go back to being a Conservative.
John Bercow's ruling today is right and obviously so. The government obviously sees political advantage in stirring up the proles against him.
Anyone still think he's going to get a peerage?
I think you have hit the nail on the head and no peerage likely for him from any conservative government
I don't agree, I think the peerage will be immediately granted to kick Bercow "upstairs" and out of the Commons. Last thing I suspect the Commons will want is Bercow sitting in the Commons.
I thought he's quitting the Commons?
Speaker normally quits the Commons via taking a peerage. If no peerage is offered then he may decide to remain seated until it is offered.
No, but I mean I thought he said when he announced he was stepping down that he was also leaving the Commons. I might be wrong.
“This is a pledge that I intend to keep. If the House votes tonight for an early general election, my tenure as speaker and MP will end when this parliament ends.
“If the House does not so vote, I have concluded that the least disruptive and most democratic course of action would be for me to stand down at the close of business on Thursday, October 31.”
"Ian Blackford, the leader of the SNP at Westminster, wants to know the whereabouts of Boris Johnson, who he says has been utterly humiliated by his defeat in the House of Commons on Saturday."
The interesting question is why did the government propose another vote?
It would have known that it was not in order. It’s just another cynical attempt by the government to increase the divisions, return to an atmosphere of hostility and feed the mob.
More to the point even if Bercow had ruled it in order, why on earth did they think it would not be amended in exactly the same way again this time - with the additional annoyance of having wasted yet more time on it and probably lost a few more votes for bills and amendments further down the line.
This is very much like the whole prorogation fiasco. Pissing off Parliament and making bad headlines for no practical gain.
The government has benefited from the chaos it has created. In my view it is quite deliberate and entirely cynical.
It's like smashing up a restaurant and then paying for the damage.
Heard today from a civil servant that volunteers for Yellowhammer are being sought. Extra hours, extra pay. 9 days to go, and the Government is planning to gear up to start initial preparations for no deal.
Nothing like being prepared. And this is nothing like being prepared.
Nah that's rubbish. I know a few people working in Whitehall who have been involved in Yellowhammer preps for months. Ever since Gove was put in charge. They were saying the biggest fear amongst their bosses has been that it would become common knowledge and they would be accused of wasting tax payers money
Ken Clarke says he is happy for the deal to pass by the 31st but subject to proper scrutiny
There they go again the wavey mavises, exactly what I have been saying in this thread right on que! 🙄 It’s not exactly yes is it because there is only so much endless fillabustering and trying to tweak things Boris and his deal can take before EU slaps a strapping extension on us saying sort yourselves out your a shower.
Odd things can happen in markets that will be voided - people want to free up cash to use elsewhere.
Indeed. But this one is winging about from pillar to post with quite large sums being traded. Something is happening but we don't know what it is (Mr Jones) and if we could I sense opportunity.
The interesting question is why did the government propose another vote?
It would have known that it was not in order. It’s just another cynical attempt by the government to increase the divisions, return to an atmosphere of hostility and feed the mob.
More to the point even if Bercow had ruled it in order, why on earth did they think it would not be amended in exactly the same way again this time - with the additional annoyance of having wasted yet more time on it and probably lost a few more votes for bills and amendments further down the line.
This is very much like the whole prorogation fiasco. Pissing off Parliament and making bad headlines for no practical gain.
Ken Clarke says he is happy for the deal to pass by the 31st but subject to proper scrutiny
There they go again the wavey mavises, exactly what I have been saying in this thread right on que! 🙄 It’s not exactly yes is it because there is only so much endless fillabustering and trying to tweak things Boris and his deal can take before EU slaps a strapping extension on us saying sort yourselves out your a shower.
Or say no extension. Get it sorted now or out you go.
Ken Clarke says he is happy for the deal to pass by the 31st but subject to proper scrutiny
There they go again the wavey mavises, exactly what I have been saying in this thread right on que! 🙄 It’s not exactly yes is it because there is only so much endless fillabustering and trying to tweak things Boris and his deal can take before EU slaps a strapping extension on us saying sort yourselves out your a shower.
I think the next few days will see where we are going
The interesting question is why did the government propose another vote?
It would have known that it was not in order. It’s just another cynical attempt by the government to increase the divisions, return to an atmosphere of hostility and feed the mob.
More to the point even if Bercow had ruled it in order, why on earth did they think it would not be amended in exactly the same way again this time - with the additional annoyance of having wasted yet more time on it and probably lost a few more votes for bills and amendments further down the line.
