What's in the news?

[Guest MattP]

8 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Anyway, good to see our democratically-elected British Parliament taking back control from the unelected executive, today. 

I know this is tongue in cheek, but I'm now genuinely waiting for the day when someone like Anna Soubry or Chukka Umanna tells us with a straight face that parliament giving control to Brussels was exactly what leavers were voting for. 

[Beliall]

Dogs not allowed on NYC subway unless they fit in a bag.  

 

https://www.eatliver.com/funny-bagged-dogs/?fbclid=IwAR0sRlWYxny1jp_lNu-av8HZkOWvM-81OlkveQxAgZgKm5CO5Hlhvxc0T5I

 

Edited 10 January 2019 by Beliall

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

I know this is tongue in cheek, but I'm now genuinely waiting for the day when someone like Anna Soubry or Chukka Umanna tells us with a straight face that parliament giving control to Brussels was exactly what leavers were voting for. 

 

If that ever happens, I'm sure we'll share a good chuckle. I'm more concerned about the reality of a PM trying to abuse the parliamentary system.

 

Before Xmas, when she delayed the meaningful vote for weeks, she knew that she'd probably need a Plan B as very few were happy with her deal. Yet now, if her deal is defeated, she wants to run down the clock so as to use fear of a chaotic No Deal to blackmail MPs into approving her deal - despite the fact that few of them want it and few of the public, Remainers or Leavers, want it either. Never mind the uncertainty and damage caused to people and to business - and the long-term strife caused if she forces through a deal that everyone will be unhappy with for years to come....and the backstop as a political timebomb set to explode a few years down the line.

 

Whatever the precedent, Bercow's action has hopefully made such blackmail more difficult. It doesn't necessarily make a second referendum or a Soft Brexit more likely. It just makes an agreed solution more likely (though still far from certain). If May's deal falls, those who actively want No Deal or who want an alternative, such as Canada+, will still be able to use the democratic process to push for that.

 

All is fluid, anyway. I see May's now been speaking to Labour Brexiteers/waverers, offering concessions on workers' rights & social/environmental regulation to try to conjure enough votes to get her deal passed. I presume concessions will also be offered to the DUP and the ERG crew.....so her deal might still only be half-dead - a Zombie Deal.

Edited 10 January 2019 by Alf Bentley

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

If that ever happens, I'm sure we'll share a good chuckle. I'm more concerned about the reality of a PM trying to abuse the parliamentary system.

 

Before Xmas, when she delayed the meaningful vote for weeks, she knew that she'd probably need a Plan B as very few were happy with her deal. Yet now, if her deal is defeated, she wants to run down the clock so as to use fear of a chaotic No Deal to blackmail MPs into approving her deal - despite the fact that few of them want it and few of the public, Remainers or Leavers, want it either. Never mind the uncertainty and damage caused to people and to business - and the long-term strife caused if she forces through a deal that everyone will be unhappy with for years to come....and the backstop as a political timebomb set to explode a few years down the line.

 

Whatever the precedent, Bercow's action has hopefully made such blackmail more difficult. It doesn't necessarily make a second referendum or a Soft Brexit more likely. It just makes an agreed solution more likely (though still far from certain). If May's deal falls, those who actively want No Deal or who want an alternative, such as Canada+, will still be able to use the democratic process to push for that.

 

All is fluid, anyway. I see May's now been speaking to Labour Brexiteers/waverers, offering concessions on workers' rights & social/environmental regulation to try to conjure enough votes to get her deal passed. I presume concessions will also be offered to the DUP and the ERG crew.....so her deal might still only be half-dead - a Zombie Deal. 

As I've said before, May's conduct is appalling and has now been for some time.

I've read the story regarding her reaching out to Labour on workers rights and I still don't see how this could be legally binding in a withdrawal agreement which is all this is, surely things like that are going to be for the government of the time as we go on  - if a guarantee on upholding workers rights can be legally binding though, great! - most Tories would support those measures as well, even more so as the voting base for the Tory party becomes more working class.

