OV9

NotoriousREV wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:43 pm

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.

I'm not sure that's "patently clear". There's an argument that that would be the only legitimate question to set to avoid any accusations of bias.

Personally I think you could craft it in such a way not to either take remain off the paper entirely or to split the leave vote or offer just the botched form of leave TM has negotiated, but like most other things connected to Brexit, you'd be foolish to rule out the exact same question being put again.

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

Literally the opposite of what he said - the motion has to be substantially different. That goes a bit beyond just changing the wording to ask the same question in a slightly different way.

Beany wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:47 pm

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

Literally the opposite of what he said - the motion has to be substantially different. That goes a bit beyond just changing the wording to ask the same question in a slightly different way.

Hence the ETA once I'd read his comments in full.

He's still potentially making a leap that the underlying WA has to change though.

WA - yes / no and WA or 2 year proposed extension by EU is substantially different IMO. Also arguably as big a difference as MV1 v MV2.

I was going to give you stick for spouting off without knowing what you were talking about, then I remembered where I was

To be clear, here's his exact words

Beany wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:55 pm I was going to give you stick for spouting off without knowing what you were talking about, then I remembered where I was

To be clear, here's his exact words

It is quite incredible. 16 seconds of his pomposity is enough to grind your teeth down to stumps.

Not a helpful excerpt without the gloss on what "proposition" means. Is that the underlying WA agreement itself or the motion which passes it. With subsequent comments he seems to be leaning towards the former but it would be interesting to see / hear the advice he has been given on that (if he has) by the clerks.

I met ex Speaker if the House of Lords, Barroness De Souza at a function a while back (in the River Room in the Palace Of Westminister - if you have the opportunity, I can thoroughly recommend it )

She couldn’t have been more different to Berkow - humble, engaging - lovely women really...

Don't forget that it only prohibits bringing it back to Parliament unchanged within the same Parliamentary session. So actually they could go to recess for a couple of days later this week and bingo, next week is a new session.

I think you're confusing a sitting and a session with sessions being annual. Though apparently the sessions do run spring to spring so I'm not sure what flexibility they have to adjust the start and end dates/when it actually falls.

ETA: https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/ho ... ess-dates/ apparently a two year session and runs to the summer.

ETA II: TM would actually have to do what JRM mentioned and go for a prorogation and end the parliamentary session early. In theory she can do that but the result would be to put parliament in recess until the beginning of the next session after summer which obviously leads to a no deal Brexit (which was why JRM suggested it).

Does all this crap smack of a healthy running system to any of you lot?

JLv3.0 wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:52 pm Does all this crap smack of a healthy running system to any of you lot?

Take them outside,

Line them against a wall

Randomly choose one to shoot on the minute, every minute, till they start taking this shit seriously.

To be fair, I think they're all taking it very seriously, its just just that they're fundamentally opposed to one another and a system that has a single individual deciding on motions and which amendments to be put forward on the basis that they'll just be a good boy or girl and not be biased having spent their career up to press in an adversarial political organ of the body politic, is to be frank, crap.

Interestingly if you think back, Bercow's appointment was only waived through by Labour because they knew he was hated by the conservatives more than any member of their own party that they could nominate.

But to be clear I'm not against the first part of your sentence

GG. wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:11 pm To be fair, I think they're all taking it very seriously, its just just that they're fundamentally opposed to one another and a system that has a single individual deciding on motions and which amendments to be put forward on the basis that they'll just be a good boy or girl and not be biased having spent their career up to press in an adversarial political organ of the body politic, is to be frank, crap.

Interestingly if you think back, Bercow's appointment was only waived through by Labour because they knew he was hated by the conservatives more than any member of their own party that they could nominate.

OK, so despite having three years to pull a plan together, it's all Bercows fault because some tinfoil hat madness suggests he's biased for pointing out a 175 year old, established convention in house rules....?

.....right.....

GG. wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:11 pm To be fair, I think they're all taking it very seriously, its just just that they're fundamentally opposed to one another and a system that has a single individual deciding on motions and which amendments to be put forward on the basis that they'll just be a good boy or girl and not be biased having spent their career up to press in an adversarial political organ of the body politic, is to be frank, crap.

Interestingly if you think back, Bercow's appointment was only waived through by Labour because they knew he was hated by the conservatives more than any member of their own party that they could nominate.

