Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:42 pm

martin_p wrote:Or at least where they don’t trust the leader of a government with a fair sized minority in parliament. In all other circumstances it has little chance of working.

Where does it say that?
Say labour want to nationalise, once it’s in power (assuming we have left Europe, so they are allowed to). Could the Conservatives not ask to see the paper chain in order to discredit it?

Hilary is no Tony, he should have spent a lot more time listening to his dad.

Ill conceived nonsense.

SonofPog · Post by **SonofPog** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:44 pm

Bercow to stand down by 31 October
The Speaker of the Commons, John Bercow, says he will stand down either at the next election or at the close of business on Thursday 31 October - whichever comes first.

Isn't liked, hated by one side of Parliament, but the mans certainly had a difficult had to play with in these strange times.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:44 pm

Bercow announces plans to quit on Oct 31st.

Proper f**k you to the Conservatives with that as he's guaranteeing that the H of P will elect the next speaker.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:49 pm

elwaclaret wrote:Where does it say that?
Say labour want to nationalise, once it’s in power (assuming we have left Europe, so they are allowed to). Could the Conservatives not ask to see the paper chain in order to discredit it?

Hilary is no Tony, he should have spent a lot more time listening to his dad.

Ill conceived nonsense.

They could ask, but any government with a majority would just vote it down.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:52 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Bercow announces plans to quit on Oct 31st.

Proper f**k you to the Conservatives with that as he's guaranteeing that the H of P will elect the next speaker.

Sure the Conservative party are in turmoil at the news. Betty Boothroyd was a good Speaker, Bercow may have well remained seated on the labour bench. And that is without Brexit.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:55 pm

elwaclaret wrote:Sure the Conservative party are in turmoil at the news. Betty Boothroyd was a good Speaker, Bercow may have well remained seated on the labour bench. And that is without Brexit.

They want a speaker who will do what he is told, which tells you all you need to know about their views on parliamentary democracy.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:55 pm

martin_p wrote:They could ask, but any government with a majority would just vote it down.

No they couldn’t. Not once the precedence is set. They could, absolute minimum create delay after delay demanding further information, cross examination etc. Take your tinted glasses off. I may not be a lawyer, but I saw it so why on earth can’t the people on the bill.... it isn’t even claiming extenuating circumstances.... it is none workable, nonsense.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:55 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Bercow announces plans to quit on Oct 31st.

Proper f**k you to the Conservatives with that as he's guaranteeing that the H of P will elect the next speaker.

Good opportunity for the opposition parties to get together and vote in an opposition MP in a marginal seat. The convention is that the speaker’s seat isn’t contested so it could take away a potential Tory gain. Or vote in one of the rebel Tory remain MPs, that’d be fun.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:56 pm

elwaclaret wrote:Sure the Conservative party are in turmoil at the news. Betty Boothroyd was a good Speaker, Bercow may have well remained seated on the labour bench. And that is without Brexit.

Bercow was selected partly on the promise that he would give a greater chance to back benchers and those not in government to speak. Personally that's something I'm fine with rather than the party in power dominating the whole process.

(Obviously he was also a Tory before being selected as speaker so not sure why he'd have remained on the Labour bench.)

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:57 pm

elwaclaret wrote:No they couldn’t. Not once the precedence is set. They could, absolute minimum create delay after delay demanding further information, cross examination etc. Take your tinted glasses off. I may not be a lawyer, but I saw it so why on earth can’t the people on the bill.... it isn’t even claiming extenuating circumstances.... it is none workable, nonsense.

I think you don't understand how parliamentary democracy works. If you have a majority, you can pass bills unless you are stopped by rebels.

Its perfectly possible for the H of P to sit like this for years if that is what the opposition want (it would be very stupid though!)

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:02 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I think you don't understand how parliamentary democracy works. If you have a majority, you can pass bills unless you are stopped by rebels.

Its perfectly possible for the H of P to sit like this for years if that is what the opposition want (it would be very stupid though!)

I fully understand how parliament works. I also fully understand if I was a parliamentarian and this legislation was on statute, I would be in a position to ask for the working out of every bill to scrutinise and dissect, before any vote can take place.
Edit for typo

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:02 pm

elwaclaret wrote:No they couldn’t. Not once the precedence is set. They could, absolute minimum create delay after delay demanding further information, cross examination etc. Take your tinted glasses off. I may not be a lawyer, but I saw it so why on earth can’t the people on the bill.... it isn’t even claiming extenuating circumstances.... it is none workable, nonsense.