This is very much like the whole prorogation fiasco. Pissing off Parliament and making bad headlines for no practical gain.
Asking for the vote again serves a purpose even when the result is known.
Boris wants a people v parliament election and today's refused vote is another example of that.
What is going to be more fun is watching what happens as the actual bill is read line by line and everyone finds items they hate in it.
The interesting question is why did the government propose another vote?
It would have known that it was not in order. It’s just another cynical attempt by the government to increase the divisions, return to an atmosphere of hostility and feed the mob.
More to the point even if Bercow had ruled it in order, why on earth did they think it would not be amended in exactly the same way again this time - with the additional annoyance of having wasted yet more time on it and probably lost a few more votes for bills and amendments further down the line.
Is it possible they didn't realise that a yes vote would enable Johnson to withdraw his letter? Or that they thought enough MPs didn't realise that?
"Ian Blackford, the leader of the SNP at Westminster, wants to know the whereabouts of Boris Johnson, who he says has been utterly humiliated by his defeat in the House of Commons on Saturday."
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes. Because the Express, Mail, Spectator and the ERG would have ensured we did.
The interesting question is why did the government propose another vote?
It would have known that it was not in order. It’s just another cynical attempt by the government to increase the divisions, return to an atmosphere of hostility and feed the mob.
More to the point even if Bercow had ruled it in order, why on earth did they think it would not be amended in exactly the same way again this time - with the additional annoyance of having wasted yet more time on it and probably lost a few more votes for bills and amendments further down the line.
Is it possible they didn't realise that a yes vote would enable Johnson to withdraw his letter? Or that they thought enough MPs didn't realise that?
I don't know Chris. As I said the other day this has all got so convoluted I have no idea what the implications are of any of these actions at the moment. The fact that even the journalists who are supposed to make a living out of explaining this stuff to us seemed to be unclear about whether the MV passed or not kind of shows how daft it has all become.
They should just get on and debate the WAIB. Make some bloody decisions.
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes. Because the Express, Mail, Spectator and the ERG would have ensured we did.
How would they do that? You think they would get a fair hearing? Or "Get over it, you lost"?
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes. Because the Express, Mail, Spectator and the ERG would have ensured we did.
Yes, but the reason was that they wanted the letter to be sent. That it now has been is a material change of circumstances.
To be clear, I think Bercow was right, but I can see the argument on the other side.
They wanted the letter sent AND the WAIB passed. If the MV passed today, Johnson could withdraw the letter, hence reopening the No Deal loophole. So the same amendment would have been needed to close it - Groundhog Day.
85% of those they elected stood on a platform of honouring the 2016 referendum, but only a minority of those have been true to their word. The only blame that can attach to voters for the impasse is the blame to those who were naive enough as to believe what they were told by such devious remainer MPs.
Ideally every referendum should propose the enactment of an already written Bill that will, if it wins the vote, come into force at a specific time. Then you avoid all the post-result hoo-hah about implementation. People know exactly what they're voting for. Or at least in a sense they do.
Unfortunately that's not possible where the implementation of a proposal depends on a to-be-negotiated agreement with other countries.
In that case, negotiate the exact form of implementation, or at least the overall framework for it, and put it back to the electorate. That isn't betraying anyone. The new referendum should be Deal versus Revoke. Or if Parliament chooses No Deal to be the Leave option, then it should be No Deal versus Revoke. If you want some other kind of Leave from the one that's on offer, you should either vote for the option you prefer out of the two that are on your plate, or else you should abstain, and since you won't be happy with either possible result you should vote for a party in the next general election that will give you what you want. Leavers can be such whingers. What's the big rush? If you want Britain to leave the EU then fine, have your say, but there is no pressing need to exit with great urgency.
The need for a second referendum applies a fortiori with Brexit, when the ballot paper didn't even specify - when it quite easily could have done - whether or not the proposal was for Britain or any part of it to be in or out of either the CU or the SM. That was rubbish governance by the David Cameron administration but it can't be changed retrospectively. Brexit could have meant BINO or at the other end of the scale it could have meant WTO. It doesn't matter much what was or wasn't promised by either of the campaigns. The ballot paper only asked Leave or Remain.
If there is any more plebiscites ever again it’s got to have two clear outcomes built in it. The last one was clear on remain, but we didn’t know the leave deal. If a confirmative ref is do you support this deal yes or no,where does a no Take us? 🤤
Revoke or no deal
but That will likely be revoke win, it’s stacking against brexit with extreme brexit option. Boris deal v revoke could go either way imo. Maybe hard brexit v custom union brexit is the best Next vote because it’s not end of world to losers, they could argue and win on future direction later?
