Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If there’s no immediate General Election then the next big ele

1356

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936

    Noo said:

    I haven't been following today very much at all.

    What does Bercow's ruling mean please?

    What comes next (if anyone can answer that)?

    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.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    Bernard Jenkins in full on attack against Bercow

    And WOW

    Tell us more
  • philiph said:

    Bernard Jenkins in full on attack against Bercow

    And WOW

    Tell us more
    Is to commence a full investigation into Bercow tomorrow
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Noo said:

    I haven't been following today very much at all.

    What does Bercow's ruling mean please?

    What comes next (if anyone can answer that)?

    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.
  • philiph said:

    Bernard Jenkins in full on attack against Bercow

    And WOW

    Tell us more
    Is to commence a full investigation into Bercow tomorrow
    Tbh, Bercow doesn't exactly seem bothered.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    philiph said:

    Bernard Jenkins in full on attack against Bercow

    And WOW

    Tell us more
    Is to commence a full investigation into Bercow tomorrow
    Tbh, Bercow doesn't exactly seem bothered.
    Well, he retires in 10 days.
  • Caroline Flint having a go as well
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293

    philiph said:

    Bernard Jenkins in full on attack against Bercow

    And WOW

    Tell us more
    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.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    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.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    Yorkcity said:

    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.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237
    Chris said:

    The small print says it will be voided if no vote.

    Yes, sure, but post Bercow we now have the following -

    Will the MV pass today?

    Yes 3
    No 1.5

    Voided if no MV today.

    ??
  • Henry_CHenry_C Posts: 73
    edited October 2019

    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.


  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Yorkcity said:

    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?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675
    edited October 2019
    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.
  • GIN1138 said:

    philiph said:

    Bernard Jenkins in full on attack against Bercow

    And WOW

    Tell us more
    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.
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749

    Bernard Jenkins in full on attack against Bercow

    And WOW

    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 🤔.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293
    Jonathan said:

    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.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    kinabalu said:


    Yes, sure, but post Bercow we now have the following -

    Will the MV pass today?


    Odd things can happen in markets that will be voided - people want to free up cash to use elsewhere.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Jonathan said:

    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.
  • He's doing a Willie Whitelaw impression now.

    Bizarre.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    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?
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    RobD said:

    Yorkcity said:

    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.
  • Jonathan said:

    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.
  • StreeterStreeter Posts: 684
    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.
  • egg said:

    Bernard Jenkins in full on attack against Bercow

    And WOW

    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
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293
    edited October 2019

    GIN1138 said:

    philiph said:

    Bernard Jenkins in full on attack against Bercow

    And WOW

    Tell us more
    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. :D
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675
    edited October 2019

    Jonathan said:

    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.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    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.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Jonathan said:

    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.
  • 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
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,878

    philiph said:

    Bernard Jenkins in full on attack against Bercow

    And WOW

    Tell us more
    Is to commence a full investigation into Bercow tomorrow
    Tbh, Bercow doesn't exactly seem bothered.
    I don't blame him. He's off next week. I wouldn't be in the slightest bit bothered either.
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749

    egg said:

    Bernard Jenkins in full on attack against Bercow

    And WOW

    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.
  • Henry_CHenry_C Posts: 73
    edited October 2019
    GIN1138 said:

    philiph said:

    Bernard Jenkins in full on attack against Bercow

    And WOW

    Tell us more
    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.
    Snarky valedictions to Speaker Bercow are likely to be swamped by other drama in the chamber that night :smiley:
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268

    philiph said:

    Bernard Jenkins in full on attack against Bercow

    And WOW

    Tell us more
    Is to commence a full investigation into Bercow tomorrow
    Tbh, Bercow doesn't exactly seem bothered.
    I don't blame him. He's off next week. I wouldn't be in the slightest bit bothered either.
    He will go down in history similar to Alastair Campbell. A man that debased our politics with extreme partisanship.
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749
    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?
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Gabs2 said:

    philiph said:

    Bernard Jenkins in full on attack against Bercow

    And WOW

    Tell us more
    Is to commence a full investigation into Bercow tomorrow
    Tbh, Bercow doesn't exactly seem bothered.
    I don't blame him. He's off next week. I wouldn't be in the slightest bit bothered either.
    He will go down in history similar to Alastair Campbell. A man that debased our politics with extreme partisanship.
    :D
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    The Speaker vote is secret right? Could throw some surprises.
  • Noo said:

    Jonathan said:

    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.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293
    edited October 2019
    Anyone know when there's going to be a vote on the Queens Speech? It must be soon?
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    GIN1138 said:

    Bollocks To Bercow! :D

    Bercow's Bollocks Blocks Boris's Brexit.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675

    Noo said:

    Jonathan said:

    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.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936

    The Speaker vote is secret right? Could throw some surprises.