The only precedence set might be the speaker allowing it to be debated, but every time the opposition wanted to see specific paper they’d have to propose a motion and get it passed. There was something similar last year where parliament voted that the government should release the David David Brexit impact papers. If precedence is set by these sorts of motions they wouldn’t need to be proposing another.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:03 pm

elwaclaret wrote:I fully understand how parliament works. I also fully understand if I was a parliamentarian and this legislation was on allowed I would be in a position to ask for the working out of every bill to scrutinise and dissect, before any vote can take place.

It’s not legislation that is being proposed, so your understanding isn’t what you thought it was.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:04 pm

elwaclaret wrote:I fully understand how parliament works. I also fully understand if I was a parliamentarian and this legislation was on allowed I would be in a position to ask for the working out of every bill to scrutinise and dissect, before any vote can take place.

Well you could but normally the party that has the power to pass the bill would also have the power to block the requirement to disclose the information.

It would be only in tumultuous times that the government in power wouldn't have the power to stop this happening.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:04 pm

martin_p wrote:The only precedence set might be the speaker allowing it to be debated, but every time the opposition wanted to see specific paper they’d have to propose a motion and get it passed. There was something similar last year where parliament voted that the government should release the David David Brexit impact papers. If precedence is set by these sorts of motions they wouldn’t need to be proposing another.

Where does it say that?

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:05 pm

martin_p wrote:It’s not legislation that is being proposed, so your understanding isn’t what you thought it was.

If it is passed by parliament it becomes legislation.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:06 pm

martin_p wrote:Good opportunity for the opposition parties to get together and vote in an opposition MP in a marginal seat. The convention is that the speaker’s seat isn’t contested so it could take away a potential Tory gain. Or vote in one of the rebel Tory remain MPs, that’d be fun.

The Tories said they were going to contest it.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:08 pm

Spijed wrote:The Tories said they were going to contest it.

They said they were contesting Bercow’s seat. Contesting the seat of a brand new speaker would be poor form indeed.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:08 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:Elwa's actual supposition was that Corbyn likes to pick on Jews whilst Johnson is trying to check racism.

The counter argument was have you got any examples of Corbyn picking on Jews and how do you arrive at that conclusion about Johnson when to the contrary there has been high profile examples of him feeding racism (Letter box comments as one example)

So far Elwa or anyone else haven't actually attempted to back up the original claims and instead are shifting the conversation and goalpost to something they are more comfortable talking about.

If people like Ringo want to throw their hat into the ring then feel free to actually address what the discussion was about as it might actually be an interesting discussion. But if you just avoid any questions you find difficult and instead just continue to trumpet your own nonsense then the conversation becomes very boring very quickly

I'll let Labour MP, John Mann reflect my views thanks.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:10 pm

On the actual request, it's an interesting one.

Setting aside the precedence issue (which isn't really an issue other than it may inspire others to do the same) I guess there are a number of lines of attack here.

The obvious is to get details of the conversations and hopefully find something juicy in terms of the content.

The second is to try and identify how much influence advisers such as Cummings have.

The third is the possibility of government business being discussed through insecure methods. Facebook messenger, personal email, etc are all compromised and if anything of substance was going through them it would be pretty scandalous.

There's also the possibility, which is my suspicion, that they don't expect that bit to be successful but it's the second half, the Yellowhammer documents, that they really want releasing and this just diverts from that.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:10 pm

elwaclaret wrote:If it is passed by parliament it becomes legislation.

You have to have a bill for legislation, this is just a motion proposing that parliament take a particular course.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:11 pm

elwaclaret wrote:If it is passed by parliament it becomes legislation.

It doesn't. It's a one-off request.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:12 pm

I'm going to join the liberal Democrats.

First, I'll join Change UK , then leave them . That's how you do it isn't it?

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:14 pm

aggi wrote:It doesn't. It's a one-off request.

Where does it say that?

If it sets a precedent... it can be used in Law... that is what lawyers use to prove the law.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:16 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Bercow announces plans to quit on Oct 31st.

Proper f**k you to the Conservatives with that as he's guaranteeing that the H of P will elect the next speaker.

