Bercow - a chance to go down in history

randomclaret2 · Post by **randomclaret2** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 1:33 pm

How many million times has James O'Brian been told not to exaggerate ?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 1:34 pm

Chobulous wrote:I think the key part of Ringo's point is "His role has been pivotal and is going to be again.".

Something else you obviously missed.

Hey don't worry about it fella. I, you and aggi know that because it's me, aggi just cannot bring himself to admit I was right. Sad really.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 1:51 pm

I share your pain Ringo. I share your pain.

AlargeClaret · Post by **AlargeClaret** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 1:52 pm

Perhaps Bercow could go down in history as the first speaker to be hustled from the house to save him from a lynch mob of MP’s intent on giving him a beating or worse?

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 1:54 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I share your pain Ringo. I share your pain.

He won’t get it.

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 1:58 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:I stand by my claim that the majority of people just want it to happen and get it over with.

So the majority of people are just bored and like Brenda from Bristol? Is this an example of Direct Democracy? It’s all a bit boring and I’ve lost interest, just get on with it doesn’t matter if we get no deal?

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:02 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:I didn't say that. And you know it.

I said that margaret Becket and Emily Thornbury had openly admitted he had to be kept in place in order to "stop Brexit " because "bad behaviour is trumped by brexit" following a QC lead independent parliamentary inquiry into bullying and inappropriate behaviour in Westminster, which called for a root and branch reform and change in culture. Which was understood to be a call for Bercow to lose his job. But saw so called feminists come running to defend him, and through their principles out of the window cos of the "pivotal role" he would play. Has played, and will play.

My prediction was bang on.

Well, the exact words you used were "he [Bercow] can, on his own define the vote. He can, force a 2nd referendum."

You can understand how someone would read "He can force a 2nd referendum" and think that you were suggesting was that he can force a 2nd referendum.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:10 pm

It doesn’t seem likely that the Brady amendment would be carried even if selected. Apparently a number of ERG members have already come out against it. Some commentators are even raising the possibility that all the selected amendments may be voted down, leaving us no further forward.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:12 pm

More "Project Fear" from business today.

God, how can they not see the choices and trading boost a "No Deal" Brexit gives us eh?

Traitors, one and all

https://twitter.com/TomBoadle/status/10 ... 7871278082" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Includes boss of KFC, who already knows how quickly **** goes down when the supply chains are disrupted

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:19 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:More "Project Fear" from business today.

God, how can they not see the choices and trading boost a "No Deal" Brexit gives us eh?

Traitors, one and all

https://twitter.com/TomBoadle/status/10 ... 7871278082" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Includes boss of KFC, who already knows how quickly **** goes down when the supply chains are disrupted

I’ll await dsr correcting all those supermarket bosses on how their supply chain works, as he’s likely to know more about it, before I comment.

DocFoster · Post by **DocFoster** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:21 pm

Lancaster
“I rest my case Ringo.

And if our democratic decisions are based on who shouts the most and the loudest, then we are in real trouble

(we did not vote in 2016 for No Deal. You all know this.)”

Correct. The question was simple.

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”
And the majority ticked the box next to “Leave the European Union”.
How have you managed to conclude that people didn’t vote for a “No Deal”? Using the same logic I could argue that we did not vote for a Backstop in 2016.

Lancaster
“Could I make it even clearer

The EU will not negotiate the backstop, and its **** all to do with fish.”

I used that article as an example. My point was it’s a lever that the EU WILL USE in negotiations on ALL aspects of a trade deal and if we are stupid enough to retain it why the hell wouldn’t they?

Lancaster;

“This is the sort of stuff you are listening to, and seeing on your tv screen.

This is two minutes of made up stuff designed fully for you to swallow wholesale without worrying about the actual details.

https://twitter.com/RidgeOnSunday/statu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 1301272577

She's treating you all like idiots. Don't fall for it.”

I’m guessing you must be getting your info from the propaganda machine that is the BBC aka GCHQ Project Fear? Probably not as you seem quite a bright chap but this is the sort of accusation you seem to be throwing at anyone (cough - the majority) who voted to leave.

Please show a little more respect for people just because they don’t fit in with your beliefs and do try to be strong. Henny Penny was wrong and the sky is still up there. Well it was the last time I dared to look it was.

Like it or not we are all human so the reactions some people are giving really shouldn't be a surprise.

