Reply With QuoteA little bit more to it than that Grist , one of the reasons driving Bercow's ruling was May running down the clock and attempting to get her deal through using the fear of leaving by default .Originally Posted by Grist_To_The_Mill
Hall Of Fame
That's because it isn't a rule.
Bercow said himself
"strong and longstanding" parliamentary precedents dating back to 1604"
A precedent not a rule. He made it a rule by doing his own ruling using that ancient precedent.
In the UK precedents exist in many parts of the law, used by judges to decide a ruling based on how many times other judges have ruled on the matter before, ie a precedent has been set. Judges though are not bound by these precedents and can rule that circumstances have changed so much that old precedents are no longer relevant.
Bercow either knew about these old precedents or somebody whispered in his ear. He could have ruled that the quoted precedent was so old and irrelevant under these circumstances and allowed the proceedings to continue.
But he didn't because he's a remainer and biased and wants to frustrate the process.
No rule was broken, only the ruling he made yesterday regarding a precedent more than 400 years old. A period in time when Italy as a country didn't exist, Germany similarly and neither did the labour party nor the conservative party as we know it.
His ruling was near as damn it feudal in it's nature. I rule and you peasants will get what you're given regardless if how you voted.
Hall Of Fame
A little bit more to it than that Grist , one of the reasons driving Bercow's ruling was May running down the clock and attempting to get her deal through using the fear of leaving by default .
Hall Of Fame
So clear that Bercow allowed them not to abide by it when he allowed MV2 and Bryant withdrew his amendment..?
The government (or parts of it) are trying to get the deal through as they believe it to represents a good outcome for the UK that delivers on the Tory Manifesto and the outcome of the referendum. You can't blame them for that even if you don’t agree with them.
And of course those who want another referendum had a vote on their wish last week and Parliament said no...
Hall Of Fame
The voting last week seemed really strange. I understand the rejection of May's vote, and of No Deal.
But I was surprised that parliament voted against taking control and putting forward indicative votes. It seems that they are voting down the main options but also voting down putting forward alternatives! Very depressing.
Maybe there isn't any positive consensus for any action! If so, do we then go by indicative votes to get the most popular out of what we have? How can that be organised?
Options seem to me to be:
- Leave with no deal
- Leave with May deal
- Cross party move towards softer Brexit (whatever that might look like!)
- Leave with May deal or No Deal but with confirmation vote
- Call the whole thing off!
Maybe we develop a vote process that moves towards establishing the most popular of these options, even if that option wouldn't in itself get a majority consensus through parliament?
Happy to accept whichever option that throws up personally. Looks very unlikely No Deal or 2nd vote, but maybe May's deal, unpopular as it is, may be more popular than the other options. can't we just find that out and get it over with!
Hall Of Fame
Yes and no. In law, precedents are binding on courts lower in the hierarchy, so the precedents from the Supreme Court bind the Court of Appeal who can create precedents that bind the High and Crown Courts etc. A court can choose not to follow its own precedent, however - so the Supreme Court can choose not to follow other SC decisions as it famously did in R v Shivpuri where it overturned one of its decisions made just a few days before (thank the Lord for Google).
Bercow made a ruling based upon a precedent created by a Parliamentary ruling in 1604 (the king was fed up of hearing the same petitions over and over again). It seems to me to be a pretty sensible precedent the application of which needs to be tempered with common sense, however
Precedents can be disregarded, just as Bercow did when he allowed Parliament to direct the government to public the AG's advice on the May deal.
In any event, it is a fuss over nothing; as I mentioned earlier, if May can secure enough support to pass her deal, she can also secure enough support to overturn Bercow's decision.
Last edited by KerrAvon; 19-03-2019 at 06:04 PM. Reason: many typos
Hall Of Fame
Barnier tells May she will have to offer something different if we are to gain an extension on article 50 .
A rock and a hard place to say the least .
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-politics-live
First Team
I was watching the Sunday Politics Show this week and Rachel Reeves was on, MP for Leeds West. Her constituency voted to leave the EU, but she seems to think the only options on the table now are a vote for May's Deal or to Remain. When the MP for a majority Leave area thinks like this what hope is there really?
EDIT: Apologies, she thinks the only options are for another Referendum, but the only options to be included are May's deal or Remain
Last edited by DaveyJohn; 20-03-2019 at 12:20 PM. Reason: detailed above
Hall Of Fame
Murky innit?
The only way around it I can see are indicative votes to establish which options have the biggest consensus.
Broadly, they represent all of us, remainers and leavers and have to establish a consensus for how we go about leaving, either type of deal or no deal at all. I sympathise that many feel that the 52% "won" but the 48% still live and pay their way here and their views and interests should be represented in the outcome.
It should have been a cross party effort all along with compromises made from all. Ridiculous that the PM didn't lead in this direction. instead just talking to her own back benchers, even though they could never have got a majority this way.
Hall Of Fame
And weirdly enough one of the only Labour Leavers MPs, Kate Hoey represents a constituency that voted Remain, but she can say she's representing the country as a whole and standing up for democracy.
Hall Of Fame
Good luck with that Tusk , no extension to article 50 then .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-p...ments-47614151
Posting Permissions