The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[RickBFA]

You're fundamentally missing the point: they already voted on it on Saturday.

Parliament agreed to only hold the MV after the WAB legislation has been scrutinized and passed.

That isn't dressing things up and isn't any sort of agenda by the speaker. It's simply the facts of the situation.

Strange then that the lead news report on LBC says Bercow will decide whether to allow the vote or not.

Seems the media are as stupid as me then.

Let’s cut the bull. It’s a political move.

[Cf]

You're fundamentally missing the point: they already voted on it on Saturday.

Parliament agreed to only hold the MV after the WAB legislation has been scrutinized and passed.

That isn't dressing things up and isn't any sort of agenda by the speaker. It's simply the facts of the situation.

Strange then that the lead news report on LBC says Bercow will decide whether to allow the vote or not.

Seems the media are as stupid as me then.

Let’s cut the bull. It’s a political move.

Indeed it is. By the government.

They didn't like the result of the vote on Saturday so want to have it again. Sound familiar?

The fact it is Bercow's discussion is immaterial. That's his job.

[RickBFA]

You're fundamentally missing the point: they already voted on it on Saturday.

Parliament agreed to only hold the MV after the WAB legislation has been scrutinized and passed.

That isn't dressing things up and isn't any sort of agenda by the speaker. It's simply the facts of the situation.

Strange then that the lead news report on LBC says Bercow will decide whether to allow the vote or not.

Seems the media are as stupid as me then.

Let’s cut the bull. It’s a political move.

Indeed it is. By the government.

They didn't like the result of the vote on Saturday so want to have it again. Sound familiar?

The fact it is Bercow's discussion is immaterial. That's his job.

Bercow can allow the vote.

To quote the BBC news feed "It will be up to Speaker John Bercow to decide whether to allow the vote."

It would be an overtly political move by Bercow not to allow the vote (although he will dress it up as parliamentary procedure).

[Cf]

You're fundamentally missing the point: they already voted on it on Saturday.

Parliament agreed to only hold the MV after the WAB legislation has been scrutinized and passed.

That isn't dressing things up and isn't any sort of agenda by the speaker. It's simply the facts of the situation.

Strange then that the lead news report on LBC says Bercow will decide whether to allow the vote or not.

Seems the media are as stupid as me then.

Let’s cut the bull. It’s a political move.

Indeed it is. By the government.

They didn't like the result of the vote on Saturday so want to have it again. Sound familiar?

The fact it is Bercow's discussion is immaterial. That's his job.

Bercow can allow the vote.

To quote the BBC news feed "It will be up to Speaker John Bercow to decide whether to allow the vote."

It would be an overtly political move by Bercow not to allow the vote (although he will dress it up as parliamentary procedure).

No it won't. It's just following the rules. He will also act on advice. You can try and claim it is political by referring to it as such as much as you want but that doesn't make it so.

And again... why would allow it anyway? They voted on it 2 days ago and reached a decision. You've ignored that key point.

[RickBFA]

You're fundamentally missing the point: they already voted on it on Saturday.

Parliament agreed to only hold the MV after the WAB legislation has been scrutinized and passed.

That isn't dressing things up and isn't any sort of agenda by the speaker. It's simply the facts of the situation.

Strange then that the lead news report on LBC says Bercow will decide whether to allow the vote or not.

Seems the media are as stupid as me then.

Let’s cut the bull. It’s a political move.

Indeed it is. By the government.

They didn't like the result of the vote on Saturday so want to have it again. Sound familiar?

The fact it is Bercow's discussion is immaterial. That's his job.

Bercow can allow the vote.

To quote the BBC news feed "It will be up to Speaker John Bercow to decide whether to allow the vote."

It would be an overtly political move by Bercow not to allow the vote (although he will dress it up as parliamentary procedure).

No it won't. It's just following the rules. He will also act on advice. You can try and claim it is political by referring to it as such as much as you want but that doesn't make it so.

And again... why would allow it anyway? They voted on it 2 days ago and reached a decision. You've ignored that key point.

We wont agree. The idea that this is just procedural is laughable.

When you stop and think about it, we have a situation where MP's are not able to vote specifically (without amendments) on a deal negotiated by the Government with the EU.

You have to ask at what point is it in the national interest to get our elected representatives view on the deal.

[Cf]

You're fundamentally missing the point: they already voted on it on Saturday.

Parliament agreed to only hold the MV after the WAB legislation has been scrutinized and passed.

That isn't dressing things up and isn't any sort of agenda by the speaker. It's simply the facts of the situation.

Strange then that the lead news report on LBC says Bercow will decide whether to allow the vote or not.

Seems the media are as stupid as me then.

Let’s cut the bull. It’s a political move.

Indeed it is. By the government.

They didn't like the result of the vote on Saturday so want to have it again. Sound familiar?

The fact it is Bercow's discussion is immaterial. That's his job.

Bercow can allow the vote.

To quote the BBC news feed "It will be up to Speaker John Bercow to decide whether to allow the vote."

It would be an overtly political move by Bercow not to allow the vote (although he will dress it up as parliamentary procedure).

No it won't. It's just following the rules. He will also act on advice. You can try and claim it is political by referring to it as such as much as you want but that doesn't make it so.

And again... why would allow it anyway? They voted on it 2 days ago and reached a decision. You've ignored that key point.

We wont agree. The idea that this is just procedural is laughable.

When you stop and think about it, we have a situation where MP's are not able to vote specifically (without amendments) on a deal negotiated by the Government with the EU.

You have to ask at what point is it in the national interest to get our elected representatives view on the deal

MPs were indeed able to vote on it without amendments. They chose not to. They wanted to see the legislation first.

[Archer]

You're fundamentally missing the point: they already voted on it on Saturday.