On the subject of Bercow, a pretty good piece in the Guardian today, surely the Tories have to table a no confidence motion in him at some point in the near future?
 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/09/john-bercow-decision-endangers-the-office-of-speaker-and-our-democracy

 

Quote

 

The row over the Speaker’s decision may look like a particularly indulgent form of deckchair rearrangement. But in parliamentary terms it is historic. And whatever form Brexit finally takes, it will be part of the shape of the Britain that emerges.

On Wednesday morning John Bercow was widely reported to have ignored the considered advice of the official guardians of the rules of procedure, and allowed a cross-party amendment tabled by Dominic Grieve to be voted on.

The amendment, which was passed, forces the prime minister to come back within three sitting days if her withdrawal agreement is voted down, rather than the three weeks imposed by an earlier Grieve amendment. Its backers say it just puts the timetable back where it would have been if the prime minister hadn’t ducked the vote before Christmas. It would open up the possibility of a proper debate about what to do next. But should the Speaker have let the vote happen at all?

The rules that govern debate and law-making in parliament are theological both in their density and history. For those who think in such terms, they are the nearest thing to a written constitution that Britain has, and the clerks, the men and women whose job is, among other things, to make sure the rules are observed, have a certain priestly status.

 

First elected when parliament’s reputation was at its shabbiest in the aftermath of the expenses scandal, Bercow has done a lot to enhance the powers of backbenchers. Two long periods of governments with big majorities and big reform agendas had eroded the devious tactics used by wily MPs and well-organised oppositions to slow headstrong ministers. Bercow’s championing of backbench rights has earned him the support of many MPs, which has seen him through some recent times when his hold on power has looked downright shaky as allegations of bullying (which he denies) pursue him.

Margaret Beckett, the former Labour cabinet minister, may have been indiscreet when she said she’d back him despite the bullying allegations because he’d be a useful ally in the Brexit battle – “if it comes to the constitutional future of this country, the most difficult decision we have made, not since the war but possibly, certainly in all our lifetimes, hundreds of years ... it trumps bad behaviour” – but she was only acknowledging what everyone already knew: the Speaker, supposed to be a pillar of impartiality, was a remainer.

 

Bercow is not the first Speaker to make a unilateral change to the parliamentary rules. But it would be fair to say it doesn’t happen often. Experts who know their history point to the power to shut down debate (“a closure motion”) which was introduced by Speaker Brand after Irish MPs stopped all progress on a government bill for five days in a row. That was in 1880, approximately 140 years ago.

 

But the real point about Bercow’s actions is the furious accusations of party bias that it has provoked from his critics. “The political impartiality of the Speaker is a key feature of the office, while the role’s authority has developed over time alongside other procedural reforms” intones the Commons guide to the office of Speaker. It’s one thing to stand up for backbenchers against a powerful executive. It’s quite another to use the office to advance a political cause.

In the end, the judgment will rest on whether the failure of government and parliament as a whole to find any grounds for agreement on Brexit legitimises intervention on one side by the Speaker – or whether instead it marks a wanton disregard for the rule of law. Everyone knows where unchecked law-breaking can lead. The Speaker takes a grave risk when he appears to ignore the rules. At the least, it makes it harder to insist the government observes the rules next time.

Everyone who is fighting to reverse the decision to leave the EU because it is a wanton act of self-harm has a parallel duty, to ensure that it is done in a way that promotes rather than undermines democracy. Brexit is already doing terrible damage, and it’s not all on one side. The Speaker should be very careful of doing anything to make it worse.

 

I really do think the implications of his actions will be huge, because of this I can see all future speakers being accused of bias. This will be a great shame.

I'm absolutely sure were we to have a openly pro-leave speaker in the chair now having broke with protocol in this way, along with the numerous allegations of bullying and abuse towards women hanging over his head that had chosen to block an inquiry into, they would have been long removed by the house now.

[Strokes]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

As I've said before, May's conduct is appalling and has now been for some time.