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
John Bercow's ruling today is right and obviously so. The government obviously sees political advantage in stirring up the proles against him.
Anyone still think he's going to get a peerage?
I think you have hit the nail on the head and no peerage likely for him from any conservative government
I don't agree, I think the peerage will be immediately granted to kick Bercow "upstairs" and out of the Commons. Last thing I suspect the Commons will want is Bercow sitting in the Commons.
I thought he's quitting the Commons?
Speaker normally quits the Commons via taking a peerage. If no peerage is offered then he may decide to remain seated until it is offered.
No, but I mean I thought he said when he announced he was stepping down that he was also leaving the Commons. I might be wrong.
“This is a pledge that I intend to keep. If the House votes tonight for an early general election, my tenure as speaker and MP will end when this parliament ends.
“If the House does not so vote, I have concluded that the least disruptive and most democratic course of action would be for me to stand down at the close of business on Thursday, October 31.”
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes. Because the Express, Mail, Spectator and the ERG would have ensured we did.
And Parliament would have ignored them.
Parliament has largely ignored second referendum calls. There is not a majority for it.
Things that have a majority in parliament get an easier ride than those that dont! Our party leaders, especially on the tory side have forgotten how to count. That is the root cause of the problem. We have a divided nation and parliament, but a govt that refuses to recognise this blindingly obvious fact.
Yes, but the reason was that they wanted the letter to be sent. That it now has been is a material change of circumstances.
To be clear, I think Bercow was right, but I can see the argument on the other side.
They wanted the letter sent AND the WAIB passed. If the MV passed today, Johnson could withdraw the letter, hence reopening the No Deal loophole. So the same amendment would have been needed to close it - Groundhog Day.
Its not a loophole, it was an explicit option in the Benn Act that if Parliament agreed a deal no letter was needed, so deciding not to vote on the deal does not close a loophole it goes against what was passed in the Benn Act.
The Benn Act was badly drafted to be in this mess. Perhaps it should have said that a letter would need to be sent unless Parliament had passed a Withdrawal Act but it didn't.
Steve Barclay just challenged Corbyn and Starmer to come clean on just how long a referendum would take and how long an extension would be needed
They both looked as if they had been caught in the headlights
Given that it has assumed control of Brexit from the Government, for the remainder of this parliament would it not be more meaningful for there to be Questions to the Leader of the Opposition every noon on Wednesdays?
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes, we would. Next.
No we really wouldn't. Parliament would not have given it time of day. And they would have been absolutely right as well. The trouble is that this bunch of hypocrites currently infesting Parliament are not interested in doing the right thing, only in getting their own way no matter what the cost.
Comments
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/labour-line-up-jew-process-councillor-as-dame-louise-ellman-replacement-1.490243
His final day should be fun when Con MPs get to say good riddance to him.
The more people and MPs have knowledge of its effects , the less they may like it.
To railroad this on a few hours sitting in crisis mode , is no way for a country to make such fundamental change.
I am glad Letwin has enabled parliament , to fully consider Johnson's deal.
Will the MV pass today?
Yes 3
No 1.5
Voided if no MV today.
??
Unfortunately that's not possible where the implementation of a proposal depends on a to-be-negotiated agreement with other countries.
In that case, negotiate the exact form of implementation, or at least the overall framework for it, and put it back to the electorate. That isn't betraying anyone. The new referendum should be Deal versus Revoke. Or if Parliament chooses No Deal to be the Leave option, then it should be No Deal versus Revoke. If you want some other kind of Leave from the one that's on offer, you should either vote for the option you prefer out of the two that are on your plate, or else you should abstain, and since you won't be happy with either possible result you should vote for a party in the next general election that will give you what you want. Leavers can be such whingers. What's the big rush? If you want Britain to leave the EU then fine, have your say, but there is no pressing need to exit with great urgency.
The need for a second referendum applies a fortiori with Brexit, when the ballot paper didn't even specify - when it quite easily could have done - whether or not the proposal was for Britain or any part of it to be in or out of either the CU or the SM. That was rubbish governance by the David Cameron administration but it can't be changed retrospectively. Brexit could have meant BINO or at the other end of the scale it could have meant WTO. It doesn't matter much what was or wasn't promised by either of the campaigns. The ballot paper only asked Leave or Remain.
