Jump to content

Recommended Posts

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mags Court. My guess would probably be the latter.


Of course - meaning chief magistrate. Now some yellow vests have invaded the Attorney Generals office shouting "Anna Soubry is a Nazi" - why do they pick on her ?

Angelina Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So, if Bercow is an EU puppet, as suggested above

> - what does the recent news mean in terms of

> underhand strategy?


I think he's just pro parliament and anti government. He hasn't liked the government since they tried to get rid of him the last day of the 2015 parliament and Labour found out just in time and rescued him.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/26/tory-backbench-rebellion-defeats-hagues-attempt-to-unseat-speaker-john-bercow

I think he's correct on the technical point and he has always been pro parliament standing up against the executive. Some previous speakers (Michael Martin, George Thomas) have been rather sycophantic towards the government - this one has always been the opposite even before Brexit.


I think history might have hardened his attitude.


He had another a great argument with Leadsom (which has been ongoing for a while)

Oh and the point is sensible - and I've heard when backbench MP's try to do similar they are told they can't - the government (especially the May government) just expects it can do what it wants.


I can't believe they claim they didn't see it coming - even I thought it was a possibility.

The speaker of the house as to remain neutral as johnl said bercow hates this government .but he's showing contempt for the 17 million who voted leave by doing his best to stop brexit because he and his remainer mp mates didn't like the result.what's the point in having elections .while many many people struggle to make ends meat .these leaches have just been given an extra ?2000 pay rise on top of their ?65000 + wages yet still lie and cheat on their expenses commiting fraud these fu...rs pay for nothing.yet still want more .that's it rant over .
Angelina I agree mays agreement is crap.but bercow is picking amendments that suit the remainders is refusing to put forward an amendment that would rule out a second referendum backed by 120+ MPs from all parties .now he's found a rule dating back to 1604 saying MPs can't vote twice for the same proposition on our constitution the speaker .Queen and the cabinet secretary are three main people who must act with absolute integrity .this Muppet is driving around in he's official car with stickers on it saying bollocks to brexit our impartial is that.

Much that I cannot stand Bercow, I don't think it is correct that he is driving around in an official car with anti Brexit stickers on it. It is his wife's car that has the stickers.


I don't think he 'searched' for an old rule (also just because it is old does not mean it is not good law/procedure). Moreover, it is a little known rule only because it has hardly ever needed to be invoked - it's just that in 400 years almost every government has abided by the basic principle underlying the rule. May is an exception to the rule and she should be ashamed of her conduct in relation to her so-called 'deal'.

?In the absence of a deal, seeking such a short, one-off extension would be downright reckless and completely at odds with the position this House adopted only last night.? ~ David Lidington, de facto Deputy PM, six days ago, in the Commons


At the start of the Brexit process is was always thought that it would come down to who blinked first between the EU and the UK. Instead it's now who blinks first between the 2 sides of the Tory party. Up to now May has always cowed to the noise and threats of the ERG types, whilst the moderates have kept relatively silent. If May's request for an extension is indeed a short one, then this will be the last chance for the worm to turn...

"Mr Speaker will also hear an application from @Keir_Starmer after the three UQs asking for an emergency 🚨 SO24 debate:


That this House has considered the matter of the length and purpose of the extension of the Article 50 process requested by the Government."




Edit: although lots saying Labour won't back a longer extension

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Let them go bust.  Enact emergency legislation to ensure that the water still flows and the rest of the network operates. Why should we care what happens to the investors.  Have no idea could or would this work, and where next. And the workers will still be needed whoever runs the show.
    • I think you might mean 'repossession' rather than 'reprocessing'.  
    • I think this is a bit of a myth.  It's true that some of the current owners are pension funds (chiefly the Ontario Universities') but they're global outfits, big enough to know what they're about. As for ordinary UK pension funds, they mostly invest in publicly-tradeable stocks, which Thames no longer is (it's a private limited company, not a PLC), so even those that lazily track the markets by buying everything in the index won't be exposed as Thames isn't in any index. In other words, it's a lot less complicated than Thames, the Government or innumerable consultancies and PR outfits would like you to believe. In case, incidentally, the idea of a cooperative offends any delicate Thatcherite sensibilities, I'd argue that it fits the Thatcherite vision of a stakeholding democracy much better than selling tradeable shares to the public very cheaply. The public, despite their blessable cottons, are too easily tempted by the small but easy win (which is how they sold off their own building societies, preparing the ground for the credit crunch and then the crash) and, as became obvious after every privatisation before or since, their modest stakes inevitably end up in the hands of financial engineers whose only priority is to siphon off the assets and leave the husk to either go bankrupt or get "rescued" by the taxpayers (who thus get to pay twice for nothing). The root of that is the concept of "limited liability" which makes it all possible, but even the most nauseating free-market optimist would struggle to predict the demise of that.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...