I've read the story regarding her reaching out to Labour on workers rights and I still don't see how this could be legally binding in a withdrawal agreement which is all this is, surely things like that are going to be for the government of the time as we go on  - if a guarantee on upholding workers rights can be legally binding though, great! - most Tories would support those measures as well, even more so as the voting base for the Tory party becomes more working class.

On the subject of Bercow, a pretty good piece in the Guardian today, surely the Tories have to table a no confidence motion in him at some point in the near future?
 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/09/john-bercow-decision-endangers-the-office-of-speaker-and-our-democracy

 

I really do think the implications of his actions will be huge, because of this I can see all future speakers being accused of bias. This will be a great shame.

I'm absolutely sure were we to have a openly pro-leave speaker in the chair now having broke with protocol in this way, along with the numerous allegations of bullying and abuse towards women hanging over his head that had chosen to block an inquiry into, they would have been long removed by the house now.

If remain is now achieved because of this, it will always be illegitimate, Bercow’s disregard for the rules (however intended) could cause more chaos.

[Guest MattP]

Another thing we aren't seeing much of in the British media, Germany may be in recession.

https://www.businessinsider.com/germany-just-went-into-a-recession-2019-1?r=US&IR=T

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

43 minutes ago, MattP said:

As I've said before, May's conduct is appalling and has now been for some time.

I've read the story regarding her reaching out to Labour on workers rights and I still don't see how this could be legally binding in a withdrawal agreement which is all this is, surely things like that are going to be for the government of the time as we go on  - if a guarantee on upholding workers rights can be legally binding though, great! - most Tories would support those measures as well, even more so as the voting base for the Tory party becomes more working class.

On the subject of Bercow, a pretty good piece in the Guardian today, surely the Tories have to table a no confidence motion in him at some point in the near future?
 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/09/john-bercow-decision-endangers-the-office-of-speaker-and-our-democracy

 

I really do think the implications of his actions will be huge, because of this I can see all future speakers being accused of bias. This will be a great shame.

I'm absolutely sure were we to have a openly pro-leave speaker in the chair now having broke with protocol in this way, along with the numerous allegations of bullying and abuse towards women hanging over his head that had chosen to block an inquiry into, they would have been long removed by the house now.

 

I don't think any such measures on workers' rights would be legally binding - and I don't think they'd be in the Withdrawal Agreement (the legally binding bit) as the EU27 have said they won't reopen that.

My understanding (and I might be wrong) is that they'd be in the Declaration on Future Relations - so a statement of political intent, but not legally binding. If so, they could presumably be deleted during future negotiations. So, I cannot imagine May's offer winning over many votes from Labour - maybe a few pro-Brexit Labourites from working-class constituencies who are concerned about such issues, but not many, I'd guess.

 

Agree to disagree on Bercow. All just part of the polarised country we now live in - as with Left and Right accusing the BBC of bias against their side. We're adopting the worst aspects of polarised US politics, sadly, though we haven't gone as far as them....yet. 

[Buce]

48 minutes ago, Strokes said:

If remain is now achieved because of this, it will always be illegitimate, Bercow’s disregard for the rules (however intended) could cause more chaos.

 

Whatever the final decision is, there will be a good case for the losers to see it as illegitimate.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I don't think any such measures on workers' rights would be legally binding - and I don't think they'd be in the Withdrawal Agreement (the legally binding bit) as the EU27 have said they won't reopen that.

My understanding (and I might be wrong) is that they'd be in the Declaration on Future Relations - so a statement of political intent, but not legally binding. If so, they could presumably be deleted during future negotiations. So, I cannot imagine May's offer winning over many votes from Labour - maybe a few pro-Brexit Labourites from working-class constituencies who are concerned about such issues, but not many, I'd guess.

 

Agree to disagree on Bercow. All just part of the polarised country we now live in - as with Left and Right accusing the BBC of bias against their side. We're adopting the worst aspects of polarised US politics, sadly, though we haven't gone as far as them....yet. 

If nothing is legally binding I don't see her making any progress whatsoever, who is going to trust the word of Theresa May or a future leader who they don't even know. I wouldn't, let alone a Labour MP.

