Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[harry94]

He will be remembered as the erse who thought he was being clever by discarding some long-held parliamentary practices for what he thought was the bigger cause.

Which parliamentary practices? Be very specific.

[welshbairn]

14 minutes ago, dirty dingus said:

Ha, the Tories are calling Bercow a c**t for pulling up some tory mp and telling him to bolt.

Watching this a bit behind. Background noise :"You're a bully... you're bully...you're a bully"  This is class. Bercow unleashed.

[John Lambies Doos]

Have we left yet?

[ICTJohnboy]

7 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

Have we left yet?

 

Naaah.... Maybe after Fluffy resigns as an MP.

[hearthammer]

6 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

Naaah.... Maybe after Fluffy resigns as an MP.

Or maybe found in the ditch he referred to recently.  Will we see Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson weebling on to his medieval sword ??   Here's hoping.

[Sooky]

Move over Nicholas Soames, the (9th) Duke of Wellington has resigned from the Tories. One on the 92 elected (by themselves) hereditary peers.

[dorlomin]

13 minutes ago, Sooky said:

Move over Nicholas Soames, the (9th) Duke of Wellington has resigned from the Tories. One on the 92 elected (by themselves) hereditary peers.

Much more of this and Nelson will be posthumously resigning. 

[Pet Jeden]

1 hour ago, harry94 said:

 

Which parliamentary practices? Be very specific.

 

Google is your friend, Harry.

In January this year Bercow allowed Dominic Grieve to table an amendment to a government procedural motion - a type of motion, as Theresa May protested, which is not normally amendable. Commons clerks had advised the Speaker on that point. Bercow, however, decided that he would innovate. 'I am not in the business of invoking precedent, nor am I under any obligation to do so.' he said. 'If I were guided only by precedent, nothing would ever change'. The amendment - requiring the government to come to the commons within 3 days and explain how it intended to proceed - was duly passed by the Commons.

 

 

[Brother Blades]

Google is your friend, Harry.
In January this year Bercow allowed Dominic Grieve to table an amendment to a government procedural motion - a type of motion, as Theresa May protested, which is not normally amendable. Commons clerks had advised the Speaker on that point. Bercow, however, decided that he would innovate. 'I am not in the business of invoking precedent, nor am I under any obligation to do so.' he said. 'If I were guided only by precedent, nothing would ever change'. The amendment - requiring the government to come to the commons within 3 days and explain how it intended to proceed - was duly passed by the Commons.
 
 

How do you think precedents are set? Or are you in favour of the commons being stuck in the 18th century?

[harry94]

Google is your friend, Harry.
In January this year Bercow allowed Dominic Grieve to table an amendment to a government procedural motion - a type of motion, as Theresa May protested, which is not normally amendable. Commons clerks had advised the Speaker on that point. Bercow, however, decided that he would innovate. 'I am not in the business of invoking precedent, nor am I under any obligation to do so.' he said. 'If I were guided only by precedent, nothing would ever change'. The amendment - requiring the government to come to the commons within 3 days and explain how it intended to proceed - was duly passed by the Commons.
 
 

So basically, your single example is when he didn't allow an archaic piece of procedural practice from hundreds of years ago let the executive ignore the will of parliament?

This whole debacle has shown how little people understand what the job of speaker is actually about. The government have spent this whole debacle trying to avoid accountability and ignore the will of members. There are certain powers reserved to the executive but if you're position is that it remains unchallengeable and no speaker should ever be allowed to challenge that, you're totally ignorant.

If procedure is going to be at odds with democracy, it's there to be changed.

[Granny Danger]

What will come first, Johnson’s government winning a vote in the Commons or Steve Clark’s team winning another game?

 

[Sergeant Wilson]

11 hours ago, UsedToGoToCentralPark said:

It's so simple but sounds like it could actually work. There isn't really anything stopping him requesting an extension but then immediately having talks, writing more letters why it shouldn't happen.

VONC and/or election surely has to happen?

Just like he did when he was picking a side in the first place.

[CaspianChris]

1 minute ago, Granny Danger said:

What will come first, Johnson’s government winning a vote in the Commons or Steve Clark’s team winning another game?

 

Johnson's government winning a vote.

[Pet Jeden]

11 minutes ago, Brother Blades said:

How do you think precedents are set? Or are you in favour of the commons being stuck in the 18th century?

Thank you Captain Obvious.

The point is, if you set a new precedent for expedience of having a kick at something you don't like, beware because it will be used again and again in the future - possibly against things that you do like.  Any  minority Corbyn government is going to be well and truly stuffed if the government no longer have control of the business of the house.

[dorlomin]

33 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

Google is your friend, Harry.

In January this year Bercow allowed Dominic Grieve to table an amendment to a government procedural motion - a type of motion, as Theresa May protested, which is not normally amendable. Commons clerks had advised the Speaker on that point. Bercow, however, decided that he would innovate. 'I am not in the business of invoking precedent, nor am I under any obligation to do so.' he said. 'If I were guided only by precedent, nothing would ever change'. The amendment - requiring the government to come to the commons within 3 days and explain how it intended to proceed - was duly passed by the Commons.

Do you masturbate to pages of Hansards?

That is the most niche thing to get pissy over I have read on here, and I have read threads where Juniors fans are kicking off at each other. 

[Pet Jeden]

14 minutes ago, harry94 said:

So basically, your single example is when he didn't allow an archaic piece of procedural practice from hundreds of years ago let the executive ignore the will of parliament?

This whole debacle has shown how little people understand what the job of speaker is actually about. The government have spent this whole debacle trying to avoid accountability and ignore the will of members. There are certain powers reserved to the executive but if you're position is that it remains unchallengeable and no speaker should ever be allowed to challenge that, you're totally ignorant.

If procedure is going to be at odds with democracy, it's there to be changed.

Don't lecture us about democracy when you're defending MPs  frustrating the referendum outcome - but not having the bottle to do it openly by revoking Article 50.

[Pet Jeden]

3 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

Do you masturbate to pages of Hansards?

That is the most niche thing to get pissy over I have read on here, and I have read threads where Juniors fans are kicking off at each other. 

No, their website. So much filthier.

But I do try to play the ball, not the man. Harry's question was..."Which parliamentary practices? Be very specific"

[dorlomin]

2 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

But I do try to play the ball, not the man.

Quote

He's a pompous fool who takes up way too much parliamentary time. He always wants to be the centre of attention, with his smug, condescending put-downs of MPs. Much preferred any of the last 4 speakers.

 

[UsedToGoToCentralPark]

Some sensible questions on the debate tonight about what happens if one of the EU27 say no to an extension.

[dorlomin]

Just now, UsedToGoToCentralPark said:

Some sensible questions on the debate tonight about what happens if one of the EU27 say no to an extension.

We are out no deal unless we pass Mays deal before October 31