So it looks like there'll be a long extension of Article 50, likely 1-2 years. During that time I believe there'll be a change of leadership, perhaps a people's vote/second referendum and the revoking of Article 50 (or so I hope).

 

 

So it looks like there'll be a long extension of Article 50, likely 1-2 years. During that time I believe there'll be a change of leadership, perhaps a people's vote/second referendum and the revoking of Article 50 (or so I hope).

 

Seems that way at the moment - cue all the moaning from the Brexiteers. I can see their points to a degree, but we should never have produced Article 50 without a clear plan to which the majority of MPs are accountable. I can't see Article 50 being revoked unless their is a referendum - I suspect the likely option now is a much softer version of Brexit, presumably led by somebody else as probably clear Teresa is going to have to resign pretty shortly.

Decisions of the house matter. They have weight. YES BERCOW TELL HER

 

Clear we can't be getting a deal no one wants at the least. Which is why I'm happy with that but as ever that's closed off one possibility without making another seem more likely.

 

Is it right that one man could have so much power over Brexit? After all, I doubt you'd be happy if that man was Nigel Farage, for example... :nono:

Is it right that one man could have so much power over Brexit? After all, I doubt you'd be happy if that man was Nigel Farage, for example... :nono:

Whose job do you think it should be to enforce parliamentary rules? The procedure book is very clear - a government cannot introduce the same motion twice in a parliamentary session. That (400-year-old) rule is specifically designed to prevent governments trying to bore the Commons into submission or to introduce ever-increasing bribes.

She was never going to get it through anyway - and BTW if MP's get to change their mind AFTER ONE WEEK then the general population should have the same opportunity after 3 YEARS. So I say, they had 2 tries and "nothing has changed" to quote one useless politician, and Bercow was totally right, May was just taking the piss, and has been for the last 2 years or 3 months, depending on viewpoint.

 

She accepts her deal is dead and gets an extension (substantial) or she resigns and triggers a general election, because anything else is not what people voted for in the last general election anymore than this is what they voted for in the referendum. So where are all the Brexiters now? Stopping Brexit, actually, because they were lying all along and wanted only a Hard Brexit and nothing else, and sod the consequences (which they lied about). Liars.

Whose job do you think it should be to enforce parliamentary rules? The procedure book is very clear - a government cannot introduce the same motion twice in a parliamentary session. That (400-year-old) rule is specifically designed to prevent governments trying to bore the Commons into submission or to introduce ever-increasing bribes.

 

Precisely, it isn’t about Brexit, it’s about making sure our government functions with a proper order. It’s best to look at the Speaker as not a human with an agenda but a neutral enforcer. And Bercow plays that role very well.

Whose job do you think it should be to enforce parliamentary rules? The procedure book is very clear - a government cannot introduce the same motion twice in a parliamentary session. That (400-year-old) rule is specifically designed to prevent governments trying to bore the Commons into submission or to introduce ever-increasing bribes.

 

The irony, of course, is Brexit supporters have been demanding Parliamentary Sovereignty.

 

Is it right that one man could have so much power over Brexit? After all, I doubt you'd be happy if that man was Nigel Farage, for example... :nono:

 

If you are talking about Bercow, he doesn't.

 

If Theresa May has enough of a majority to support her deal then Parliament can have a vote with that majority to simply ignore convention and have the WA motion put again. Simples.

Precisely, it isn’t about Brexit, it’s about making sure our government functions with a proper order. It’s best to look at the Speaker as not a human with an agenda but a neutral enforcer. And Bercow plays that role very well.

 

THough there are question marks over whether he's as neutral as he should be...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/j...ker-brexit-bias

THough there are question marks over whether he's as neutral as he should be...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/j...ker-brexit-bias

 

considering he's up against a PM who tried to totally shut MP's out of the most important decision in a generation - as per the stated aim of the referendum to "bring back control" to UK Parliament - he's entirely justified to view everything she does with the utmost suspicion. She still thinks she's Queen Of England, but that role is already taken. She's utterly useless.

considering he's up against a PM who tried to totally shut MP's out of the most important decision in a generation - as per the stated aim of the referendum to "bring back control" to UK Parliament - he's entirely justified to view everything she does with the utmost suspicion. She still thinks she's Queen Of England, but that role is already taken. She's utterly useless.

 

Problem is, even if she could be forced out, who on earth would they replace her with? :huh:

 

And her replacement would still be stuck with the same poisoned chalice anyway.

I found this in the depth of my HD - it might amuse... https://www.dropbox.com/s/c0jz98dtni3ix36/C...Farage.jpg?dl=0

The Leave campaign has just been landed with another fine. This time they have been fined £40,000 for sending text messages without first seeking consent from the recipients.

The Leave campaign has just been landed with another fine. This time they have been fined £40,000 for sending text messages without first seeking consent from the recipients.

 

So they did wrong, and have been punished - end of story.

 

Indeed. Cost of business, probably still within their budget for the fines category.

So they did wrong, and have been punished - end of story.

 

Look forward to the next election or referendum then when it's every person to themselves and anything goes - with your full support as long as they pay a small fine afterwards....

So they did wrong, and have been punished - end of story.

You still don’t get it, do you?

 

Let’s say the expenditure limit for a constituency is £50,000. The national limit for a party is around £50,000 per constituency contested. So, assume a party committed to getting the UK back in the EU contests 600 constituencies but only runs a campaign in 450.

 

The cost of the constituency campaigns is £22.5m. Let us assume that the party adheres strictly to that limit.

 

However, the party is less scrupulous about the national limit. Instead of spending £30m, they spend £40m. Assume that is enough to see them win 350 seats. As a result, they are fined £2m. The total cost is, therefore, less than £65m. Would you accept that?

Look forward to the next election or referendum then when it's every person to themselves and anything goes - with your full support as long as they pay a small fine afterwards....

 

In the real world, that seems to be just how elections are fought.

 

You still don’t get it, do you?

 

Let’s say the expenditure limit for a constituency is £50,000. The national limit for a party is around £50,000 per constituency contested. So, assume a party committed to getting the UK back in the EU contests 600 constituencies but only runs a campaign in 450.

 

The cost of the constituency campaigns is £22.5m. Let us assume that the party adheres strictly to that limit.

 

However, the party is less scrupulous about the national limit. Instead of spending £30m, they spend £40m. Assume that is enough to see them win 350 seats. As a result, they are fined £2m. The total cost is, therefore, less than £65m. Would you accept that?

 

This question is an obvious trap.

In the real world, that seems to be just how elections are fought.

 

No it isn't. Just the corrupt ones. That's why there are rules and why corruption should negate a result. Otherwise democracy becomes all about who has the most money, which is giving power to the rich and powerful.

It seems as the TerMayNator, nothing gets rid of it, is going for a short extension while blaming Parliament and sucking up to the general public who voted for Brexit as if she is a saint blameless in all this in the obvious intent to force ERG nutters to take the deal or Remainers to take the deal. The former want a Hard Brexit, so flawed. The latter have the interests of the nation at heart, but the lesser of 2 evils hasnt worked to date.

 

So a Hard Brexit it is.

 

Except that.....since May clearly thinks MP's are allowed to change their mind again and again and again till they do what she wants, then she has no moral ability, nor do MP's, to say the public can't have a referendum when they keep having one every bloody week. Hypocrites. Now, if Corbyn was doing his job, that would now be the default position as it's clearly the only thing which will sort it out. You couldn't imagine a pair of more useless leaders if you waited a millennia for just one to turn up.....