I have told you all before, no UK Government has ever rescinded anything a previous UK government has enacted before. (The poll tax was changed by the same government that introduced it). That is why Brexit won't happen.
I refer to the expert on radio 4 the morning after the ruling who was either an ex speaker or an ex government legal advisor, who agreed with my opinion see my exchange with Bradders - I am not rewriting all that for you aswell. So perhaps you have a PM who wishes to silence & ignore the views of the parliamentry majority (which will be proven/ disproven by the vote on Tues) by running down the clock, thus negating any time for alternatives. This is an unheard of scenario especially given the polarisation of the country and the seriousness of the issue. It certainly can be that the speaker will attend to his role of ensuring the voice of the parliament is indeed heard loudly and clearly. This is in my view the core role of the position above all else. I would expect the Leader of the house to back her PM, especially as Dreadful Leadsome probably wants the clock to run out and force a no deal Brexit. She is on record adocating no deal Brexit on numerous occasions. If Bercow has exceeded the rules, why has Leadsome said nothing and allowed it? The answer to that is of course obvious to all. Similarly there is a reason why Bercow is in charge of his advisory clerks, and they are not in charge of him.
Lots of things are said in Westminster. Some claim Corbyn is a Russian spy since birth. Others say Cameron fucked dead pigs. Thatcher said many times Jimmy Saville was a great guy and went on to honour him and Cyril Smith - both paedophiles. I heard the most common gossip currently is that May has totally lost the plot and is hearing voices.
Bercow ruled to allow parliament to take a vote. Surely that is pro democratic. It was parliament who voted against the government, not Bercow who ruled against the government. A victory for democracy.
Sorry, is that the ones that went to ECJ to find out if it was legal to cancel article 50 and not leave ? If so that’s great - but not necessarily what the ‘people’ want.
v,true. but the option is now there, an option the brexiteers tried to hide from us. am i surprised? no, not really. its just standard fair for the UK Parliament and civil service. the list of examples is endless. going by the amount of times i will hear in any one week from UK politicians in the uk parliament and ours with a lil help from partisan jurnos and publications about our gov using, or not using powers they dont have to our detriment. its bollox. i can only assume they use the same tactics in your neck of the woods.
It’s an option the government want, that’s for sure. It’s the same tactics throughout the uk I suspect. I wish they’d just get on with it, do what what was voted for and stop trying to find a way out of it. Perhaps another referendum is going to be the only answer with more specific options ?
its an option some in the Parliament wanted, not the government, tho some might secretly of wanted it. it wasn't even a uk gov politician that started the process, it was andy whiteman MSP from the Scottish green party that got the others on board.
The "people" are split 50/50. It was marginally to leave two years ago. Who knows now? Thats why we need a second vote now we know what kind of deal we will get
Not quite 50/50, but that’s being picky. I do see what you mean, but then should we go back and revisit all close votes ? Wasn’t the original vote to join the EU close ?
Interesting debate on Radio 4 covering Bercow and the current attitude of the current government towards parliament.
I think you kinda highlight the short sightedness that seems to be inherent in extreme remainers Old. It is not pro democratic if that decision is something no other speaker or party has ever allowed. All parties when in government whether it be tories, tories/libs and labour have used the accepted system and all speakers have abided by the system which has lead to consistency and clear directions within parliamentary rules. Bercows decision is not one say Betty Boothroyd would have made, one of the finest speakers of recent years and I suggest had Labour been in power and tories in opposition, Bercow would have not made the decision to change established convention that he did the other day. Most extreme remainers see just the next five minutes, democratic process goes beyond once brexit has finished and Bercrow has now opened the doors in a very negative way If it was 50/50 then we would not be leaving, stop doing ya Diane Abbot maths. Itt was a democratic majority, something most people have not had before brexit, the snp had a politician win by just 2 votes, I don't see the snp demanding we now have a another election or vote because it was too close. Almost every poll has shown little or no change on how people feel about their vote. Again with the shortsightedness and the second vote. We the losing side think you the winning side were too poorley educated and didn't understand what was going on whilst we the losers did so we the losers think 17.2 million of you are to thick to handle democracy so we the losers want to keep having votes till we win. How on earth do you not think that is not only condescending but puts future democratic votes at risk?
some on the trump thread on this bike forum would of praised him for shaking things up a lil. you know, just what the country needed.
[QUOTE="noobie, post: 1270890, member: 36880" the snp had a politician win by just 2 votes, I don't see the snp demanding we now have a another election or vote because it was too close. Almost every poll has shown little or no change on how people feel about their vote.[/QUOTE] and they will get another guaranteed bite at the cherry in 4years, or maybe next month. not quite the same is it. the polling has changed. they are looking at around 70% remain up here, not because they are uneducated. but because they/we are becoming enlightened to the reality of being outwith the EU.
This isn't the Trump thread but when trump has been commented on, the consistent is that he promised to do things on his election campaign and is doing them Factual fin The chair is supposed to be independent to ensure parliament runs in a certian way, with that one decision, a decision of type he has point blank refused to do throughout his tenure of the last 10 years. What bercow did was the equivalent of bercow being the ref for man city versus man united and then the ref wearing a top saying sponsored by man united. And if they want to change votes to a set percentage amount for the future then that will be discussed but I would point out for the 50 million time fin, no matter what you say Scotland voted for it was a numerical interest and little more because it was a U.K. national vote, I would also remind you that 55% of Scots voted to stay in the U.K. but you didn't like that democratic vote either and as to brexit it was 62% Diane and not 70%
Not sure I understand all the fuss about what Bercow did ?. . i know, its just more of the same from the mad fringe of the leave campaign. sour grapes. now, had they all jumped up and down and pointed out the damage done to uk democracy when, and for the first time in the history of our Parliament our presiding officer (speaker of the house) a member of SIU and brittish labour deemed one of our bills, the EU continuity bill that went through our Parliament with a vote of 90 to 30 in favor of the bill unlawful, while his welsh counterpart did not with their version of it. by doing so, he and the UK gov held up the bill long enough via the supreme courts for the HOL to change the terms of devolution to counteract the bill. then, maybe i could feel a lil sympathy for them. but being human all i can manage is a "meh, fug em".
