Bercow in the H of P yesterday

Pogs I watched that point being made by Peter Bone and the Speaker said he had not been in the "table" room and was not aware that Mr Bone had tried to place an amendment. As Mr Bone prefaced his remarks with very positive regards for the Speaker, and referred to the Government's "shenanigans", it looks as if he simply raised it as a point of unfairness, but I got the impression that he accepted Mr Bercow's reply and assurance that he would investigate.

There will be many more problems for us all in the future if this minority government continues to strongarm something so unpopular through a parliament which is supposed to be taking back control from the EU, but is going to learn the hard way you have to stand up to your friends as well as your enemies when they are acting like bullies.
"It wisnae me, Guv" won't be enough of an excuse when we crash and burn spectacularly and nobody is in charge.
---
And further to that the Norwegians are saying that while we are their biggest trading partner and they want to continue that situation, they don't want us in the same alliance group as them because it is very fragile and depends upon all members sticking rigidly to EU rules and regulations. They fear the UK might wreck that. I wonder why (not really)?

Maizie d

MaizieD Thu 10-Jan-19 21:04:23

Now,*POGS*, would you like to do us analysis of the government's record in trying to subvert or bypass the sovereignty of Parliament.
----

Perhaps you could start a thread or raise your point yourself as you obviously have a view and usually like to make it known.

Sorry if my post annoyed you.

Caledonian

The point Peter Bone was making was in his Point of Order and reflects the Procedures and Protocol that the Speaker has unilaterally, possibly overriding the advice of his clerks, has just set a 'precedence'.

Peter Bone said this:_

" but I was told that that would be ' totally out of order' and that no other amendments had been tabled".

Why was one MP told it was 'totally out of order' and for another MP the Speaker went against the accepted Procedure/Protocol recognised by Parliament?

As I said this will have consequences and I believe the likes of the Procedure Committee for one must give a ruling, one way or tuther.

To stop the Speaker both now and in the future, whom ever she/he may be having the ability to pick and choose is not remotely sensible. It would be better if Parliament gave All Parliamentarians equal right to put forward an Ammendment, thus making the role of Speaker ' IMPARTIAL' which is the role he/she is supposed to display and abide by, or state that Procedure was not followed and the Speaker cannot set a ' precedence.

There is a reason behind Procedures/Protocol and this
' precedence' the Speaker has set applies don't forget to not only this government but others of what ever colour that follows.

There is serious side when the role of Speaker is being called into question, not only on this latest debacle but also the Dame Laura Cox Inquiry into into allegations of bullying and harassment of House of Commons staff and the comments he makes.

The Deputy Speaker Labour MP Lindsay Hoyle is by far the better person in my opinion than the current Speaker.

As Tony Blair once said, "History will be the judge." I reckon history is going to show this up as a right omnishambles all round. The Speaker is the least of our worries at the moment.

Caledonian

Maybe.

The action he took and Brexit are only related in the sense of the ' impartiality ' the role of Speaker should abide by.

I am more interested in the action taken by him and his staff and I hope the truth comes out as to what they advised as this is not a place they would probably want to find themselves in.

He made a statement concerning the ' advice ' he undertook during the Point of Order and he could find himself being questioned over that as it is looking like he 'may ' have mislead the House.

So here we are again with Bercow.

Bercow was proud of the fact he was deemed by many as some sort of ' Progressive Thinker ', a ' Moderniser ' of Parliament and he chose to manipulate the Protocol and Procedures of Parliament by setting new ' Precedences ' overriding the accepted Protocol that established the position , as with -

' When a Motion is passed as ' Forth With' it has always been recognised to mean the Motion has been accepted by Parliament and is not subject to ' latter' Ammendment.

Bercow threw that what he saw as ' outdated ' Procedure/Protocol out of the window and has subsequently proven even more bias as to which ' Amendments ' he chooses in favour of Remaining in the EU.

Bercow was praised by so many for his so called 'Progressive Thinking ' , the ' Modernisation of Parliament.

