Brecow Rules Out 3Rd Brexit Vote

[fiction-factory]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47614074
Not really a surprise, given his own views, and teh lengths some want to go to to prevent the vote happening again.

[fiction-factory]

it's all relative though O_G. Bercow was on the right of the Tory party, as is Jacob rees Mogg now, whereas I would say Ken Clarke for example is on the more liberal wing of the Tory Party

[dannyk13]

This is interesting from the Telegraph:-
https://contributors.telegraph.co.uk/polls/62

[fiction-factory]

That seems to require us to log in, danny

[dannyk13]

The link works for.I am just showing the result of the poll.

[Old_Geezer]

No poll seen. Just log in demand.

[fiction-factory]

Maybe you are already signed up in some way to the Telegraph. it doesn't take me toa poll- I just get a log in/membership page from your link and can't get past that.
What does the poll show please danny?

[dannyk13]

Strange, when I click on it I get a list of votes of which , so far, 57% voted for a no deal Brexit.

[weecalf]

T May was happy when rules ment there could not be a vote of confidence for a year when she won that one so no complaints from pm really

[ichkeria]

The second vote was allowed because bits had been added to the agreement.
This time round nothing had been.
Although it came as a surprise, it probably shouldn’t have, as there had been some discussion as to whether the speaker would allow it again.

[ichkeria]

Those are Tory party rules weecalf. Nothing to do with parliament.

[Old_Geezer]

IMO there was nothing substantially different in what was being put in the second vote, compared to the first. Just some wooly 'trust us' "promises" sheets clipped to the main doc that was supposed to convince us that the main doc wasn't a threat after all. (And I understand one of them wasn't endorsed by the EU either, they stayed silent on it, it was just UK government waffle about how all was ok.) It even failed to solve the main issue of being able to leave whenever we chose to.

[diddlydo]

Good for Bercow!

[weecalf]

Did the labour guy not call for one ichkeria sorry got that wrong

[jim360]

// IMO there was nothing substantially different in what was being put in the second vote, compared to the first. //

That may have been a legitimate moral view of the updated package from last week, but it clearly makes no sense legally, which is what's important here.

[naomi24]

//That may have been a legitimate moral view of the updated package from last week, but it clearly makes no sense legally, which is what's important here. //

I thought that in the event of a deal being rejected, our legal position was to leave with no deal - or are we ignoring legalities in certain circumstances?

[dannyk13]

Apparently Bercow got his authority from parliamentary proceedings of 1604. The mind boggles at how far this man is prepared to go to scuttle Brexit,.

[Peter Pedant]

I was surprised as previously bercow had said (echoing Ld Denning) - if one stuck by precedent then we would still be in the sixteenth century

Jim he thay ( hey C16 english there! )
Parliamentary convention, the laws of the constitution -- does not allow multiple votes on the exact same question in a single Parliament. So May can't bring back the exact same vote again. This isn't a Remain issue, it's just how the law works in this country.

there is quite a lot wrong with this ( I have previously encouraged Jim to convert to Law and he can spend all day at this sort of thing)

Parliamentary convention -- ie, the laws of our constitution -- parliamentary convention is not really the subject of law in this country - and convention is precisely that ( convention and not law) - comes from the Bill of Rights 1689 ( oo-er Mrs!). The courts do not interfere in parliamentary proceedings - see the mess Aitken made of that a few years ago

// So May can't bring back the exact same vote again. //
yeah but no but - I am sure they have in the past you know. That is why it was such a surprise to the ministers

[oh, if there are standing orders er standing in the way of something, then you vote to suspend standing orders, do the forbidden vote and then reinstate standing orders - simples]


//it's just how the law works in this country.//
erm not really a question of Law see point above

These sort of points are Too Much Again for the average Aber - are they? or are they?

[jim360]

Naomi: yes, it currently is. There are legal mechanisms to change that; whether they will be used is anyone's guess at this point.

danny: Strictly he was citing Erskine May's Parliamentary Procedure, written in the 19th Century and recognised as the standard text on what is, and is not, constitutionally valid in the Houses of Parliament. Also, as can be seen even in this thread, the question on whether or not he's "scuttled Brexit" is open for debate amongst Brexit supporters. Quite a few of the more hardline members, such as Johnson and the like, welcomed Bercow's announcement alongside Remainers, because what it really has done is scuttle Theresa May's attempt to bring the same deal back for a 3rd, 4th, 5th... and on, and on, time.

[jim360]

I should have said "how the constitution works", perhaps, PP. It's rather a pedantic quibble really :P

[Peter Pedant]

boggling Nigh writes
// Apparently Bercow got his authority from parliamentary proceedings of 1604. //

Bercow has declined to follow old precedent and I thought he would do so this time. Aitken got the bill of rights 1689 changed so he cd sue for libel - and lost ! and served time for perjury ! so that is another one....

I am not sure how you appeal a speakers ruling but a court case is certainly NOT the way - by agreement

1362 - language to be used in Parliament to be English and not French - that old enough ?

what about - custom and practice - if you can show custom was in place before 1189 ( time immemorial) then it has the force of law - or statute of Marlborough 1265 - on forcible entry to a tenanted house

being old doesnt imvalidate a precedent thro age alone
(Denning again) but we can wonder and boggle on:
Joyce - Lord hawHaw was prosecuted under the 1348 Treason Act ( adhering to the kings enemies)

hey if the dissolution of the monasteries act were inoperative froo age alone then we would have to give back all that land to the pope innit? [mi dio! - the pope speaks Italian]