I won't get you into a long discussion but do you really believe the speaker is still impartial? I can't believe deep down you do. We have Labour MP's even admitting he has to be kept there despite bullying allegations because of Brexit, do you think there is a serious chance he would have ignored his clerks yesterday to bring the amendment Peter Bone wanted, he didn't and he was never going to do so - it's just too much a coincidence that the first time in decades this is broken is on a motion from Dominic Grieve on a bill that was about to defeat his own government on what is considered pro-Brexit policy.

The most baffling thing I saw yesterday was Christopher Chope (Tory&Leave) standing up and backing him, I did actually consider then whether he had a point, after a bit of further research I found out that Bercow had blocked an investigation of bullying against him and nominated him for a knighthood - the whole thing stinks to be honest and it makes me feel a bit sick when it all plays out in front of us and we are supposed to believe this is normal.

[leicsmac]

This touches on politics so I'm leaving it here:

 

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190109-the-perils-of-short-termism-civilisations-greatest-threat

 

This is pretty much to a T what I would want to say about human behaviour and the threat to the future if I could actually write coherent well-presented articles.

 

"Yet I worry that our power to destroy ourselves is radically outstripping our wisdom and foresight." - Spot. On.

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

I won't get you into a long discussion but do you really believe the speaker is still impartial? I can't believe deep down you do. We have Labour MP's even admitting he has to be kept there despite bullying allegations because of Brexit, do you think there is a serious chance he would have ignored his clerks yesterday to bring the amendment Peter Bone wanted, he didn't and he was never going to do so - it's just too much a coincidence that the first time in decades this is broken is on a motion from Dominic Grieve on a bill that was about to defeat his own government on what is considered pro-Brexit policy.

The most baffling thing I saw yesterday was Christopher Chope (Tory&Leave) standing up and backing him, I did actually consider then whether he had a point, after a bit of further research I found out that Bercow had blocked an investigation of bullying against him and nominated him for a knighthood - the whole thing stinks to be honest and it makes me feel a bit sick when it all plays out in front of us and we are supposed to believe this is normal.

 

I don't know enough about Bercow to answer that for certain - and suspect you don't either. I do know that he has a longstanding reputation for promoting the influence of Parliament vis-à-vis Govt.....and his action here certainly fits in with that sort of thinking. As I've said, he's done nothing to prevent anyone successfully arguing for No Deal or Canada+, if May's deal is defeated. He's merely given Parliament more time to take a properly considered decision about what comes next if May's Deal falls....it will then be up to Parliament - and not to him - to decide what happens next.

 

If Bercow was so very biased, surely it would be astonishing if this was the first time in decades that such a decision had been taken. He's been Speaker for years. If he were so biased, surely he'd have been making biased rulings quite often?

I know there's this moaning about his wife's car having a "Bollocks to Brexit" sign....but she's a Labour Party member and he's a Tory, so they obviously agree to disagree on certain things. I'm guessing he probably voted Remain, but I don't even know that - still less that he would abuse his position to act impartially......having a "mission to promote Parliament" (and the ego to want to be seen doing it) seems a more likely explanation. He's done his job and done democracy a favour.

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I don't know enough about Bercow to answer that for certain - and suspect you don't either. I do know that he has a longstanding reputation for promoting the influence of Parliament vis-à-vis Govt.....and his action here certainly fits in with that sort of thinking. As I've said, he's done nothing to prevent anyone successfully arguing for No Deal or Canada+, if May's deal is defeated. He's merely given Parliament more time to take a properly considered decision about what comes next if May's Deal falls....it will then be up to Parliament - and not to him - to decide what happens next.

 

If Bercow was so very biased, surely it would be astonishing if this was the first time in decades that such a decision had been taken. He's been Speaker for years. If he were so biased, surely he'd have been making biased rulings quite often?

