Brexit

[redsturgeon]

Does anyone know what's going on?

After yesterday, I seem to have lost the plot.

It would seem that Bercow could refuse the Boris deal being voted on tomorrow- presumably because he withdrew it after the Letwin amendment And the speaker won't allow the same thing to be brought forward twice.

So Boris will have to make it suitably different before bringing it back to Parliament and then it will become amendable (Subject to GE or referendum etc)

Not looking for discussion.

The answer is that the vote was pulled on Saturday after the Letwin amendment passed, therefore was never actually put forward for debate or a vote.

John

[redsturgeon]

Latest Update:

From: BobbyD
Recipient: redsturgeon

I'm not sure if your answer is correct, but it is certainly not uncontested

Pity it's impossible to add the view of an 'expert' to the replies...

https://twitter.com/DrHannahWhite/statu ... 2533665792

"For those who had better things to do at 6.53am (emoji removed) than listen to me on
@BBCr4today
a quick thread on my points: I would be very surprised if the Speaker allowed the Government’s ‘meaningful vote’ motion today (caveat - I have been ‘very surprised’ by John Bercow before...)...

... my interpretation is that the House’s ‘same question’ rule applies (you can’t ask the House the same question twice in one session). The wording of the motion today is not exactly the same as Saturday’s but it is ‘the same fundamental proposition’...

... There has been criticism of the government for not pushing the motion to a division on Saturday. But the wording of the govt’s motion was removed by the Letwin amdt and replaced with text saying the House withholds approval until the WAB passes. The House was then asked...

.. to agree the motion ‘as amended’. It did so without a division. The govt presumably decided not to push the decision to a division because that would just have been a rerun of the previous division. All those who’d voted for Letwin would have voted for the amended motion...

... It was no longer possible to have a vote on the original text of the motion and test support for the deal because it had been removed by the amendment. That was what the House decided to do with the motion and I can’t see why the decision would be different today..."

Dr Hannah White has strategic oversight of the Institute’s programme of work on government, parliament and the civil service, focusing on our external relationships and impact.

Hannah has extensive knowledge of Westminster and Whitehall based on over a decade of experience in Parliament and the civil service. Before running the Committee on Standards in Public Life in the Cabinet Office, she was a clerk in the House of Commons managing select and legislative committees and advising on parliamentary procedure.

Hannah is a commentator for radio and television and has appeared on Radio 4’s Westminster Hour, World at One, the Today programme, Newsnight, BBC News and Sky News. She is a regular contributor to the Institute’s comment pages and writes for a range of media including The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph and Civil Service World.

[redsturgeon]

Apparently the speaker will give a ruling at about 15.30 today.

John

[BobbyD]

An alternative opinion:

... my interpretation is that the House’s ‘same question’ rule applies (you can’t ask the House the same question twice in one session). The wording of the motion today is not exactly the same as Saturday’s but it is ‘the same fundamental proposition’...

... There has been criticism of the government for not pushing the motion to a division on Saturday. But the wording of the govt’s motion was removed by the Letwin amdt and replaced with text saying the House withholds approval until the WAB passes. The House was then asked...

... to agree the motion ‘as amended’. It did so without a division. The govt presumably decided not to push the decision to a division because that would just have been a rerun of the previous division. All those who’d voted for Letwin would have voted for the amended motion...

... It was no longer possible to have a vote on the original text of the motion and test support for the deal because it had been removed by the amendment. That was what the House decided to do with the motion and I can’t see why the decision would be different today...

https://twitter.com/DrHannahWhite/statu ... 2533665792

Opinion Giver's CV:

Dr Hannah White has strategic oversight of the Institute’s programme of work on government, parliament and the civil service, focusing on our external relationships and impact.

Hannah has extensive knowledge of Westminster and Whitehall based on over a decade of experience in Parliament and the civil service. Before running the Committee on Standards in Public Life in the Cabinet Office, she was a clerk in the House of Commons managing select and legislative committees and advising on parliamentary procedure.

- https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... nnah-white

[BobbyD]

An alternative opinion:

... my interpretation is that the House’s ‘same question’ rule applies (you can’t ask the House the same question twice in one session). The wording of the motion today is not exactly the same as Saturday’s but it is ‘the same fundamental proposition’...