    No, the tellers will announce it is tied, and then the Speaker will announce his decision.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    RobD said:

    The Speaker vote is secret right? Could throw some surprises.

    No, the tellers will announce it is tied, and then the Speaker will announce his decision.
    I think s/he means the vote for the new speaker
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    Noo said:

    RobD said:

    The Speaker vote is secret right? Could throw some surprises.

    No, the tellers will announce it is tied, and then the Speaker will announce his decision.
    I think s/he means the vote for the new speaker
    Oops, my apologies. Yes, that ballot is secret.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,215
    Corbyn can read the mind of the EU27 !
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
    Jonathan said:

    Noo said:

    Jonathan said:

    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.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,215
    This line is very helpful to the Gov't from Corbyn
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749
    Henry_C said:

    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.
  • egg said:

    egg said:

    Bernard Jenkins in full on attack against Bercow

    And WOW

    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

  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    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?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293
    edited October 2019
    Henry_C said:

    GIN1138 said:

    philiph said:

    Bernard Jenkins in full on attack against Bercow

    And WOW

    Tell us more
    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.
    Snarky valedictions to Speaker Bercow are likely to be swamped by other drama in the chamber that night :smiley:
    What else will be happening? More endless debates and drivel but no substantive decisions from the House Of Fools?

    Same old same old then.
  • Noo said:

    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.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    egg said:

    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.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,724

    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.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    egg said:

    Henry_C said:

    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
  • Ken Clarke says he is happy for the deal to pass by the 31st but subject to proper scrutiny

  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Noo said:

    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.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900


    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.

    I wonder if he'll sit as an independent. Be fun if he takes the Labour whip.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237
    @Henry_C

    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.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751

    philiph said:

    Bernard Jenkins in full on attack against Bercow

    And WOW

    Tell us more
    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?
  • Jonathan said:

    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.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,478
    Foxy said:

    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.
  • Noo said:

    Noo said:

    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.”

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/john-bercow-quits-resignation-retirement-brexit-parliament-speaker-eu-a9097831.html
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,133
    edited October 2019
    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
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    "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."

    Check the ditches
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675



    Jonathan said:

    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.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751
    GIN1138 said:

    Henry_C said:

    GIN1138 said:

    philiph said:

    Bernard Jenkins in full on attack against Bercow

    And WOW

    Tell us more
    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.
    Snarky valedictions to Speaker Bercow are likely to be swamped by other drama in the chamber that night :smiley:
    What else will be happening? More endless debates and drivel but no substantive decisions from the House Of Fools?
    Ah. Bogus attacks it is.
  • Streeter said:

    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
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749

    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.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237
    Andrew said:

    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.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,215



    Jonathan said:

    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.
    I expect Grieve had something up his sleeve.
  • egg said:

    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.
  • egg said:

    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
  • eekeek Posts: 28,405



    Jonathan said:

    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.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,720
    Redwood supports Bercow’s decision.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Redwood supports Bercow’s decision.

    Typical bloody remainer
  • Redwood supports Bercow’s decision.

    Sensible man.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751



    Jonathan said:

    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?
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    Redwood supports Bercow’s decision.

    As a route to No Deal, I assume?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293
    Noo said:

    "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."

    Perhaps he's on the blower sorting out a veto? :D
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    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 ?
  • isam said:

    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.
  • Chris said:



    Jonathan said:

    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.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited October 2019

    isam said:

    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"?
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    isam said:

    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.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
  • isam said:

    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.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237

    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.
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749
    Noo said:

    egg said:

    Henry_C said:

    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?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Noo said:

    isam said:

    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.
    Actually, the answer is "No, we wouldn't"
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065

    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    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.”

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/john-bercow-quits-resignation-retirement-brexit-parliament-speaker-eu-a9097831.html
    "Standing down" on 31st October only means as Speaker. It is unclear if he will take the Chiltern Hundreds.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    isam said:

    Noo said:

    isam said:

    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.
    Actually, the answer is "No, we wouldn't"
    Oh, well, prove it.
  • isam said:

    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.
  • kinabalu said:

    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.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780

    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?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Noo said:

    isam said:

    Noo said:

    isam said:

    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.
    Actually, the answer is "No, we wouldn't"
    Oh, well, prove it.
    Anyone with deductive powers just knows
  • Noo said:

    isam said:

    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.
This discussion has been closed.