Bye bye Theresa

[JLv3.0]

Oh I haven't forgotten. I work with lawyers and am very much up to speed on how much shit they spout on the pretext of trying to look clever.

The good ones actually make it simple rather than complicated - they are not in abundance sadly.

[Beany]

Rumours abound that May will present the motion again anyway.

Which strikes me as remarkably stupid, childish, and playing up of a victim narrative for the press (it were Bercow who blew it, etc - as we're already seeing in the right wing press). But not at all surprising.

I refer back to my previous point about lining 'em up and shooting them. They're fucking worthless.

[JonMad]

Looks like Bercow just enforced what everyone was thinking - bringing it back again unchanged would be a farce*.

(*were it not one already)

[GG.]

It’s nice that you take Simon’s word as gospel but actually he’s the one throwing spurious and silly points about just for the craic of having a debate. He knows the position just as well as I do.

His first point that conventions are part of ‘constitutional law’ is correct in the sense that if you pick up a constitutional law textbook it will include sections on parliamentary conventions and if you study a constitutional law module, equally so there as they’re fundamental to how the constitution operates. That doesn’t detract from the fact that conventions explicitly aren’t law - even if you just Wikipedia it you will see that they are described as ‘non legal rules’ and ‘not capable of being enforced by the courts’.

As for common law versus statute law, they still bear the same distinction to convention, if you breach common law, the enforceable rule remains the same. You can’t approach a court and say ‘well, people generally don’t obey this common law rule and therefore it is no longer law’ and win your point. There is a difference in how statute law and common law is developed but that’s totally a red herring for the purposes of this point.

[Jobbo]

Looks like Bercow just enforced what everyone was thinking - bringing it back again unchanged would be a farce*.

(*were it not one already)

Exactly. The whole basis for the convention is that you can't say democracy has been done if you keep bringing the same motion back unchanged in short succession to attempt to get a different result. The house has voted against the draft withdrawal agreement by an enormous majority twice. A slim majority in favour a third time would not, to my eyes, be sufficient evidence that the house actually approves it. Another vote against would just waste time.

[V8Granite]

Oh I haven't forgotten. I work with lawyers and am very much up to speed on how much shit they spout on the pretext of trying to look clever.

The good ones actually make it simple rather than complicated - they are not in abundance sadly.

A million times this!!

Dave!

[NotoriousREV]

If Bercow is so far out of line (which I don't believe he actually is), why haven't they tabled a vote of no confidence against him? Surely if he's breaking the rules it'd be a slam dunk?

[NotoriousREV]

It’s nice that you take Simon’s word as gospel

Not really, I've argued with Jobbo many times over many things. Maybe it's confirmation bias, but I think he's right and you're wrong on this occasion, although to be totally honest, as usual it's hard to follow your actual argument because you're not a very clear communicator.

[Jobbo]

Are The English Ready For Self-Government?: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fint ... -1.3830474

[Jobbo]

It’s nice that you take Simon’s word as gospel but actually he’s the one throwing spurious and silly points about just for the craic of having a debate. He knows the position just as well as I do.

His first point that conventions are part of ‘constitutional law’ is correct in the sense that if you pick up a constitutional law textbook it will include sections on parliamentary conventions and if you study a constitutional law module, equally so there as they’re fundamental to how the constitution operates. That doesn’t detract from the fact that conventions explicitly aren’t law - even if you just Wikipedia it you will see that they are described as ‘non legal rules’ and ‘not capable of being enforced by the courts’.

As for common law versus statute law, they still bear the same distinction to convention, if you breach common law, the enforceable rule remains the same. You can’t approach a court and say ‘well, people generally don’t obey this common law rule and therefore it is no longer law’ and win your point. There is a difference in how statute law and common law is developed but that’s totally a red herring for the purposes of this point.

I don't rely on Wikipedia as one my legal resources.

[GG.]

Whatever you are relying on seems to be worse.

[GG.]

If Bercow is so far out of line (which I don't believe he actually is), why haven't they tabled a vote of no confidence against him? Surely if he's breaking the rules it'd be a slam dunk?

He's not actually particularly out of line on this point (if presumptious as the government hasn't actually tabled MV3 just yet). The point is that he's inconsistent with what he's said in the past which was that he (correctly) isn't bound by convention so can choose to "reform" as MPs euphemistically call it by not strictly following convention. The worst instance in reality was the amendment to one of the motions last week where he declined to accept a anti-second referendum amendment which was signed by nearly a quarter of the house of commons and from members of Labour, the Convervatives and the DUP (which would indicate it should definitely have been accepted).

The point on it being a slam dunk doesn't make sense if he's anti-brexit in his breaches (which is what the accusation is) as the vote would be held by MPs, most of whom are anti-brexit, so its the opposite of a slam dunk. Why would they vote out someone potentially biased in their favour.

Anyway, the most interesting tweet today was by Nick Boles who pointed out this is potentially a mountain out of molehill as MPs can decide to vote to set aside Bercow's ruling, so if MV3 genuinely did look to be a go-er, presumably that is what TM would do.

[GG.]

It’s nice that you take Simon’s word as gospel

Not really, I've argued with Jobbo many times over many things. Maybe it's confirmation bias, but I think he's right and you're wrong on this occasion, although to be totally honest, as usual it's hard to follow your actual argument because you're not a very clear communicator.

If you do genuinely think he's right that is quite worrying. You are well able to research things yourself as has been proven, however, so I know in reality you don't actually believe that and the above comment is just a snipe and a deflection, but there we are.

[NotoriousREV]

It’s nice that you take Simon’s word as gospel

Not really, I've argued with Jobbo many times over many things. Maybe it's confirmation bias, but I think he's right and you're wrong on this occasion, although to be totally honest, as usual it's hard to follow your actual argument because you're not a very clear communicator.

If you do genuinely think he's right that is quite worrying. You are well able to research things yourself as has been proven, however, so I know in reality you don't actually believe that and the above comment is just a snipe and a deflection, but there we are.

It isn't. I'm trying to give you clear feedback.

[GG.]

Ok that's fine - I'm not giving you advice as a client, however. As Rich has noted (and Jobbo has demonstrated), deflection and complexity are part of legal debating. The law versus convention point is literally the first thing you learn on a Constitutional law module (well, it was on mine anyway) so romping off on a tangent about statute versus common law is funny, but would earn you a U in your finals if you relied on that to support the statement that conventions were law.

[Simon]

I thought it wasn't just about whether it was a convention or not, but the fact that this is defined in Erskine May as a rule?

Although yes, it sounds like he should've been consistent and taken a similar approach in January.

[GG.]

Erskine May is simply a compendium of parliamentary procedure - it is where the 'rules' of parliamentary procedure and constitutional conventions are documented. This particular 'rule' is a convention - they're not mutually exclusive terms as far as I'm aware. It's also a 'standing order' as it is a rule relating to the conduct of business in the house.

Interestingly, Thomas Erskine May who compiled it whilst he was clerk of the House of Commons was the great great grandfather of TM's husband, Philip May. Irony squared.

[ste]

I'd ignored this thread. Just read some of it.

Fucking hilarious. Some of you are utter fucking morons.

I'm going back to ignoring it again.

[GG.]

The most annoying part of it is surely, for everyone, that we're 61 pages in and Theresa May has very much not gone bye bye.

[JLv3.0]

This brought a lol - https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/french ... 71331.html