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.

[Togo]

//Parliamentary convention, the laws of the constitution -- does not allow multiple votes on the exact same question in a single Parliament. //

But it did ""conveniently" allow multiple votes on the same question until "No Deal Brexit" was quashed. Perhaps a clever clogs Minister is, as we speak, going through section 13 of the Withdrawal Act. Does anyone think that Bercow and the rest of the traitors will be in town this weekend?

[Peter Pedant]

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

um yes or no - Jim knows the difference between -3 and fwee ( or should do) - the courts dont interfere with parliamentary proceedings ( see 1689 bill) and so you can argue that the queens writ does not run in parliament ( I see the birds have flown 1643 Charles I)
and therefore the rule of Law doesnt operate

no quibble - a relevant point of law

So when Charles I said of his tryall 1648
you have no right to try me
or
by what right do you try me?

he might well have had a relevant constitutional law point (he was in a court by that time remember)

[Peter Pedant]

//But it did ""conveniently" allow multiple votes on the same question until "No Deal Brexit" was quashed. ///

yeah I agree I remember votes on ' this will damn well return until you agree!" - like a reluctant and partially eaten lunch

or all those votes on ENTERING the common market
god that cam up often enough 1962-1973

[naomi24]

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

I didn't write that. Someone else did. You appear to be somewhat boggled.

[naomi24]

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

Oh right. We don't like that rule so we'll change it to something that suits Remainers better. That's handy.

[jim360]

// But it did ""conveniently" allow multiple votes on the same question until "No Deal Brexit" was quashed. //

As far as I am aware there has been only one vote explicitly on the question of "No Deal".

[jim360]

Not really "handy", it's merely an expression of the truth that Statute Law can be amended, of Parliament wills it.

Incidentally, the same thing is true of Bercow's statement. The House of Commons, if it wishes, can vote to overrule what he says and allow Theresa May to bring the vote forward after all; presumably that would also lead to Theresa May winning the vote.

[naomi24]

Where are people like Gina Miller when you need them? She's a stickler for rules and you liked her, Jim.

[jim360]

A more serious lesson would be, perhaps, to learn the rules yourself: then you would see that not only is Bercow right, but also that his word is by no means the final decision.

But, in either case, why are you moaning anyway? What he said just helped your cause, too, as it thwarts Theresa May's efforts to force her shoddy version of Brexit through by repeatedly putting the same question to the House.

[naomi24]

Me moan? Never! No, Jim, just observing the insistence on abiding by rules that suit and the insistence that they may be changed when they don’t suit. As I say, just an observation. ;o)

[anotheoldgit]

We have already had a referendum and voted to come out, so under Bercow's ruling, we can't now have a yet another referendum, can we?

[jim360]

There's no contradiction between the two positions, though. They all stem from, if you like, the golden rule of the UK Constitution, which is that Parliament is sovereign over its own rules and the law of the land.

[ludwig]

Irrespective of his motivations, I think it was the right thing to do. You can't just keep repeating the exact same question until you get the answer you want.

[naomi24]

//There's no contradiction between the two positions, though.//

Haha! As usual. :o)

[naomi24]

I agree Ludwig. She can't continue to ask the same question time after time. I really thought her motive was to carry on until she'd worn everyone down completely and they'd all lost the will to live.

[jim360]

@AOG: no, because Bercow's ruling refers to Parliamentary motions within the same session of Parliament, rather than any given decision in general.

[Togo]

//Where are people like Gina Miller when you need them?//

Gina Miller when last heard of was living in a Soros funded, gated and secured, property in Paris. Where she is currently "employed" by one of the Soros foundations. :))

[ludwig]

// I really thought her motive was to carry on until she'd worn everyone down completely and they'd all lost the will to live. //

Honestly I don't know what she's trying to do, but it's time someone else had a go at doing something else. It says here..

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/theresa-may-to-force-third-vote-on-brexit-deal-in-defiance-of-john-bercow-ruling-cabinet-minister-reveals/ar-BBUWWZB?ocid=spartanntp

..she'll try and force the 3rd vote anyway. Gawd knows how.

[fiction-factory]

Yes, may still go ahead. But as I am not aware of any alternative suggestions that would have a chance of being approved by the House (apart from possibly a pretty long extension) I can see why she is flogging what looked like a dead horse a week ago

[Sqad]

Surely, with "No Deal" no longer on the table, Mr's May's Withdrawal Agreement, in any form, is the only show in town?

Can't the Queen knock her ministers heads together in any way?