Bullshit. He enforces rules and precedents until he doesn’t like them. ‘Precemdets don’t really mean they can’t be changed’. Just to help him out... In common law legal systems, precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.[1][2][3] Common-law legal systems place great value on deciding cases according to consistent principled rules, so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observance of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. The principle by which judges are bound to precedents is known as stare decisis. Common-law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law (that is, statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies) and delegated legislation (in U.K. parlance) or regulatory law (in U.S. parlance) (that is, regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies). Case law, in common-law jurisdictions, is the set of decisions of adjudicatory tribunals or other rulings that can be cited as precedent. In most countries, including most European countries, the term is applied to any set of rulings on law, which is guided by previous rulings, for example, previous decisions of a government agency. Essential to the development of case law is the publication and indexing of decisions for use by lawyers, courts, and the general public, in the form of law reports. While all decisions are precedent (though at varying levels of authority as discussed throughout this article), some become "leading cases" or "landmark decisions" that are cited especially often. In civil law systems, past decisions may influence future decisions, even if they do not have the precedential, binding effect that they have in common law decision-making. PrincipleEdit Stare decisis (/ˈsteɪri dɪˈsaɪsɪs, ˈstɑːreɪ/) is a legal principle by which judges are obligated to respect the precedent established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed".[4] In a legal context, this means that courts should abide by precedent and not disturb settled matters.[4] The principle can be divided into two components:[5] A decision made by a superior court, or by the same court in an earlier decision, is binding precedent that the court itself and all its inferior courts must follow.[5] A court may overturn its own precedent, but should do so only if a strong reason exists to do so, and even in that case, should be guided by principles from superior, lateral, and inferior courts.[5] The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, reflects the broad precedent guidance a court may draw upon in reaching all of its decisions.[5] Odious, bullying toad who the only shame in him being sacked is the gold plated pension
No disputing I was wrong on the article 50 rescinding, I checked links and saw the Eu court ruling early Dec 18 directed that’s the case, but what burcow did the other day was a disgrace.
The UK should exit the EU and trade under the well-established and globally accepted WTO rules. And WTO rules allow for trade to continue under existing terms for a period of up to 10? years while the system for implementing the WTO rules is put in place. So the leaving day comes and goes,trade carries on as before,and new deals are negotiated as and when. If the EU choose to be a PITA then that is their prerogative,but WTO rules,(to which they are a signatory),preclude them from imposing tariffs on one member that they do not impose on another.(Tariff levels are extremely limited in any case,them's the rules again).
So you think what Bercow did was a disgrace. I thought it was the correct moral thing to do and an essential part of his duties. A couple of mornings back, an ex speaker (or government attorney/ legal advisor?) was being interviewed on R4 Today programme. Worth finding and listening to - she agreed with me. Leadsome would in her role as Leader of the House have overturned Bercows ruling if it were outside the rules, but evidently has not done so, presumably because she cannot. It would be boring if we all agreed all the time!
Not quite. the postponing of the vote was annoying and obvious what Mays ploy was but was within the rules Leadsome and others reminded Bercow that for many years and under his rule, that bills finished with "forthwith" were non amendable bills even when the government and the tory side had asked, he point blank refused claiming historic precedent. He has given no reason why in the last 10 years of office he would not allow changes but did on this event, other than "he can". Such blatant lack of impartiality once again shows Bercow has become as arrogant as Junker, even though Bercow's role is always to be consistent and impartial he continually fails both If you believe that then you are fooling yourself. The remainers in parliament were always going to walk over a democratic majority vote by the people if they could. I told my own mp recently, with the eu commission, you expected them to stab you in the face but given parliament has now substantial powers, they were not supposed to stab democracy in the back and no democratic vote can be seen as safe, even the one that employs him and his staff
Moral compass isn’t set by the speaker. The speaker can implement chnage. But all his advisers and all the precedents were the opposite. One person, who is outward;y against brexit, has more power than the whole of the house?! Disgraceful, self cemtered and egotistical action
Or one person who is attempting to force a woeful deal on the country (we will see if this is the case on Tuesday and how many MPs) who thinks she has more power than the whole of the house? Disgraceful, self cemtered and egotistical action I'd say. Good job its not possible. BTW, if its possible to do, and not expressly denied in the rules, its within the rules.
See noobies comment. Seems to have summed up why it was wrong.all the experts seem to agree, btw, including the clerks. It was wrong for him to do what he did. If may doesn’t win her vote, it can’t be implemented. So one person can’t press their deal thru.
Mays tactic of endless delays is within the rules, but ethically wrong. By running down the clock, she effectively could and likely would have forced the MPs and therefore the country into accepting her deal. I don't know how many MPs disagree with her plan, but it is currently estimated that she will be defeated by more than 200 votes. There is an expert to confirm any opinion, rather like the one on R4 I mentioned earlier.
No. They can vote how they choose. And it becomes, as it should be (and as I expected it to be before the result was known) a binary decsion. Exit with some terms that improve our position but still align us a bit to the Eu or just exit.
This opinion was from Bercow himself where he admitted he asked the clerks, they made the position clear based on convention and his own history of how he did things but he over ruled them too. I suspect he is just delaying his retirement until he's fucked the government over.
I did not, I didn't because as boring as it was for most people, I watched the debate itself and heard the words come straight from Bercows mouth
You would be correct. I have checked this thread and can't see what you are referring too. I can tell you as I have already, I watched the debate, Bercow was asked why he broke convention and he admitted he was advised not to by the clerks of the house based on his historic refusals before and he admitted he over ruled them. So if you have the leader of the house, the clerks of the house and the speaker himself of the house all agreeing what went on, what expert are you referring too as I thought those 3 would be experts?