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favour, and recall information in a way that confirms one's pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias is a variation of the more general tendency of apophenia.
People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
A series of psychological experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way. However, even scientists can be prone to confirmation bias.[2]
Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political and organizational contexts.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:31 pm

Long post to say "Experts are wrong but complete random people who have shown zero interest in reality are right" Doc

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:35 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:More "Project Fear" from business today.

God, how can they not see the choices and trading boost a "No Deal" Brexit gives us eh?

Traitors, one and all

https://twitter.com/TomBoadle/status/10 ... 7871278082" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Includes boss of KFC, who already knows how quickly **** goes down when the supply chains are disrupted

It won’t be long until some Tory crank appears on a prime time news program to tell everyone that the people running the biggest supermarkets and food outlets in Europe don’t know what they’re talking about.

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:39 pm

martin_p wrote:It doesn’t seem likely that the Brady amendment would be carried even if selected. Apparently a number of ERG members have already come out against it. Some commentators are even raising the possibility that all the selected amendments may be voted down, leaving us no further forward.

If the HOC wants to avoid a no deal scenario,at some point they will have to either agree a WA,whether it's Theresa's or an amended form,or get an extension to Article 50,the latter option would if carried give time for another referendum depending on the length of any extension,of course the EU 27 would have to agree to any such extension as well,but if the politicians mean what they say about stopping a no-deal brexit,they will have to put up or shut up very soon.

Take this interview with Labour frontbencher Angela Rayner yesterday,she is adamant Labour will do whatever it takes to avoid a no-deal brexit,and yet remains coy about supporting a 2nd referendum,understandable considering her constituency voted to leave in 2016,but there is now a majority apparently for a 'people's vote'.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/fo ... article-50

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:45 pm

2 minutes of Brexiteer magic

This man knew exactly what he was voting for

https://twitter.com/Captain_Brexit/stat ... 3271793667" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

DocFoster · Post by **DocFoster** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:52 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Long post to say "Experts are wrong but complete random people who have shown zero interest in reality are right" Doc

It certainly is in your eyes Lancaster and thanks for the response which really does confirm the last part.

I'll wander of now, back to my wonderful world of ignorance while you continue to use the message board as your cathartic release.

Rgds
Doc

BTW it may surprise some that the drug "shortage" people may have read about is nothing to do with Brexit. It's purely because the £ is so competitive that there is a huge demand from overseas for the drugs we manufacture here. The NHS is not allowed to stock pile as this drives up the price.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:52 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:2 minutes of Brexiteer magic

This man knew exactly what he was voting for

https://twitter.com/Captain_Brexit/stat ... 3271793667" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That could be one of a number of posters on here!

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:56 pm

He sounds like he could be from Burnley as well.

Surely not.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:00 pm

It doesn't at all Doc, but its always nice to get another Brexiteer who has all the answers on here.

Looking forward to more belief based economic solutions to real problems.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:01 pm

DocFoster wrote: BTW it may surprise some that the drug "shortage" people may have read about is nothing to do with Brexit. It's purely because the £ is so competitive that there is a huge demand from overseas for the drugs we manufacture here. The NHS is not allowed to stock pile as this drives up the price.

I’ve no idea whether that’s true or not, but the Brexit related drug shortage hasn’t happened yet because we haven’t left. It’ll be in the drugs we manufacture here but get some of the ‘ingredients’ from abroad, or the drugs that are manufactured in Europe (or come through Europe) that we import.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:03 pm

DocFoster wrote:BTW it may surprise some that the drug "shortage" people may have read about is nothing to do with Brexit. It's purely because the £ is so competitive that there is a huge demand from overseas for the drugs we manufacture here. The NHS is not allowed to stock pile as this drives up the price.

And why is the pound so "competitive" (or weak)?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:03 pm

ERG not backing this amendment btw.

So we are back to the ERG paralyzing democracy in their quest for a "No Deal" which no one voted for.

What a time to be alive eh?

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:16 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:2 minutes of Brexiteer magic

This man knew exactly what he was voting for

https://twitter.com/Captain_Brexit/stat ... 3271793667" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If Chris Morris did a Brasseye Brexit special

DocFoster · Post by **DocFoster** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:50 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:2 minutes of Brexiteer magic

This man knew exactly what he was voting for

https://twitter.com/Captain_Brexit/stat ... 3271793667" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and that master of stats Diane Abbot voted to remain in 2016. It's such an easy game to play.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:00 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:ERG not backing this amendment btw.