I know there's this moaning about his wife's car having a "Bollocks to Brexit" sign....but she's a Labour Party member and he's a Tory, so they obviously agree to disagree on certain things. I'm guessing he probably voted Remain, but I don't even know that - still less that he would abuse his position to act impartially......having a "mission to promote Parliament" (and the ego to want to be seen doing it) seems a more likely explanation. He's done his job and done democracy a favour.

Couldn't disagree more that he has done his job, his job is to be totally impartial, not to enact motions that will give parliament more time as he's not supposed to have an opinion on that, that's him making a political decision if he chose it on that basis, in fact that's exactly what I'm talking about when it comes to this, the result of what motion he selects should be completely non-political, which is what the clerks are believed to have told him and exactly why they advised against him selecting it.

The idiot who stood up and mentioned his car should take a long look at himself, not only did he make himself look a twat but he completely let Bercow off the hook when Rees=Mogg, Jenkin and Francois were running rings around him with examples of why he was wrong from Erskine May.

He did vote Remain, he announced it to some students, another completely stupid thing to do whilst holding the office of speaker - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/12/john-bercow-speaker-voted-remain-brexit-referendum

 

Quote

 

MPs must decide whether John Bercow, the Speaker of the Commons, is impartial enough to stay in his post after he publicly stated that he voted for the UK to remain in the EU, a cabinet minister has said.

The leader of the Commons, David Lidington, warned there would be a “strong” reaction to Bercow’s remarks and stressed that the Speaker needed to retain the confidence of all MPs.

Bercow was plunged into fresh controversy after a video emerged of him talking to students at Reading University on 3 February in which he said: “Personally, I voted to remain. I thought it was better to stay in the European Union than not.”

 

In the video, obtained by the Sunday Telegraph, Bercow said that immigration had been good for Britain.

He also referred to “untruths” during the Brexit campaign, when “promises were made that could not be kept”, and said he hoped parliament would maintain changes to working hours and health and safety protections after Brexit.

Bercow was already facing a vote of no confidence after describing the US president, Donald Trump, as “racist and sexist”, effectively banning him from addressing parliament during his state visit. Some Conservative MPs say his position as Speaker is no longer tenable.

 

I'll promise you I'll hold exactly the same opinion as well if we get a Leave speaker that selects motions to amend government procedure from a backbencher like Kate Hoey as well, the rules that guide parliament are more important than Brexit.

Edited 10 January 2019 by MattP

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Couldn't disagree more that he has done his job [...]

 

I don't understand why you're apparently so irate about this. Do you want May to be able to blackmail Parliament and the nation into a deal that very few want? Do you hope that we'll accidentally drift into a chaotic No Deal Brexit that will somehow be beneficial to the promotion of your political beliefs?

 

If not, what's so bad about Parliament having a bit more time to make a composed decision - which could involve a (slightly) better planned No Deal or Canada+, just as much as a second referendum or a Soft Brexit?

 

Anyway, we've both made our points - and time for me to agree to disagree and to leave this particular issue.

[Guest MattP]

Just now, Alf Bentley said:

I don't understand why you're apparently so irate about this. Do you want May to be able to blackmail Parliament and the nation into a deal that very few want? Do you hope that we'll accidentally drift into a chaotic No Deal Brexit that will somehow be beneficial to the promotion of your political beliefs?

 

If not, what's so bad about Parliament having a bit more time to make a composed decision - which could involve a (slightly) better planned No Deal or Canada+, just as much as a second referendum or a Soft Brexit?

 

Anyway, we've both made our points - and time for me to agree to disagree and to leave this particular issue.

Fair enough but in answer to the question - no, not a all, drifting towards No Deal isn't (I mean May could just move this vote anyway 14 days if she wanted to to make the amendment pointless) the issue, the issue is John Bercow taking it upon himself to try and hold the government to account, the speaker should be completely impartial, the long term consequences of losing that could be terrible for our democracy.

A speaker is like a football referee and all referees will have an element of bias and that's something we have to live with, but if referee decided to abandon the offside rule for 30 seconds to give a goal fans would rightly be upset.

