Bercow in the H of P yesterday

Well, we do all have to remember that John Bercow is still married to his dreadful wife, so there must be some charity in him.

Can't stand the man or his wife.

I think JB is one of the most interesting Speakers we have ever had. The fact that AL can’t stand him is a real indicator of his worth.

Bercow is defending the rights of MPs. It is interesting that those who talked about bringing back control don't seem to want our elected representatives to be allowed to control our future, in the same way they talk about democracy but do not want the electorate to have a vote.

Well said Varian.

It would seem that those who really do know about the rules pertaining to the Speaker ( his clerks) think he was wrong to do what he did.
It didn’t surprise me, Bercow is a typical small man, he puffs himself up and shows arrogance.

Ooohhhhh lemon being heigtist lnow are you? What a pathetic way to criticise someone. And I’ll think you find that not everyone who really knows about the relevant rules think he was wrong.

I thought he was remarkably tolerant of the shenannigans of the Government - well, Mrs May - who allowed a pre-Christmas debate to go on for 3 days and even had her ministers insisting the meaningful vote was going ahead a couple of hours before postponing it to now (with no visible advantage except to raise the threat level on crashing out). I'm not always a fan of Mr Bercow, especially when he allows chatter and cat calls to drown out speakers of the lesser parties, but as Varian has pointed out, he is bringing back control to our elected MPs from (in my view) a small, desperate Tory cabal that seems to have lost the plot on regulations, democracy and what their decisions will do to our lives.

Lemon - I read that he was asked if he had consulted with the legal clerks and he refused to answer.
It was interesting to learn a bit about Parl. protocol and procedure.
Those opposing him did back down in the end.
And I agree with Varian about him bringing impartiality to those chosen to speak.

Here's part of the 'debate':
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXe4-g1EG60

As Speaker of the House of Commons Bercow is right to be upholding the sovereignty of Parliament; which May and the tories are desperately trying to erode (or remove altogether).

He has set a new precedent. All previous precents have to have had a first time of use before they become a precedent. Good for Bercow standing up for Parliament. It's about time 'they took back control' because the government are certainly making a hash of things.

I'm sure many of you know about John Lenthall who was the Speaker of the House of Commons during the English Civil War in the mid 17th century. When Charles 1st came looking for 5 dissident MPs, intending to arrest them, Lenthall replied to his question as to where the members were with "May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here."

I think John Bercow is upholding an honourable tradition of the independence of Parliament!

If it wasn’t for GM, TM was going to get away without Parliament having any vote at all on Brexit -ain’t democracy a wonderful thing}

Mind you , I’m not sure how tall GM is

Just a reminder, courtesy of barrister David Allen Green, of the unconstitutional actions of May's government over the past couple of years.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1083290033082249217.html

Reaction to which in MSM was?

Shrug...

Fantastic speech by Labour MP David Lammy this afternoon.

"Lammy noted Martin Luther King said “A time comes when silence is betrayal”, before adding: “Just as I speak plainly to the government this time around, let me also speak to the Opposition about some home truths.

“There is no left-wing justification for Brexit.

“Ditching workers’ rights, social protections and ending environmental cooperation is not progressive.

“This is a project about neo-liberal deregulation, it’s Thatcherism on steroids pushed by her modern-day disciples.

“Leaving the EU will not free us from the injustices of global capitalism, it will make us subordinate to Trump’s US.

“Socialism confined to one country will not work, whether you like it or not, the world we live in is global, we can only fix the rigged system if we cooperate across border lines.

MORE: Support our journalism by taking out a print subscription of The New European for just £13

“The party of Keir Hardie has always been international. We must not let down our young supporters by failing to stand with them at the biggest issue of our lives.”

Lammy said the UK could reform the EU “from the top table” and “share the load of mass migration”, among other things, if it stays in."

www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/jeremy-corbyn-and-labour-should-not-back-brexit-says-david-lammy-1-5847370

I agree with Lammy, but living now in a traditional NE Labour constituency and talking to the locals, they are much more 'conservative' than they used to be.
I grew up in this area, things have changed.

People in the NE of England have legitimate grievances - but these should be directed towards successive Westminster governments, not the EU which has directed enormous sums in aid to this region.

Bercow was out of order in my opinion.

Yes I watched the Points of Order after PMQ's yesterday and the point re the Speaker and his overturning of Parliamentary Procedure and Protocol started with a question from Peter Bone who asked the Speaker this:_

" On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, I have always regarded you as an exceptional Speaker and a defender of Parliament, which I continue to do. However, I also regard the Clerks of the House in exactly the same light. I went to the Table Office late last night to look at the Business of the House (Section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018) (No. 2) (Motion) to see what shenanigans the Government were up to. It had been published, and I thought of proposing an amendment, but I was told that that would be totally out of order and that no other amendments had been tabled. However, there is an amendment to that motion on the Order Paper today, which puts me in something of an unfortunate position, so could you rule on what action might be taken?"
----

So the fact one MP was told he could not table an ammendment but another MP did creates a problem not only for the Speaker but his Clerks too.

Even Dominic Grieve admitted he did not think his Ammendment would be accepted when interviewed in the Lobby after the Points of Order Session. That's probably because he knew as a past Barrister/Privy Council/Queens Council/Attorney General it would have been ''unprecedented' for any Speaker to go against Parliamentary Procedure.

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.

That has been the Procedure and Protocol accepted by Parliament and I think it will be interesting to see if Bercow setting a 'precedence' will prove to be a one off or if he continues to override Protocol.

The course Bercow has taken has quite rightly brought to the fore his non partisan views over the Referendum and the fact that clashes with the responsibility of the role of Speaker, whether that be the Speaker in the House of Commons or the Lords.

Bercow is not maintaining the reputation of Speaker in a good light over this issue or indeed his handling of mysogynistic comments or the Dame Laura Cox Inquiry into into allegations of bullying and harassment of House of Commons staff.

He is not particularly mysoginistic to my mind as much as he is a person full of grandiose who belittles both male and female on a regular basis as can be clearly witnessed if you watch him during Parliamentary Sessions.

The partisan nature of the Ammendment Bercow broke with protocol over lead to those who want a second Referendum etc backing Bercow for his actions. I am minded of what one MP said in her Point of Order :-

" I wonder if you agree with me, Mr Speaker—I have seen two occasions this week of what I am about to say—that people only care about the procedures, and protecting and conserving the procedures, when they do not like the outcome of the thing that is about to happen, and never when it is going in their favour. "

I would say that ' People only care about procedures and protocol being broken in an' unprecedented ' manner when it suits their objectives and they too did not like an ' outcome ' that was not in their favour.

There will in the future be consequences of Bercows action, pomposity and partisan stance and when Brexit is over and done with his breaking with Procedures and Protocol will prove to be a bad day for Parliament if Parliament, possibly through the Procedures Committee, don't take this seriously.

POGS excellent post

nobodycares or has time for his rubbish.

Good post Pogs ??
Bercow’s impartiality is doubtful!

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