But to be clear I'm not against the first part of your sentence

How can they be taking it seriously when so many have changed sides/opinions so dramatically? May campaigned against Brexit and now expects people to take her rhetoric seriously

Beany wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:31 pm

GG. wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:11 pm To be fair, I think they're all taking it very seriously, its just just that they're fundamentally opposed to one another and a system that has a single individual deciding on motions and which amendments to be put forward on the basis that they'll just be a good boy or girl and not be biased having spent their career up to press in an adversarial political organ of the body politic, is to be frank, crap.

Interestingly if you think back, Bercow's appointment was only waived through by Labour because they knew he was hated by the conservatives more than any member of their own party that they could nominate.

OK, so despite having three years to pull a plan together, it's all Bercows fault because some tinfoil hat madness suggests he's biased for pointing out a 175 year old, established convention in house rules....?

.....right.....

Actually, it's a 415 year old law. It's funny that people tend to forget that the Speaker's job is to act for Parliament, not the Government. It's also funny that those that claim to want Parliamentary Sovereignty are the ones that complain the loudest when it's actually used.

I see Bercow’s delay is now being seen as good news for May as she now has a few days longer to convince the waverers plus it also strengthens her hand to negotiate a (probably symbolic) change from the EU. Especially as the Deputy Chair of the Conservative’s has said MPs expected there to be another vote after #2, so they may think it’s time to make a different choice in case they don’t get another and, unwittingly, make us leave under a no deal scenario.

NotoriousREV wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:50 pm

Beany wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:31 pm

GG. wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:11 pm To be fair, I think they're all taking it very seriously, its just just that they're fundamentally opposed to one another and a system that has a single individual deciding on motions and which amendments to be put forward on the basis that they'll just be a good boy or girl and not be biased having spent their career up to press in an adversarial political organ of the body politic, is to be frank, crap.

Interestingly if you think back, Bercow's appointment was only waived through by Labour because they knew he was hated by the conservatives more than any member of their own party that they could nominate.

OK, so despite having three years to pull a plan together, it's all Bercows fault because some tinfoil hat madness suggests he's biased for pointing out a 175 year old, established convention in house rules....?

.....right.....

Actually, it's a 415 year old law. It's funny that people tend to forget that the Speaker's job is to act for Parliament, not the Government. It's also funny that those that claim to want Parliamentary Sovereignty are the ones that complain the loudest when it's actually used.

Lolz to both of you. Lawyering 101, what we’re talking about here is parliamentary procedure which is based on convention and precedent evolved over time. This is not a point of law.

If you’re interested in the distinction, law remains the same no matter how many times it is not followed or broken. Convention is a different beast entirely and as soon as it is habitually not followed it ceases to become convention.

In any event, people are complaining about Bercow because of this precise point - there was an instance in January with regards to an amendment to a motion which, on grounds of convention and precedent, he should not have allowed, but he did stating haughtily ‘I am not here to cite convention and nor am I bound by it’ or words to that effect.

In other words he’s debasing the role of speaker by politicising it and inconsistently at that.

GG. wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:01 pm

Beany wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:55 pm I was going to give you stick for spouting off without knowing what you were talking about, then I remembered where I was

To be clear, here's his exact words

It is quite incredible. 16 seconds of his pomposity is enough to grind your teeth down to stumps.

Look at the wankers he has to deal with and control on daily basis. He has to appeal to their level.

GG. wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:21 pm Lolz to both of you. Lawyering 101, what we’re talking about here is parliamentary procedure which is based on convention and precedent evolved over time. This is not a point of law.

If you’re interested in the distinction, law remains the same no matter how many times it is not followed or broken. Convention is a different beast entirely and as soon as it is habitually not followed it ceases to become convention.

In any event, people are complaining about Bercow because of this precise point - there was an instance in January with regards to an amendment to a motion which, on grounds of convention and precedent, he should not have allowed, but he did stating haughtily ‘I am not here to cite convention and nor am I bound by it’ or words to that effect.

In other words he’s debasing the role of speaker by politicising it and inconsistently at that.

The conventions of Parliament are part of our constitutional law.

As for law staying the same; statute might but you must be aware of common law?!

Even I raised an eyebrow at that one. I await the impenetrable million-word justification response with great anticipation.

JLv3.0 wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 6:42 am Even I raised an eyebrow at that one. I await the impenetrable million-word justification response with great anticipation.

dont forget the classic lawmonger trick of throwing in some ridiculous comment/suggestion in the middle of the answer, then carrying on the rest of the thread like that comment was actually requested by the other party.