Fast forward and what does he do? He goes back to / relies on the Parliamentary Protocol and Procedures from 1604 . His agenda to set new ' Precedences ' has suddenly been tossed aside . It is hypocrisy of the first order.

Progressive Moderniser? Not in my book!.

All the Labour side voted for him to become Speaker for one reason only, he was known to be disliked within the Conservative Party.
When the next Speaker is voted for, I hope the Conservatives will all vote for Jeremy Corbyn.

I think Bercow did the right thing. Now let's respect democracy and the law and leave on the 29th.

Urmstongran

That is not what is going to happen.

lemongrove
"When the next Speaker is voted for, I hope the Conservatives will all vote for Jeremy Corbyn."
.
But what will happen as a result doesn't bear thinking about.
More uncertainty etc.

to my mind David Lammy's speech is like the little boy watching the procession of the Emperor in no clothes. Well said that man, and it is about time common sense was heard rather than puff, hot air and self serving toadying which is what we get from politicians from both the government and the opposition. Bercow has done what he is supposed to do, and the irony of those wittering on about taking back control, of sovereignty, now upset because it has happened......well, I would say words fail me, but obviously they don't. Another point, if what Bercow did was contrary to parliamentary law or procedure, we could be sure that the ghastly Christopher Chope would have been on his feet protesting. I have a faint, very faint feeling of hope that we are entering the beginning of the end of this expensive, divisive and unnecessary period in British political history. Maybe now, government and opposition can set their minds to doing the important stuff, stuff like addressing the problems which caused some people to vote out in the first place, people who have no hope of a job, or of progression in life, people who were royally shafted by Thatcher's tories and are still suffering, decades later.

According to parliamentary rules the Speaker is the highest authority of the House of Commons and has final say over how its business is conducted, as well as other key choices.

How long was he supposed to allow this fiasco to continue?

The PM was well out of order wasting Parliamentary time since before Christmas. It is a sad reflection on TM that it had to come to this.

POGS
Precedence precedences Forth With

Precedent precedents forthwith

I don't like what I've heard or seen of the man but, having reviewed the clip, I do think that Speaker Bercow was crystal clear and correct in his decision.
Putting a wolf's skin on a sheep will not change the nature of the beast.
We need to exit as it is or make radical (impossible) changes.

I admire him. It’s good to have someone with real personality in the House of Commons, and I watch him as pure theatre, though of course there is more to him than that. I also love his immaculately clear diction.

According to Wiki he is 1.68 metres tall. That’s about 5’ 6”.

Mr Cheese is not very tall. As I say to him "a diamond is worth more than a lump of coal".

Parliamentary procedure from 1604???? There was no United Kingdom then,Scotland was an Independent country ..so why should WE comply with this nonsense.I've said it before ,maybe SOMEONE in government will one day realise that we have more rights to a say than the 10 DUP MP's they're PAYING (bribing) and in this instance a rule from BEFORE we were part of the DISunited kingdom will hardly help .WE voted to remain in the EU...We shouldn't be dragged out against our will

Instead of waiting until a third return of the WA was on the cards, perhaps Bercow should have stopped May bringing it back the second time. That would have ensured that substantial changes were made in plenty of time, and not now have this fiasco !

He just did his job, and followed the historical and well established Conventions of the House, which are clear as a bell. That is his job.

I find it mind-boggling that people say 'take back control' - get back to our own Sovereign Parliamentary Democracy - and then seek by hook and crook- to undermine and by-pass it - and are ready to hand it out to WTO (unelected paper pushers abroad), Trump and Putin and anyone we will have to beg for any mealy deal, with their conditions attached, without any say.

He said, if you watch his explanation,*Nico97*, that he didn't stop it the second time because there were changes to the legal advice. Whereas this time May wanted to bring the bill back completely unchanged.

He's doing his job and he is upholding the power of the legislature (the House of Commons) over the executive (the government which represents the Crown in parliament). This is absolutely as it should be to prevent the tyranny of the Crown. This is what the Civil War was fought for.