[Strokes]

20 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I don't understand why you're apparently so irate about this. Do you want May to be able to blackmail Parliament and the nation into a deal that very few want? Do you hope that we'll accidentally drift into a chaotic No Deal Brexit that will somehow be beneficial to the promotion of your political beliefs?

 

If not, what's so bad about Parliament having a bit more time to make a composed decision - which could involve a (slightly) better planned No Deal or Canada+, just as much as a second referendum or a Soft Brexit?

 

Anyway, we've both made our points - and time for me to agree to disagree and to leave this particular issue.

The issue isn’t the end result, far from it. The end result is more desirable but he can’t simply take it upon himself as speaker to pick and choose based on his opinion. It’s setting a dangerous precedent, do you not think? If he stays in the chair now, it gives leeway to more breeches by him or any other speaker. 

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

Whatever the final decision is, there will be a good case for the losers to see it as illegitimate.

True but it would be nice if someone a long the whichever route we take, had some honourable intentions.

[lifted*fox]

Bercow's job is to keep order in the house. Teresa May has repeatedly ignored parliament and been held in contempt of it as well - with zero punishment up until now. 

 

Bercow has simply stopped her from running down the clock and spending tax payers money on an outcome that parliament has no majority for.

 

Someone has had to get the circus back under control - for the sake of the country and that is what he has done. 

 

I'm sure he feels that he can't sit idly by and watch an incompetent government waste precious time whilst the country is going down the pan. 

 

Also, people talking like Bercow has cancelled Brexit himself - he has simply given the entirety of parliament more power over the upcoming vote. More sovereignty, more parliamentary power - isn't that what Brexiteers wanted? Or only when it suits them? 

Edited 10 January 2019 by lifted*fox

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, lifted*fox said:

Bercow's job is to keep order in the house. Teresa May has repeatedly ignored parliament and been held in contempt of it as well - with zero punishment up until now. 

 

Bercow has simply stopped her from running down the clock and spending tax payers money on an outcome that parliament has no majority for.

 

Someone has had to get the circus back under control - for the sake of the country and that is what he has done. 

 

I'm sure he feels that he can't sit idly by and watch an incompetent government waste precious time whilst the country is going down the pan. 

It's Black Rod's job to keep order in the house, not the Speaker. It's good though you do admit he has broken his impartiality to hold the government to account, that's exactly the point we are making.

I have no problem with them forcing May back after three days (although what they hope can be achieved in that time period is beyond me) but it should have been tabled by a minister of the Crown, as has happened since 1880.

[lifted*fox]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

It's Black Rod's job to keep order in the house, not the Speaker. It's good though you do admit he has broken his impartiality to hold the government to account, that's exactly the point we are making.

I have no problem with them forcing May back after three days (although what they hope can be achieved in that time period is beyond me) but it should have been tabled by a minister of the Crown, as has happened since 1880.

 

it's not even impartial, imo. he's not got any control over the outcome but he's guiding the process in a sensible direction. 

 

Teresa May cannot, no matter what your opinion of Brexit, be allowed to keep holding her colleagues, the opposition and the people and businesses of the UK to ransom for her failing vision of Brexit.

 

she was held in contempt of parliament recently for delaying this vote - why would bercow allow her to go ahead and do it again? it's in nobody's interest apart from hers to do so and this country cannot fall to pieces because of the incompetence of one woman. 

 

someone has to slam the brakes on and bercow has done that. if she hasn't got any further assurances in the time since the last cancellation, she won't get any more in another 3 days and she won't get any more in another 2 or 3 weeks. 

 

parliament is currently gridlocked and it needs to move on to the next step - the only way for that to happen is to get her back in immediately after her deal is voted down (which it will be) and for the entirety of parliament to start working on plan B. 

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

it's not even impartial, imo. he's not got any control over the outcome but he's guiding the process in a sensible direction. 

 

Teresa May cannot, no matter what your opinion of Brexit, be allowed to keep holding her colleagues, the opposition and the people and businesses of the UK to ransom for her failing vision of Brexit.