Parliament agreed to only hold the MV after the WAB legislation has been scrutinized and passed.

That isn't dressing things up and isn't any sort of agenda by the speaker. It's simply the facts of the situation.

Strange then that the lead news report on LBC says Bercow will decide whether to allow the vote or not.

Seems the media are as stupid as me then.

Let’s cut the bull. It’s a political move.

Indeed it is. By the government.

They didn't like the result of the vote on Saturday so want to have it again. Sound familiar?

The fact it is Bercow's discussion is immaterial. That's his job.

Bercow can allow the vote.

To quote the BBC news feed "It will be up to Speaker John Bercow to decide whether to allow the vote."

It would be an overtly political move by Bercow not to allow the vote (although he will dress it up as parliamentary procedure).

No it won't. It's just following the rules. He will also act on advice. You can try and claim it is political by referring to it as such as much as you want but that doesn't make it so.

And again... why would allow it anyway? They voted on it 2 days ago and reached a decision. You've ignored that key point.

We wont agree. The idea that this is just procedural is laughable.

When you stop and think about it, we have a situation where MP's are not able to vote specifically (without amendments) on a deal negotiated by the Government with the EU.

You have to ask at what point is it in the national interest to get our elected representatives view on the deal.

We should know sometime around 2.30ish if Bercow will let govt have the straight vote it craves on the Brexit deal today - it seems unlikely because govt didn't pull the vote on Saturday they walked away from it (negatived anyone?)
Laura Kuenssberg
@bbclaurak
·
13m
So theoretically Commons DID give a view on the issue, so can't be asked to give a different one today - let's see - govt is desperate to have a vote on the whole shebang asap to show momentum, before getting into days of scrutiny where MPs will try to make changes to the deal

Then Peston:
Parliament’s rules, Erskine May, seem clear that the Speaker cannot allow ⁦
BorisJohnson ⁩ to bring back his meaningful vote today. Speaker implied as much on Saturday anyway. Slightly odd perhaps that Leader ⁦
Jacob_Rees_Mogg ⁩ tried

[TightEnd]

Vital point made here. It’s not just that Brexit’s shit hasn’t hit the fan yet - it’s that voters have no idea it’s about to

[nirvana]

Vital point made here. It’s not just that Brexit’s shit hasn’t hit the fan yet - it’s that voters have no idea it’s about to

This level of detail is just irrelevant to people though. It's just remain rhetoric to continue the line its all too difficult and pointless. Pretty sure his 'horrified silence' is the average punters total indifference

[Cf]

Vital point made here. It’s not just that Brexit’s shit hasn’t hit the fan yet - it’s that voters have no idea it’s about to

This level of detail is just irrelevant to people though. It's just remain rhetoric to continue the line its all too difficult and pointless.

It's relevant to people who "have had enough of all this and just want brexit done" though isn't it?

[nirvana]

Vital point made here. It’s not just that Brexit’s shit hasn’t hit the fan yet - it’s that voters have no idea it’s about to

This level of detail is just irrelevant to people though. It's just remain rhetoric to continue the line its all too difficult and pointless.

It's relevant to people who "have had enough of all this and just want brexit done" though isn't it?

Not really. Im not overly interested in the outcome of the talks about future arrangements and anyone who posts here would be in the category of extremely interested in the whole process when measured against the gen pop.

[nirvana]

Just watched some of news.

Comment made that Bercow may not even allow a vote tomorrow.

He has already pushed impartiality to its limits.

If this were the case and the Speaker denies the vote, he will have become overtly political.

Given it appears Johnson has the numbers, the attempts by any means to stop him are becoming more and more extreme. Total joke.

I don’t think is about being impartial, I’d say it was more due to parliamentary procedure. I wouldn’t be confident of the numbers either, going to be super close, but there was a switcher from the deal to going against today

Could you explain the bolded part for us Aaron? Maybe cite this parliamentary procedure you are referring to.
Explain it in simple terms for me though, because I am one of those less educated folks who voted Leave.

After  Letwin went through the government chose not to push the MV. I'm reading that was a mistake and they should have done.
Bercow likely to  rule out of order tomorrow as MV (i) same issue twice (ii) contradicts Letwin amendment which says Brexit related legislation must be agreed first i.e the actual withdrawal agreement and the procedures relating to that.

Doesn't suit Boris but of course the media line will be that he is being denied again and Bercow is a **** blah blah.  All good for Conservative votes when we finally get to GE.

Very good thread explaining this further from Lewis Goodall.

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1185989844281020418?s=09

Interesting read..cheers

[aaron1867]

I's crazy to think about the current situation and what certain parties plan to do. Listening to certain programmes where politicians forever changing their mind.

The amount of times that Ian Blackford has stood up in the commons and said it's time for a people's vote, must be a dozen or more. Last night, Joanna Cherry, also of SNP, said they wouldn't support the people's vote amendment.

The DUP are considering voting for PV amendment and customs union amend. That bung went well.

Nick Boles tweets he will support deal, but would withdraw support if bullying by No.10 continues. Why not vote the deal for its merits, not about your friends.

Lisa Nandy on BBC saying she would support a confirmatory ref, but with no remain option. We all know if it's deal v no deal, deal would win easily, essnetially pointless.

I agree with what Richard says, the prime minister and/or parliament need to come out and give a plan to get out, not keep on with a delay that won't achieve anything. There realy needs to be PV, GE, customs union deal or Jeremy pushing a no confidence motion.  

[RED-DOG]

Has anyone ever seen Peter bone and Sven Goran Eriksson in the same room?

[DaveShoelace]

Has anyone ever seen Peter bone and Sven Goran Eriksson in the same room?

THANK YOU

Had the same thought subconsciously mulling around in my head for months but not been quite able to articulate it