So we are back to the ERG paralyzing democracy in their quest for a "No Deal" which no one voted for.

What a time to be alive eh?

The have not met yet and are still pressing may to adopt sonething on the backstop. I think this is their last chance to get a proper Brexit (and i don't mean no deal) so woukd be surprised if they miss it.

Claret-On-A-T-Rex · Post by **Claret-On-A-T-Rex** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:02 pm

NEW: Bosses of Sainsbury’s, ASDA, M&S, Co-op, Waitrose, KFC, Pret, Lidl, McDonald’s, Costcutter and the British Retail Consortium write to MPs warning about the dangers of a no-deal Brexit for choice, quality and cost of food...

https://twitter.com/TomBoadle/status/10 ... 7871278082" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Claret-On-A-T-Rex · Post by **Claret-On-A-T-Rex** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:12 pm

Go no deal, because we all voted for a thirty-year recession and to eat of cans.

That'll show 'em.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:13 pm

So would I Summit, but I think the lure of a "No Deal" will make them think they can do it.

And they all have to back it, and even that might not be enough.

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:30 pm

When Leave were campaigning there was no mention of leaving with no deal. There were statements made that we could just “roll over” the existing EU deals. Liam Fox told us “The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the EU should be one of the easiest in history” David Davis told us “Post Brexit a U.K.-German deal would include free access for their cars (don’t think he had really grasped that EU states cannot negotiate individual deals!)

Daniel Hannah told us “Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market”

It’s as fanciful to say that the question meant people knew they were voting for no deal as it is to say people didn’t know it was an advisory referendum.

randomclaret2 · Post by **randomclaret2** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:31 pm

Increasingly hysterical from the EU fanatics..

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:42 pm

randomclaret2 wrote:Increasingly hysterical from the EU fanatics..

Which bit?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:44 pm

I think random is one of those Brexit fanatics who just wonders why we don't see what he (apparently) sees.

He's got more belief than we have, but maybe he's better at ignoring reality than we are?

Maybe he's the bloke in the clip!

Who knows?

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:47 pm

aggi wrote:Well, the exact words you used were "he [Bercow] can, on his own define the vote. He can, force a 2nd referendum."

You can understand how someone would read "He can force a 2nd referendum" and think that you were suggesting was that he can force a 2nd referendum.

This is where Ringo accuses you of pedantry.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:25 pm

Looks like the ERG are going to kill the Brady amendment and Labour may not support the Cooper amendment. Bercow is going to run out of amendments at this rate.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:30 pm

Maybe the erg are playing a game with bercow so he may pick the brady amendment first.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:35 pm

Or maybe the ERG are hell-bent on not letting the government do their job and are siding with those determined to overturn/stop a proper Brexit

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:49 pm

aggi wrote:Well, the exact words you used were "he [Bercow] can, on his own define the vote. He can, force a 2nd referendum."

You can understand how someone would read "He can force a 2nd referendum" and think that you were suggesting was that he can force a 2nd referendum.

John Bercow unilaterally chose to block an amendment, that would have strengthened the Leave position, saying the motion was "not amenable" Yet, following a meeting at his grace and favour house, with Dominic Grieve, chose to tear up the parliamentary procedural protocol rule book and 100s of years of norms, and allow an amendment that favoured the Remain position. Knowing what was likely to be coming down the parliamentary timetable his actions have increased the likelihood of a 2nd referendum considerably. You only have to look at the bookies odds that have been slashed since his "disgusting" behaviour , as former speaker of the house, Betty Boothroyd put it.

So you can huff and puff and let the palpable anger that I have been proven right get the better of you. But if you were fair minded and asked yourself "did Bercows , unilateral, actions make the chances of the British people be forced to participate in a 2nd referendum more likely ?" You'd, whether you like it or not, have to say yes.

But what you will never be able to deny ( I doubt even you would be that pig headed and willing to fly in the face of reality ). Is that, as I predicted back in November. John Bercows role as been "pivotal"

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:53 pm

Just watched today's politics live on catch up. Cable still thinks there should be a referendum between May's deal and remain. Really- no wonder the LDs are in the political wilderness.

So that's remain forever (May's deal with backstop) or remain but there is an A50. The man is a moron.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:55 pm

AlargeClaret wrote:Perhaps Bercow could go down in history as the first speaker to be hustled from the house to save him from a lynch mob of MP’s intent on giving him a beating or worse?

The general consensus is that he'll be the first not to get a peerage , as his reputation is so tarnished.

