politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Layla Moran now becomes favourite to become next LD leader
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Layla Moran now becomes favourite to become next LD leader
Poll after poll has shown that the will of the people is now in favour of a People's Vote with the option to stay in the EU. So whose side is the Prime Minister on – Putin's or the people's? #PMQs pic.twitter.com/u3Q8SwF9by
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Verified account @JGForsyth
Bercow’s response to Rees-Mogg was, essentially, an admission that he hasn’t thought through the future implications of his actions
But her question to May at today's PMQ's was nasty and unnecessary IMO.
We don't want to rule out describing him as an intellectual eunuch.
Very thoughtful and capable chap.
But again, it's evidence of what will happen and the damage this is doing to our politics.. The neutrality politically of the Office of the Speaker is now damaged.
The government has a business motion which will result in the MV.
At the time the provision for the MV was made it was expressly said that a Minister could tender an amendment but no one else.
Grieve has proposed an amendment which essentially takes away the timetabling control of the motion from the government, allows MPs to speak twice and gives MPs the chance to determine what we do next.
Precedent says that a back bencher cannot make an amendment to a business motion.
Bercow received advice to that effect from the clerks.
Notwithstanding that Bercow has decided to call the motion on the basis, presumably, that the will of Parliament is being subverted.
He has confirmed, however, that even if the motion were to pass that would not repeal the legislation repealing the European Communities Act.
Is that where we are?
The context of Bercow's decision is presumably the withdrawal of the original MV motion by the PM before Christmas when it became evident that she was facing a heavy defeat. I remember there being a lot of unhappiness about the way that was done at the time.
Is he wrong? Almost certainly on the technicalities but arguably not on the substantive point. Control of the time tabling agenda is May's last weapon and she is abusing it.
Seriously, yes, she's a fair possibility though a 42% shot (or 11/8 if you prefer), seems pretty short to me when there's no vacancy yet and we don't know who'll stand or under what circumstances.
Mores to the point her refreshing political style is quite a contrast to the typical party hack. I think she would be nearly as good as Norman Lamb as next leader.
If you want to argue against foreign influence in a matter, you don't use foreign preferences in the debate. You can bet that she would not have mentioned Putin at all if Putin's views coincided with hers.
That is where Bercow now is.
https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1082993575586082816
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/06/24/speaker-cornered-time-for-john-bercow-to-stand-down-as-speaker/
That doesn't tell you everything, of course, but in respect of the referendum I think it told you quite a lot.
I don't like Bercow in the least, but I think it disingenuous to call him partisan as a means of discrediting the ruling. What he is trying to do is insist on Parliament being able to have a say in the fact of government's procedural efforts to frustrate it.
Given May's extended filibuster on the issue, it is arrant hypocrisy to decry the Speaker for bending the rules. As ever, the remedy is in Parliament's hands - if it doesn't like the way the Speaker is conducting matters, it can sack him.
https://twitter.com/CJLittlemore/status/1067156787097493505?s=19
But sure, lets just stick with the nutters and ignore everyone else *rolleyes*
Behold, the glee, nay joy, on the lips of Bercow. He's been planning this for weeks, maybe months. And he's lapping up every last luscious second of it.
Here is the man who will let Parliament Take Back Control. A towering godhead in a room of tiny little men.
John Bercow, you are a national hero and your name shall resound throughout the annals.
Of course it's valid to point out when our leaders are taking actions which are against the county's interests (and those of the now electorate) but are in the interests of our enemies.
FWIW I don't think Paddy's views on the matter were in much doubt.
Of course Britain joining the EEC in the first place was quite rightly viewed as a betrayal of Australia/New Zealand and the Commonwealth down under.
But lets just stick with the lunatics and not pay attention to our kin and allies.
A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution, make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed in relation to negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.
I am not sure that there is a limit on how many goes it can have in that 21 days. The approval of the package (not just the WA), however, is a condition precedent of further progress in the ratification of the agreement.
We really are in a sh*t position. Thanks, Brexiteers, you bunch of stinking winnets.
Parliament has precisely one way to stop Bercow. A motion of confidence. If the government is really that desperate to stop Parliament from Taking Back Control, then why doesn't it move a motion of no confidence in the speaker?
Because he'd win. And he knows it. And they know it.
This is why Bercow has the smirk on his face.
And since it's narrow politics dressed up as principle, the whole affair will go nowhere other than yet more bitterness, entrenching the sides, with the speaker an outright opponent of the government.
Culturally, historically, politically, linguistically and much more Australia is far closer to home than Russia is. Only geography separates us.
Explained it was his wife's car and he does not control her views.
Spot on.
I don't think he was quite this mad back then. Like many people, Brexit has made him mad. And I don't mean angry.
Never have seen the appeal.
Its standard modus operandi in Europe once a deal is agreed to say it is final and can't be changed, but if it gets rejected domestically to tweak it in order to satisfy domestic concerns. Happened with Maastricht, Nice and Lisbon from memory.
Now you may argue it can't happen here and this will go against history but without trying we'll never know.
The amendment will carry, and Bercow's hero status will go up another star.
They should've left the point of order with Leadsom.