ChatterBank5 mins ago
Are You Ashamed Of The Way The Commons Behaved Yesterday?
Geoffrey Cox,attorney general,Barry Sheerman looked like he’d bust a gut,what happened to the waving of papers and nodding and bleating like sheep that we’ve been used to?
Veins popping out their temples, Boris accused of going too far
Welcome to the British House Of Commons
Veins popping out their temples, Boris accused of going too far
Welcome to the British House Of Commons
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bobbisox1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Bobbisox--I mailed the Speaker's office earlier this week to ask why so many of the MPs seem to just sit their tapping away on their ipads, mobiles, tablets etc. They never seemed to be engaged at all with what was being debated . The answer came back to say that it was decided way back that allowing them to use their gadgets was a better use of their time than using pen and paper. When they are tapping away they are supposed to be carrying out official business..I much preferred the waving of papers and the heated exchanges.
So it was quite refreshing to see them all getting animated again yesterday.
So it was quite refreshing to see them all getting animated again yesterday.
//To sort Brexit out it would be best to put clearly defined and achievable options to a referendum.//
The only two achievable options are to remain or to leave without a deal. Since the decision to leave has already been taken that only leaves one option so no referendum is necessary.
//Parliament was everyone’s hero when they voted down a Brexit no none seemed to like.//
It wasn't my hero. It would have been my villain had it acquiesced to what can only be described as the most one-sided international treaty in history (apart from those ending armed conflict and even some of those might rival it) and which should have been soundly rejected by Mrs May and not even been put before Parliament.
It is patently obvious that the EU will not agree to a deal that will in any was be advantageous to the UK or which enables it to take advantage that freedom from the Single Market and Customs Union will bring. It was obvious from day one. The Prime Minister needs to be able to get on and honour the result of the referendum in the only way that is possible. Those MPs who are not prepared to allow him to do so should move aside and allow people who will to take their places. The Remainers can then set up a new party who can campaign for he UK to rejoin. And good luck to them with that.
The only two achievable options are to remain or to leave without a deal. Since the decision to leave has already been taken that only leaves one option so no referendum is necessary.
//Parliament was everyone’s hero when they voted down a Brexit no none seemed to like.//
It wasn't my hero. It would have been my villain had it acquiesced to what can only be described as the most one-sided international treaty in history (apart from those ending armed conflict and even some of those might rival it) and which should have been soundly rejected by Mrs May and not even been put before Parliament.
It is patently obvious that the EU will not agree to a deal that will in any was be advantageous to the UK or which enables it to take advantage that freedom from the Single Market and Customs Union will bring. It was obvious from day one. The Prime Minister needs to be able to get on and honour the result of the referendum in the only way that is possible. Those MPs who are not prepared to allow him to do so should move aside and allow people who will to take their places. The Remainers can then set up a new party who can campaign for he UK to rejoin. And good luck to them with that.
//I must have missed that bit on the referendum paper that said “without a deal” :-) //
And I missed out the bit that said "only with a deal" (aka "only if it doesn't cause too much bother"). An agreement would be nice. After all, it needs only to set out sensible ways for life to go on (for all parties) without too much childish interruption. But that clearly isn't possible.
And I missed out the bit that said "only with a deal" (aka "only if it doesn't cause too much bother"). An agreement would be nice. After all, it needs only to set out sensible ways for life to go on (for all parties) without too much childish interruption. But that clearly isn't possible.
I haven't and don't intend to read all 72 replies so far - so my point may weel have been mentioned already
//There’s a debate going on on Jeremy Vine where people are nit picking because he ( Boris) used the word Humbug, how ridiculous is that ?.//
The slightly disturbing thing about Boris using the word 'Humbug ' was because it was following a female MP (forgotten who she is )
highlighting the fact that some female MP's had received some quite horrible threats , including death and Boris brush them aside by saying it was humbug ( deceptive or false talk or behaviour.)
//There’s a debate going on on Jeremy Vine where people are nit picking because he ( Boris) used the word Humbug, how ridiculous is that ?.//
The slightly disturbing thing about Boris using the word 'Humbug ' was because it was following a female MP (forgotten who she is )
highlighting the fact that some female MP's had received some quite horrible threats , including death and Boris brush them aside by saying it was humbug ( deceptive or false talk or behaviour.)
I am concerned at the steep decline in parliamentary behaviour as laid down in the rules which seem to be ignored more and more.
Waving of order papers is a gesture in lieu of applause, because MP's are not supposed to applaud within the Chamber, although that is another rule that seems to be slipping as time goes on.
But the worst transgression in my view is the un-parliamentary language that Mr Speaker seems unwilling to deal with.