... There has been criticism of the government for not pushing the motion to a division on Saturday. But the wording of the govt’s motion was removed by the Letwin amdt and replaced with text saying the House withholds approval until the WAB passes. The House was then asked...

... to agree the motion ‘as amended’. It did so without a division. The govt presumably decided not to push the decision to a division because that would just have been a rerun of the previous division. All those who’d voted for Letwin would have voted for the amended motion...

... It was no longer possible to have a vote on the original text of the motion and test support for the deal because it had been removed by the amendment. That was what the House decided to do with the motion and I can’t see why the decision would be different today...

https://twitter.com/DrHannahWhite/statu ... 2533665792

Opinion Giver's CV:

Dr Hannah White has strategic oversight of the Institute’s programme of work on government, parliament and the civil service, focusing on our external relationships and impact.

Hannah has extensive knowledge of Westminster and Whitehall based on over a decade of experience in Parliament and the civil service. Before running the Committee on Standards in Public Life in the Cabinet Office, she was a clerk in the House of Commons managing select and legislative committees and advising on parliamentary procedure.

- https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... nnah-white

Sorry, missed the post I've effectively duplicated.

Speaker's ruling, the motion will not be debated.

[Arborbridge]

If nothing else, this period has been an education in the procedural niceties of the mother of parliaments*. Many of us find it quite bizarre, but I can see now why people talk about "checks and balances" in our democracy.


Arb.

* I believe Icelanders would claim our's is only the daughter of the real mother of parliaments, at Thingvallir (icelandic letter hunting unsuccessful on my PC)

[richfool]

The allegedly impartial speaker of the HOC has yet again obstructed democracy and Brexit.

Does anyone know, can he charged with something and removed to the Tower?

[Arborbridge]

The allegedly impartial speaker of the HOC has yet again obstructed democracy and Brexit.

Does anyone know, can he charged with something and removed to the Tower?

I doubt it
Since the various "experts" we heard from suggested that he could not allow a second vote on the motion, then it's no surprise. Far from being partial, or obstructing justice, he is applying the rules that everyone knew existed, including Johnson when he decided to "pull it" on Saturday. This is our democracy in action warts and all, but I suspect Brexiters will always believe the Speaker is biassed unless he caves in to them absolutely. Thank goodness he doesn't. I do fear for what will happen when we get a government toady as a Speaker -one of those checks and balances will be knocked away.

Arb.

[swill453]

The allegedly impartial speaker of the HOC has yet again obstructed democracy and Brexit.

Sarcasm? Parody?

Scott.

[AsleepInYorkshire]

Does anyone know what's going on?

After yesterday, I seem to have lost the plot.

It would seem that Bercow could refuse the Boris deal being voted on tomorrow- presumably because he withdrew it after the Letwin amendment And the speaker won't allow the same thing to be brought forward twice.

So Boris will have to make it suitably different before bringing it back to Parliament and then it will become amendable (Subject to GE or referendum etc)

Not looking for discussion.

The house cannot discuss the same stuff as it is wastes resources.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50128740

AiY

[Arborbridge]

The house cannot discuss the same stuff as it is wastes resources.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50128740

AiY

I believe the rationale behind is also that if one could endlessly present the same motion, sooner or later it would be passed through sheer boredom or even by accident, especially where the voting is very close. This would clearly be rather stupid and pander to "game players". Bercow, as usual, is correct.

Arb.

[richfool]

But Tory MP and Brexiteer Sir Bernard Jenkin appeared to accused Mr Bercow of bias, saying it was "remarkable" how often the Speaker "pleased one lot and not the other".

"It is most unusual for a Speaker so often to prevent the government having a debate on the matters which the government wish put before the House," he added.

Fellow Tory David T C Davies said: "The only consistency one can find in your rulings is that they always seem to favour one side of the argument and never the government."

But Mr Bercow disagreed, adding: "The consistent thread is I try to do what I think is right by the House of Commons."

I watched the exchanges in Parliament on TV. Another MP pointed out that Bercow had indeed allowed something to be debated a second time early this year and had allowed manuscript amendments to be submitted/included at very short notice, arguing on that occasion, that rather than following convention, he was being pragmatic. Needless to say it had favoured the opposition and not the government side.

