OV9

Yes, sorry I mean <double blink> (its two for yes one for no, right?)

GG. wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:59 pm Yes, sorry I mean <double blink> (its two for yes one for no, right?)

you’re just being a penis now.

GG. wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:45 pm Bias of Bercow is pretty preposterous at this stage. ERG amendment to extension motion to rule out no second referendum not selected despite 167 signatures with him as speaker supposed to select amendments that have the support of a significant number of members. I'd like to see the justification for this one.

I'm confused. The ERG wants a second referendum? Doesn't not want a second referendum?

Jackleg wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:54 pm

GG. wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:45 pm Bias of Bercow is pretty preposterous at this stage. ERG amendment to extension motion to rule out no second referendum not selected despite 167 signatures with him as speaker supposed to select amendments that have the support of a significant number of members. I'd like to see the justification for this one.

I'm confused. The ERG wants a second referendum? Doesn't not want a second referendum?

Good spot. Should've been "rule out a", as I'm sure you guessed.

Indeed. But this seems to be overly pedantic day, so I thought I'd better call you on it just in case...

People's Vote proponents and Labour not backing the pro second ref amendments in today's votes because they don't think it can win. What a circus.

I like the way GG has had to abandon constitutional law arguments in favour of philosophy.

Jobbo wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:30 pm I like the way GG has had to abandon constitutional law arguments in favour of philosophy.

I suspect he may try a Freemen-of-the-Land approach next. "I think you'll find I'm travelling, not driving".

The saddest loss from the old forum was that post in the old Brexit thread when GG apparently turned into John Keats and got all teary over the glory of England .

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:16 pm The saddest loss from the old forum was that post in the old Brexit thread when GG apparently turned into John Keats and got all teary over the glory of England .

You know he's in his thirties, too, right? He's basically Rees-Mogg's son.

NotoriousREV wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:17 pm

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:16 pm The saddest loss from the old forum was that post in the old Brexit thread when GG apparently turned into John Keats and got all teary over the glory of England .

You know he's in his thirties, too, right? He's basically Rees-Mogg's son.

JRM in teenage pregnancy shocker!

He’s a religious fundamentalist. If you don’t have four kids by 20 you’re doing it wrong.

NotoriousREV wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:13 pm

Jobbo wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:30 pm I like the way GG has had to abandon constitutional law arguments in favour of philosophy.

I suspect he may try a Freemen-of-the-Land approach next. "I think you'll find I'm travelling, not driving".

Then the window gets bust and he gets tasered?

This one:

Bumping back up as Bercow has basically told May to take her vote, and stick it up her arse unless it's different enough to justify a new vote.

So, er, that's interesting.

It seems Bercow is stating that the wording of the motion must change. Presumably if it is amended to say "the house would pass the withdrawal agreement rather than agree to a 2 year extension proposed by the EU" that would be sufficient though it isn't clear.

It's rather ironic given the debate about whether the referendum should be rerun (potentially with the same question) on the basis of different facts or circumstances now existing at the time of the original vote, but the government potentially wouldn't be able to run the same motion even though the prior one was held before we knew what the terms of any extension would be.

I think in addition to the old adage "hard cases make bad law" we should add "political crises make a mockery of parliamentary convention".

ETA: he's actually now said it would need a change to the WA itself, i.e. a "demonstrable change to proposition" would be achieved in the "context of a negotiation with others, outside of the UK". I think he's getting into very dangerous territory depending on exactly what is noted in the precedents. I also wonder whether his decisions are in anyway reviewable?

GG. wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:36 pm

It's rather ironic given the debate about whether the referendum should be rerun (potentially with the same question) on the basis of some actual facts or circumstances

Let's fund the NHS instead

GG. wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:36 pm It's rather ironic given the debate about whether the referendum should be rerun (potentially with the same question)

It's patently clear to anyone with half a brain that a 2nd referendum would not be the same question under any circumstances.

‘Two thirds of British jobs in manufacturing are dependent on demand from Europe’ – Alan Johnson

‘We will need an emergency Budget to restore stability to public finances’ – George Osborne