I always understood that one Honourable Member referring to another as a 'liar', and using that word would cause the Speaker to demand an immediate retraction and apology, and failure to secure both would mean the Member involved being asked to leave the Chamber and being suspended from the House for a period of time.
Now it seems that shouts of terms like 'liar' and 'thug' are being accepted, one more example of the way in which Speaker Bercow disgraces his position.
Waving of order papers is a gesture in lieu of applause, because MP's are not supposed to applaud within the Chamber, although that is another rule that seems to be slipping as time goes on.
But the worst transgression in my view is the un-parliamentary language that Mr Speaker seems unwilling to deal with.
I always understood that one Honourable Member referring to another as a 'liar', and using that word would cause the Speaker to demand an immediate retraction and apology, and failure to secure both would mean the Member involved being asked to leave the Chamber and being suspended from the House for a period of time.
Now it seems that shouts of terms like 'liar' and 'thug' are being accepted, one more example of the way in which Speaker Bercow disgraces his position.
101, stop repeating it being a ridiculous OP,I am ashamed of these people we put our trust in to do what they are elected for, I’m ashamed that they aren’t doing the job they’re being paid to do, I’m ashamed that they having a bun fight, I’m ashamed that the rest of the world watches and LOL at such behaviour, Now will that do?
"some female MP's had received some quite horrible threats , including death and Boris brush them aside by saying it was humbug ( deceptive or false talk or behaviour.)"
I think you missed the point. The point was that some wanted to bully the PM by criticising his style and what he said by making out it encouraged threats. That was humbug (being polite) and Boris rightly pointed it out.
We seem to have MPs who are unable to cope with normal life and language let alone the rough & tumble of politics, and want everyone to "tread on eggshells" and be "nice" because it upsets them so. If normal life makes you hysterical then best find a home job away from the world and the public, and give Westminster a wide berth.
I think you missed the point. The point was that some wanted to bully the PM by criticising his style and what he said by making out it encouraged threats. That was humbug (being polite) and Boris rightly pointed it out.
We seem to have MPs who are unable to cope with normal life and language let alone the rough & tumble of politics, and want everyone to "tread on eggshells" and be "nice" because it upsets them so. If normal life makes you hysterical then best find a home job away from the world and the public, and give Westminster a wide berth.
> I think you missed the point
No, you missed the point. Describing something as humbug means "You're lying". Describing something as "The biggest load of humbug I've ever heard" means *Everything you've said is a lie". Meaning, for a start, that Boris was claiming that she had not received death threats.
No, you missed the point. Describing something as humbug means "You're lying". Describing something as "The biggest load of humbug I've ever heard" means *Everything you've said is a lie". Meaning, for a start, that Boris was claiming that she had not received death threats.
//People may feel all/any of those, but ashamed? I don't think so.//
Well I am ashamed.
I travel abroad quite a bit and during the last three years I have spoken to people who have reacted with utter disbelief at the way this country's Parliamentarians have handled Brexit. It should have been a straightforward operation and it would have been if the Remain element had accepted the result (as they said they had but clearly hadn't) and got on to ensure our exit occurred promptly and with minimum disruption.
Foreigners ask such questions as "Well, didn't you really want to leave?". "Why did your Prime Minister agree to a deal she knew would be rejected by your MPs?" "Why are so many of your politicians working against what the people decided?"
More recently "Why are you politicians so rude to each other?" "Why don't you just get on and leave? You've had three years." "Are you going to leave at all". And from some more forthright observers "What on Earth's wrong with your politicians? Don't they believe in your country?"
The UK is a laughing stock across the world. No other nation would behave in this manner when its electorate decided a major issue via a referendum. It is an utter disgrace. And I am ashamed.
Well I am ashamed.
I travel abroad quite a bit and during the last three years I have spoken to people who have reacted with utter disbelief at the way this country's Parliamentarians have handled Brexit. It should have been a straightforward operation and it would have been if the Remain element had accepted the result (as they said they had but clearly hadn't) and got on to ensure our exit occurred promptly and with minimum disruption.
Foreigners ask such questions as "Well, didn't you really want to leave?". "Why did your Prime Minister agree to a deal she knew would be rejected by your MPs?" "Why are so many of your politicians working against what the people decided?"
More recently "Why are you politicians so rude to each other?" "Why don't you just get on and leave? You've had three years." "Are you going to leave at all". And from some more forthright observers "What on Earth's wrong with your politicians? Don't they believe in your country?"
The UK is a laughing stock across the world. No other nation would behave in this manner when its electorate decided a major issue via a referendum. It is an utter disgrace. And I am ashamed.
Latest Posts
Starmer's Approval Rating Plummets,
News6 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.