[Arborbridge]

But Tory MP and Brexiteer Sir Bernard Jenkin appeared to accused Mr Bercow of bias, saying it was "remarkable" how often the Speaker "pleased one lot and not the other".

"It is most unusual for a Speaker so often to prevent the government having a debate on the matters which the government wish put before the House," he added.

Fellow Tory David T C Davies said: "The only consistency one can find in your rulings is that they always seem to favour one side of the argument and never the government."

But Mr Bercow disagreed, adding: "The consistent thread is I try to do what I think is right by the House of Commons."

I watched the exchanges in Parliament on TV. Another MP pointed out that Bercow had indeed allowed something to be debated a second time early this year and had allowed manuscript amendments to be submitted/included at very short notice, arguing on that occasion, that rather than following convention, he was being pragmatic. Needless to say it had favoured the opposition and not the government side.

I'm not commenting on whether he more often favours one faction or another, except to note that everyone has their own subjective take on it depending on their own POV. I wouldn't necessarily, for example, take a Tory Brexiter as an unbiassed observer
But, it's clear that the Speaker is not there to uphold or support the Government - he is there to see fair play in parliament and to administer the rules. It does not seem surprising that a government which is trying to get it's own way with parliament (particularly one where it has no majority) will sail as close to the wind as possible, and the Speaker must stand firm against it. Therefore, there are likely to be more decisions which go against the government, than for it.

That's only to be expected and it shows the Speaker is functioning properly as a check on Government.

Arb.

[AsleepInYorkshire]

Does anyone know what's going on?

After yesterday, I seem to have lost the plot.

It would seem that Bercow could refuse the Boris deal being voted on tomorrow- presumably because he withdrew it after the Letwin amendment And the speaker won't allow the same thing to be brought forward twice.

So Boris will have to make it suitably different before bringing it back to Parliament and then it will become amendable (Subject to GE or referendum etc)

Not looking for discussion.

Rules and traditions of Parliament
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/customs/

Extracted from the above page

Debating
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/debate/

May be helpful albeit may not go into enough detail?

AiY

[Maroochydore]

Does anyone know what's going on?
After yesterday, I seem to have lost the plot.

I'm confused as well by all the shenanigans and amendments so can someone confirm or not that the default position is still "No deal by 31 October means we leave on WTO terms", assuming the EU does not agree to the extension requested, or have any of these amendments, court cases etc changed that position?

[UncleEbenezer]

* I believe Icelanders would claim our's is only the daughter of the real mother of parliaments, at Thingvallir (icelandic letter hunting unsuccessful on my PC)

Þingvellir, or even Þingvǫllr (Even when anglicised, your 'a' is a misspelling). Which isn't the parliament itself, but the place (field) of the parliament, located so as to be (so far as was possible) accessible from anywhere in Iceland (it was open to all to participate), and with a natural PA system in a cliff face that would help a speaker be heard by all in a big area. Indeed, a democratic institution that goes back well over 1000 years, though I believe it has moved indoors nowadays.

Closer to home, the Manx parliament goes by the same name with more anglicised spelling and pronunciation.

That "mother" of parliaments should probably be "matriarch". Something like Nanny Ogg.

[G37y]

As we are still members of the EU could Boris Johnson ask for an extension then veto it himself?

[swill453]

As we are still members of the EU could Boris Johnson ask for an extension then veto it himself?

No, it's the UK making request to the EU27 - the rest of the EU excluding the UK.

Scott.

[PinkDalek]

As we are still members of the EU could Boris Johnson ask for an extension then veto it himself?

See https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... KKBN1WB1RD which includes:

Veto the extension - Any extension has to be agreed by all EU member states. Some lawmakers have suggested Britain could seek to veto its own extension request.

[swill453]

As we are still members of the EU could Boris Johnson ask for an extension then veto it himself?

See https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... KKBN1WB1RD which includes:

Veto the extension - Any extension has to be agreed by all EU member states. Some lawmakers have suggested Britain could seek to veto its own extension request.

The Benn Act mandates that "If the European Council decides to agree an extension ... to the period ending at 11.00pm on 31 January 2020, the Prime Minister must ... notify the President of the European Council that the United Kingdom agrees to the proposed extension."

That would appear to rule out vetoing it, even if that was possible.

Scott.