 

she was held in contempt of parliament recently for delaying this vote - why would bercow allow her to go ahead and do it again? it's in nobody's interest apart from hers to do so and this country cannot fall to pieces because of the incompetence of one woman. 

 

someone has to slam the brakes on and bercow has done that. if she hasn't got any further assurances in the time since the last cancellation, she won't get any more in another 3 days and she won't get any more in another 2 or 3 weeks. 

 

parliament is currently gridlocked and it needs to move on to the next step - the only way for that to happen is to get her back in immediately after her deal is voted down (which it will be) and for the entirety of parliament to start working on plan B. 

The speaker going against his own clerks advice and going against decades of precedent to pick an amendment to force a government into doing something is the definition of a speaker being partial.

I actually agree with everything else you have written there.

[Buce]

31 minutes ago, Strokes said:

True but it would be nice if someone a long the whichever route we take, had some honourable intentions.

 

Politicians and honourable intentions?

 

Surely that's an oxymoron?

[lifted*fox]

Just now, MattP said:

The speaker going against his own clerks advice and going against decades of precedent to pick an amendment to force a government into doing something is the definition of a speaker being partial.

I actually agree with everything else you have written there.

 

Thanks Matt. 

 

If we're 'arguing' about the point of impartiality (as it is defined) then you are right.

 

I think this is an extreme circumstance (biggest peace-time crisis, as we now keep hearing) and perhaps, in this instance impartiality has been sidelined ~(ever so slightly) for the good of the country - not because remain / leave but because of parliamentary democracy.

 

Sometimes someone in these circumstances has to put their neck on the line and make a big decision, despite history, despite normal protocol. 

 

I personally think whether Bercow's decision is impartial or not, he's done the right thing here and will be looked back upon favourably as someone who tried to steer things back into a sensible place, perhaps at the detriment of his own legacy. 

 

Parliament must have a say on how the government is handling this - it's imperative because it's so divisive. Bercow knows that May is trying to steam-roll the country and that can't happen.

[Alf Bentley]

34 minutes ago, Strokes said:

The issue isn’t the end result, far from it. The end result is more desirable but he can’t simply take it upon himself as speaker to pick and choose based on his opinion. It’s setting a dangerous precedent, do you not think? If he stays in the chair now, it gives leeway to more breeches by him or any other speaker. 

 

I've said my piece on this, but as you've asked me a question....

 

I'm no expert on constitutional affairs or the detailed job description of the Speaker. I doubt anyone else on here is. But a key part of the Speaker's role is to ensure that Parliament operates effectively as our supreme democratic institution. He clearly feels that he did that yesterday, by preventing the Govt from abusing/blackmailing Parliament by needlessly delaying a decision that had already been delayed once - apparently in an attempt to force our democratic representatives to do the bidding of the executive.

 

So he took expert advice but decided to ignore it? All sorts of political and legal institutions do that - from courts to governments. Democracy matters more than expertise. It's astonishing to see people who were contemptuous of "experts" in other contexts insisting that Bercow was duty bound to follow the advice of experts......even though, by your own admission, his decision to ignore them produces an end result more desirable for our democracy, and one that does nothing to settle the important political issue - it just helps our democratically-elected parliament to settle it and prevents a cynical govt from abusing democracy.

 

If Bercow or any future speaker abuses their power, parliament can get rid of them. As for "precedent", if we had abided by every precedent we'd presumably still have a feudal monarchy and no meaningful democracy.

 

Seriously, I'm out of this now.... 

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

If Bercow or any future speaker abuses their power, parliament can get rid of them. As for "precedent", if we had abided by every precedent we'd presumably still have a feudal monarchy and no meaningful democracy.

I completely agree with this, it would be wonderful if we could head more towards a transparent system in parliament where we can get even more information.

The problem is Bercow is more than happy to invoke "precedent" when he wants to block bullying allegations or something to go his own way etc - then just totally ignore it when he doesn't.

[Guest MattP]

The clearest example of that being yesterday again, where precedent suddenly became important when he was asked to give information about how he came to his decision and the advice he was given.