Good effort Bercow !

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:12 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:The general consensus is that he'll be the first not to get a peerage , as his reputation is so tarnished.

Good effort Bercow !

Yet he still continues to do what he thinks is appropriate. Perhaps he’s not as easily bought as some previous Speakers or a Peerage isnt what it once was.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:57 pm

May backs the brady amendment and will whip it. However JRM says its not enough as not legally binding.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:03 pm

Labour not sure they are going to back their own amendment due to risk of backlash from leave voters.

Loving the fact that both Lab and the Cons are worried about leave voters, but not arsed about remain voters. Conservatives can probably get away with that, but its electoral suicide for labour.

Biggest surrender to stupidity and dogmatic insistence over common sense since Singapore.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:07 pm

Tbf if i had a 60/40 seat i would not want to be seen to undermining brexit. If a tory in that position i would expect to be deselected.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:11 pm

Yup, if you are a Conservative but not if you are Labour.

It makes perfect sense with their voting base for the Conservatives to keep Brexiteers on side. It makes zero sense for Labour, which increases the speculation that Corbyns plans for party policy implementation trump that of his members.

DocFoster · Post by **DocFoster** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:15 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I think random is one of those Brexit fanatics who just wonders why we don't see what he (apparently) sees.

He's got more belief than we have, but maybe he's better at ignoring reality than we are?

Maybe he's the bloke in the clip!

Who knows?

At least you’re consistent in your abuse. The poor bloke in the clip is just as entitled to his opinion and his vote as anyone. He probably knows as much about the WTO rules as you do about the deals struck between the EU gravy trainers (MEP'S) and the corporations during the monthly meetings at Strasbourg. But then again it's not his job to know and you probably couldn’t give a toss so long as it doesn’t infringe on your comfortable world.
You should also take into account that it’s difficult to get a balance on this as there probably aren’t many (if any) people out there openly challenging people who voted to remain in an attempt to humiliate them. The reason being obvious.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:24 pm

You will have to point out the abuse

And considering the stuff I get, I'm pretty fair I think.

It is not my fault that the position you hold is laughably ridiculous, and absolutely impossible to back up with facts. You have to justify that to me with better arguments than *checks post" "deals struck between EU gravy trainers and corporations during the monthly meetings at Strasbourg"

Bearing in mind the EU is about to implement a tax avoidance crack down on big corporations, and we are very keen on not doing that, that you might be backing the side that does, er, "deals struck between MPs and corporations during monthly meetings at Westminister"

This from HMRC does rather tend to back that up

https://economia.icaew.com/news/january ... hM-_IceNSY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:40 pm

summitclaret wrote:May backs the brady amendment and will whip it. However JRM says its not enough as not legally binding.

I think it’s hilarious that the government is encouraging it’s MPs to tell it to ditch the backstop and get a different deal. You have to ask, if they think it’s such a great idea, what the hell have they been doing for the last two weeks?

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:56 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:John Bercow unilaterally chose to block an amendment, that would have strengthened the Leave position, saying the motion was "not amenable" Yet, following a meeting at his grace and favour house, with Dominic Grieve, chose to tear up the parliamentary procedural protocol rule book and 100s of years of norms, and allow an amendment that favoured the Remain position. Knowing what was likely to be coming down the parliamentary timetable his actions have increased the likelihood of a 2nd referendum considerably. You only have to look at the bookies odds that have been slashed since his "disgusting" behaviour , as former speaker of the house, Betty Boothroyd put it.

So you can huff and puff and let the palpable anger that I have been proven right get the better of you. But if you were fair minded and asked yourself "did Bercows , unilateral, actions make the chances of the British people be forced to participate in a 2nd referendum more likely ?" You'd, whether you like it or not, have to say yes.

But what you will never be able to deny ( I doubt even you would be that pig headed and willing to fly in the face of reality ). Is that, as I predicted back in November. John Bercows role as been "pivotal"

Bercow has had some influence but he's come nowhere near the influence that you claimed. The ERG have done more to force a second referendum than he has. (I see you're no longer claiming that you didn't say he could force a second referendum).

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:58 pm

2 weeks? Rather 2 years. It was obvious that the tory party would never back a soft brexit. She has played for time and it was always going to come down to brinkmanship.

basil6345789 · Post by **basil6345789** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:02 pm

They're worried now that a 2 nd referendum would yield the same result but with an increased margin. Then what would they do?