Bercow

Bercow is a tad hypocrital in his role as Speaker and deemed by many to be manipulating Parliament.

On the question of the ' 3rd VOTE' he quite rightly used the accepted CONVENTION of Parliament. He was content to refer back to 1604.

On the question of Bercow recently setting a ' NEW PRECIDENT .' in Parliament by allowing ' AMMENDMENTS ' after a Motion is passed as ' FORTH WITH ' which CONVENTION has always been recognised to mean the Motion has been ACCEPTED by Parliament and is NOT therefore subject to latter AMMENDMENTS.

Bercow said this in 2018 which does confirm he was acting in good faith (possibly) on the question of a 3rd VOTE but being totally disengenuous over the '. AMMENDMENT PRECIDENT ' he set recently.

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 PRECIDENT.

Those CONVENTIONS and PRECIDENTS are important to the COLLEGIATE OPERATION of this House. They should ' NOT' be tampered with or disregarded lightly.".

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

Really Speaker Bercow?

One minute you state the CONVENTIONS AND PRECIDENT should be adhered to the next you set a new PRECIDENT, perversely on one hand by believing in the historic running of Parliament and the other hand by believing in' Modernising ' Parliament.

views

Sainthood for you, eh, Maryeliza with your rather sanctimonious post?

Ronnie Corbett is small, so is Bercow. Fact. His size IS irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, but when he boosts his own standing, vies, position etc, by throwing his weight and privilege around, it screams 'small man' posturing. To many people, if not you.

Brecon Beacons would be my choice for a new speaker
Gabriella ??

Q. When do we know a post is ill- informed and lacking in logic and substance ?

A. When it refers to the height of the person under discussion

Blast predictive...
Brecon Bercow

Brecon is, IMO, odious in many ways but, that does not reflect on his ruling which was clear, concise and correct.
Rather like an appeal in the courts, it can only be considered if there is fresh evidence or, in this case, a change of substance.

No government so far has ruined this country beyond repair maryeliza but I realise that is just rhetoric or forum chat ( that is used by us all.)
However it’s quite possibl that Corbyn, should he ever become PM (God help us) leading a Labour government, would give Ruining the economy a go. Thankfully in five years he would be out again.

I agree with your OP Cosmos.

Bercow is an odious little man and a very biased speaker. I am amazed he gets away with it. His conceit and arrogance is deplorable.

I don't know anything about parliamentary procedure but wonder whether someone could ask for a vote on whether the MPs would like the opportunity to discuss it again?

Erm, so Blair leading the country to war with Iraq made a big difference did it ??

Nice try lemon but a fail. You used language that demonstrated how you viewed his ruling (and him). But hey ho, he made it and it may or may not make a difference. Either way this Government has completely and royally messed up and the last two Tory PMs have changed and ruined this country beyond repair.

We may all be thanking him for his actions soon though,
Am sure he will hate that.

Oh that’s just chatting on a forum maryeliza ( hats)
But he certainly did do some dredging.

lemon calling it an ancient rule, dredged up, out of the hat etc was not the language of someone who understands what she’s posting about

It was stated that the rule was from 1604, it doesn’t mean it has not been used since of course.
And yes, I do understand the role of precedent, which is why the vote to let Parliament take over proceeding was voted down the other week, because it would have created one.
As I said earlier, Bercow has unwittingly perhaps helped the Brexit process to go ahead.

My post was to * lemon*

He has not dredged up an ancient rule from 1604 - your two posts in this vein show no understanding at all of the role of precedent or the role of Erskine May.

This rule has been used before several times and even if it had not, he was doing his job as Speaker. In fact if I had to criticise him it would be for letting this fiasco go on as long as he did,

Yes, MaizieD and Maryeliza * understood my post correctly.And Yes, it does cut both ways, and I wouldn’t dream of calling him a traitor.
What he has done however, is dredged up an ancient rule from 1604 (! ) that has perhaps thrown the UK into turmoil at this last stage, because he always grandstands and wants to give the Conservative government a black eye.
Unwittingly, it could be that it helps sort something out, but his intention wasn’t to do that.

Luckygirl I agree with your post.
Also, I think he or someone had already mentioned that there was a limit of 2 failures to HoP motions.
According to the laws of Parl. procedure.
Unless the motion was substantially modified the 3rd time.

He is not the greatest of guys and does not do it for me; but his intervention was the right one. TM could not have been allowed to keep bringing the same motion before the house, with brief episodes of bribery and corruption in between. Someone had to call a halt to it.

Brecow could have chosen to let the matter pass and nobody would have been wiser, but he deliberately invoked the custom or rule to break the deadlock that Brexit has become. TM had to go straight to EU with a proposal for an extension and no doubt will come back for a vote on the same deal with a a new Brexit date attached. ( if she gets an extension)

What happens then is anyone guess.

maryeliza

Nothing like a bit of irrelevant ad hominem to enlighten the debate...

Q. How do you know when a post is devoid of all sense, meaning and logic?

A. When the spouse of the subject under discussion is criticised

(Other answers of course are available )