Not trying to run away from outstanding bullying issues, oh no he's not.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:16 pm

elwaclaret wrote:It does seem to be a case of being unable to defend the indefensible, so instead pointing fingers to deflect. However, anyone who witnessed first hand last night episode, can surely no longer be in any doubt context is everything. The mods had no context to a post and banned (I assume) a remainder on the pure strength of his “racist rant” that was intended to show the idiocy of my position. As I defended my position, he got banned for racism, it’s called kudos I think.

Managing to get banned for spouting racism, while discussing racism! Even by their own standards that irony on steroids!

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:17 pm

elwaclaret wrote:Where does it say that?

If it sets a precedent... it can be used in Law... that is what lawyers use to prove the law.

Because it's a humble address, a one-off request to the queen, rather than a new bill.

If it set a precedent then they'd be using the precedent from last time round when the government was forced to reveal the Attorney General's advice.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:20 pm

elwaclaret wrote:Where does it say that?

If it sets a precedent... it can be used in Law... that is what lawyers use to prove the law.

Maybe do some reading up, you’ve got this badly wrong. Start with the different types of parliamentary motions. Passing this parliamentary motion no more sets a precedent that voting someone the winner of Strictly Come Dancing means that person has a legal basis on which to win every year!

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:21 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Managing to get banned for spouting racism, while discussing racism! Even by their own standards that irony on steroids!

Given that poster is posting today I doubt he was banned.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:23 pm

AndyClaret wrote:Not trying to run away from outstanding bullying issues, oh no he's not.

And when the QC lead independent inquiry into bullying and inappropriate sexual behaviour recommended his removal. Margaret Beckett , Jess Phillips and Emily thornberry ran to aid, throwing decades of principles out the window, leaving womens groups and bewildered, as Beckett let the cat out of the bag on radio 4 when she "Brexit is more important than bullying". Thornberry said,"the speaker needs to be kept on place to help stop Brexit"

In what was seen as a clear swipe at Bercow, the QC responsible for the inquiry concluded, "The fish always rots from the head down"

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:23 pm

martin_p wrote:Given that poster is posting today I doubt he was banned.

Fair enough.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:24 pm

aggi wrote:Because it's a humble address, a one-off request to the queen, rather than a new bill.

If it set a precedent then they'd be using the precedent from last time round when the government was forced to reveal the Attorney General's advice.

So who calls the shots where this is appropriate or where is it not? Or do we just carry on making things up as we think of them?

If the Queen is running parliament, I bet Charles I is feeling a bit peeved.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:25 pm

elwaclaret wrote:So who calls the shots where this is appropriate or where is it not? Or do we just carry on making things up as we think of them?

If the Queen is running parliament, I bet Charles I is feeling a bit peeved.

The speaker.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:27 pm

martin_p wrote:The speaker.

Cannot see a problem with that at all given the even handed way he’s seen as doing his job, by all concerned.

Go for it.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:30 pm

elwaclaret wrote:Cannot see a problem with that at all given the even handed way he’s seen as doing his job, by all concerned.

Go for it.

But whether the speaker allows it or not is still needs a parliamentary majority, which in times with a majority government wouldn’t get through (and therefore would be unlikely to get asked).

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:33 pm

martin_p wrote:Given that poster is posting today I doubt he was banned.

Hope you are correct, but I have yet to see a post from him... despite my appeals and attempts to clarify his posts real intent to the mods.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:34 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:And when the QC lead independent inquiry into bullying and inappropriate sexual behaviour recommended his removal. Margaret Beckett , Jess Phillips and Emily thornberry ran to aid, throwing decades of principles out the window, leaving womens groups and bewildered, as Beckett let the cat out of the bag on radio 4 when she "Brexit is more important than bullying". Thornberry said,"the speaker needs to be kept on place to help stop Brexit"

In what was seen as a clear swipe at Bercow, the QC responsible for the inquiry concluded, "The fish always rots from the head down"

Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to whether this is true or not ...

(The report is here for anyone who likes facts https://www.parliament.uk/documents/dam ... report.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:36 pm

elwaclaret wrote:Hope you are correct, but I have yet to see a post from him... despite my appeals and attempts to clarify his posts real intent to the mods.

There are some forms of language which you are simply not allowed to use. I doubt anyone else who saw it would be surprised about a ban following.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:37 pm

aggi wrote:Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to whether this is true or not ...

(The report is here for anyone who likes facts https://www.parliament.uk/documents/dam ... report.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

I’d check my watch if Wrongo told me the time!