I find it mind-boggling that people say 'take back control' - get back to our own Sovereign Parliamentary Democracy -

I truly think, jura that many of the people who voted to 'take back control' weren't actually thinking of (or knew anything about) parliamentary sovereignty. They were just thinking of some nebulous concept which meant we weren't going to be bossed around by the evil EU...

Maybe now, government and opposition can set their minds to doing the important stuff, stuff like addressing the problems which caused some people to vote out in the first place, people who have no hope of a job, or of progression in life, people who were royally shafted by Thatcher's tories and are still suffering, decades later. Indeed so GillT57 - I have long thought that the leave vote was a protest by those who have been left behind; as well as by those for whom the EU has proved problematical - e.g. the fishing industry.

Surely most people in the UK know that the UK has a very special and specific kind of Democracy- unique in the world - which is a Parliamentary Democracy- where we elect MPs, with the First Past the Post system (a whole thread could be dedicated to the pros and cons of this - in short, 'strong' government opposed to 'cooperation'- but for another day)- and combined with a totally unelected, totally undemocratic in the eyes of the world, chamber with strong influence, The Lords.

Very different from most other EU countries which have some form of proportional representation, and no unelected chamber- so with a very different concept of 'democracy'. And of course the absolute extreme to the system where I currently live- Switzerland- which has a very direct form of democracy- and where anything can be put to the vote (and yet, within reason ... the Government can still refuse- let's say with the 'death penalty' or if it seriously affects the economy and the prosperity of the country - like the Feb 14 vote on limiting Freedom of Movement, which seriously put the country at risk of serious economic decline. But this is NOT for this thread- just an exemple).

People in the Leave campaign, the adhering press, etc, are behaving as though Parliamentary Democracy does not exist- and we suddenly have changed from one extreme to another, without debate, discussion or proper constitutional changes, erasing centuries of tradition and history - to a Direct Democracy via Referendum- the very Referendum which is clearly only ever advisory according to OUR OWN SOVEREIGN LAWS - and which Cameron had NO legal right to tamper with. MPs then had no choice but to agree to withdraw art 50 for fear of rebellion and being called 'anti-democratic'. Such a shambles. But British History is very clear on what our Parliament and Government's duties are, and how they should be executed. And that surely ain't the way.

Well done Mr Speaker.

We are denied a second referendum now we know more about what Brexit will cause, but Mrs May was persisting in bringing back the same deal over and over to spin out the time and allow the bullying, bribing and scaring of MPs before what would certainly have been another meaningless vote unless it went her way.

On top of that, the DUP have had quite enough say in the matter for a party who can't form a regional government in Northern Ireland and whose old fashioned views are way out of step with most other mainstream parties.

Sadly, this latest twist just gives the PM and her supporters somebody else to blame for the fiasco of their own making.

I am not surprised when Bercow follows ' the rules' he is doing his job. That is perfectly fair obviously.

I am equally not surprised when Bercow does not follow ' the rules' some still think he is doing a good job because it suits their own agenda.

I am not particularly interested in the Brexit angle behind Bercows actions I am interested in the Parliamentary Protocol and Procedures that will apply in Parliament after Brexit has faded, other than of course it is supposed to be a priority for any Speaker to maintain an unbiased position.

Bercow is a hypocrite. I would like to remind him of his own words in 2018 :-

"As will be evident to colleagues, many of these matters are proceeded with ordinarily on the basis not of statute, or even necessarily of a requirement of Standing Orders, but of convention and precedent.

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/11-times-john-bercow-did-care-about-parliamentary-precedent/

"Those conventions and precedents are important to the collegiate operation of this House. They should ' NOT' be tampered with or disregarded lightly.". Really Speaker Bercow? One minute the rules should be adhered to the next you set a new President, perversely on one hand by believing in the historic running of Parliament and the other hand by believing in' Modernising ' Parliament.