It would have known that it was not in order. It’s just another cynical attempt by the government to increase the divisions, return to an atmosphere of hostility and feed the mob.
I think there’s definitely a cross party group emerging of wavy mavisis, the problem is they actually liked what Letwins amendment did.
To try and put my finger on what I think the problem is, I think the clue is in that amendment Letwin introduced what matters them the WAB contains the mechanisms for Parliamentary oversight on FR the PM promised on Sat, in other words without that promise built in they might carry on stalling maybe?
But the problem is Boris don’t want them to have much of that, he can’t go down a road endless scrutiny deal changing and more negotiation with ERG and Europe to keep them on board.
Is this a thoughtful point? Unless these rebels with willingness to drag out scrutiny unbothered by Boris die in ditch self imposed deadline are beaten or back down, I think we may be hasty counting the numbers 🤔.
Odd things can happen in markets that will be voided - people want to free up cash to use elsewhere.
Bizarre.
Anyone still think he's going to get a peerage?
It deserves more consideration , than a rushed Saturday.
Nothing like being prepared. And this is nothing like being prepared.
As far as Letwin is concerned both he and Rudd are fully on board with the deal and with Lisa Nandy confirming she will vote for the deal I expect the deal to pass but with a limited technical extension
Since the govt gave notice before the letter was sent and did everything to then underplay the significance of that letter , I can't reasonably see that was their true motive.
Whereas they have form when it comes to stirring things up.
withholds approval unless and until implementing legislation is passed.
The implementing legislation is not passed. I don't see how it could be clearer.
It’s seems to me people being counted as supportivevincluding those you mentioned there always seem to qualify it with their love for that scrutiny and meddling.
I know Mays PD has been changed by Boris, exactly what the beef is on the labour benches needs to be spelt out to me. Could some of our Labour friends Who post here explain what Labour’s problem is with the changes Boris made to PD and why it is such an issue?
To be clear, I think Bercow was right, but I can see the argument on the other side.
Shame he didn't think about that when most of an afternoon was lost to remain MPs telling him just how fabulous he is after he announced his impending retirement.
Of course nothing is certain but there is a growing sense of the deal passing as evidenced in the markets today as the pound rises to 1.30 and 1.16 euros
Same old same old then.
So if the deal is passed these rights could be eroded.
Any Labour MP not fighting for workers rights, is in the wrong party.
Yes, the logical Ref2 would be on the PD - since this describes the TYPE of Leave.
Ref1 dealt with the FACT of Leave.
But are the public qualified to opine on the detail of our trading arrangements with the EU? In my view not even nearly. Most of them have little or no clue what the Single Market is, what the Customs Union is, what is meant by an 'integrated supply chain' etc etc.
Were the public even qualified to opine (in Ref1) on the FACT of Leave? Again, in my view, no. But at least that is arguable since it is more of a 'gut' question. It was about identity as much as anything and this is clearly something that anyone is qualified to hold an opinion on.
Conclusion?
Ref1 was a mistake. Parliament should decide these things. But we held it and it MUST now be implemented. The EVENT of Brexit must happen. All it does, this Deal, is take us out of the EU and guarantee no hard border in Ireland. Everything else is to be settled via the Future Relationship.
And whilst there is a certain logic to then holding a Ref2 on the Future Relationship - after we have left - the fact that the public do not understand the issues pertaining to it renders that idea impractical and dangerous.
This is very much like the whole prorogation fiasco. Pissing off Parliament and making bad headlines for no practical gain.
“If the House does not so vote, I have concluded that the least disruptive and most democratic course of action would be for me to stand down at the close of business on Thursday, October 31.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/john-bercow-quits-resignation-retirement-brexit-parliament-speaker-eu-a9097831.html
They both looked as if they had been caught in the headlights
Check the ditches
It's like smashing up a restaurant and then paying for the damage.
Boris wants a people v parliament election and today's refused vote is another example of that.
What is going to be more fun is watching what happens as the actual bill is read line by line and everyone finds items they hate in it.
They should just get on and debate the WAIB. Make some bloody decisions.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1186304359279267843
Things that have a majority in parliament get an easier ride than those that dont! Our party leaders, especially on the tory side have forgotten how to count. That is the root cause of the problem. We have a divided nation and parliament, but a govt that refuses to recognise this blindingly obvious fact.
The Benn Act was badly drafted to be in this mess. Perhaps it should have said that a letter would need to be sent unless Parliament had passed a Withdrawal Act but it didn't.