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:40 pm

So we are not in the middle of a constitutional crisis, everything is peachy in parliament. bercow is beyond reproach and it’s just Boris Johnson who has a case to answer.now we’ve cleared all that up I think we should have an immediate referendum as according to this board, the remain electorate is all seeing.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:42 pm

elwaclaret wrote:So we are not in the middle of a constitutional crisis, everything is peachy in parliament. bercow is beyond reproach and it’s just Boris Johnson who has a case to answer.now we’ve cleared all that up I think we should have an immediate referendum as according to this board, the remain electorate is all seeing.

Presumably we can have a referendum whenever we want given the precedence set by parliament voting to have one in 2016.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:45 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:That'll come as a surprise to my mum, sister, daughter, partner, customers, friends and family!

I doubt it

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:45 pm

[quote="martin_p"]Presumably we can have a referendum whenever we want given the precedence set by parliament voting to have one in 2016.[/quote

So why are parliament just forcing that through?

Could it be they are not as confident of success as.... a. They pretend b. Remainer’s insist is the case?

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:47 pm

elwaclaret wrote: So why are parliament just forcing that through?

Could it be they are not as confident of success as.... a. They pretend b. Remainer’s insist is the case?

Because it was a joke based on your ‘understanding’ of parliamentary procedure.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:48 pm

martin_p wrote:Because it was a joke based on your ‘understanding’ of parliamentary procedure.

I’d save gloating until you get your result. Oh hang on results don’t matter in your world.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:50 pm

elwaclaret wrote:I’d save gloating until you get your result. Oh hang on results don’t matter in your world.

Result of what?

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:58 pm

elwaclaret wrote:So who calls the shots where this is appropriate or where is it not? Or do we just carry on making things up as we think of them?

If the Queen is running parliament, I bet Charles I is feeling a bit peeved.

Well they'd normally be put forward on opposition day but there wouldn't be much point in doing it on something controversial as it would get voted down.

If there's a minority government though all bets are off.

They've been around for hundreds of years, it's hardly making stuff up.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:59 pm

Spijed wrote:Apparently he did want one but was talked out of if by the whips and Keir Starmer. There is talk of him being deselected by Momentum because of that decision.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... emy-corbyn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He we are again with 'Momentum'!!!

Momentum do not have the power to deselect candidates (they've got very little power at all, in fact), it is for the members of the CLP to vote for a selection process to be carried out.

Momentum are a group of Labour members that help get the Labour message out, tell members where the marginal constituencies are, and occasionally send email guidance as to who they recommend in NEC elections and stuff (which a lot of members ignore after the way they chucked Wilsman under a bus, hence why Willsman got re-elected to the NEC despite Momentum telling us all not to vote for him). That's it.

Anyone that thinks they have any more control over the Labour Party than that has a) never been a member of Momentum and b) has never attended a Momentum meeting. They're effectively toothless, they don't really do anything. They don't even have the influence the CLPD have, and they don't have much power either.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:24 pm

Greenmile wrote:Does anyone remember when iibyw used to be left-wing?

It’s doing funny things to folk, this Brexit nonsense.

Hey, I'm still left wing - hence my desire to leave the EU.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:28 pm

If it be your will wrote:He we are again with 'Momentum'!!!

Momentum do not have the power to deselect candidates (they've got very little power at all, in fact), it is for the members of the CLP to vote for a selection process to be carried out.

Momentum are a group of Labour members that help get the Labour message out, tell members where the marginal constituencies are, and occasionally send email guidance as to who they recommend in NEC elections and stuff (which a lot of members ignore after the way they chucked Wilsman under a bus, hence why Willsman got re-elected to the NEC despite Momentum telling us all not to vote for him). That's it.

Anyone that thinks they have any more control over the Labour Party than that has a) never been a member of Momentum and b) has never attended a Momentum meeting. They're effectively toothless, they don't really do anything. They don't even have the influence the CLPD have, and they don't have much power either.

On the contrary Momentum are the new Militant tendency. They chew up and spit out MP’s who disagree with them. They are a major reason Labour will be hammered, north and south come any election soon. It is momentum dictating policy, including the suicidal deal with the SNP. Who despite being incompetent saw they just couldn’t ‘t lose cosying up to labour. They get to try and bring down the government, or failing that they wipe their main and closest opposition out in Scotland. I would have to rethink my views on the SNP had it been their agenda and not gifted by an inept Labour Party.