Bercow - a chance to go down in history

[DocFoster]

In response to Lancaster.

I did all my research before the referendum and concluded that the UK would be better off out. This despite having spent in excess 60% of the previous 5 years working on the “mainland” in several countries.
As I mentioned in a previous post the vote was to leave or not. You seem to have mentally changed the question to do we leave the EU with a deal or not, after being bombarded by project fear propaganda and (as we all do) only choosing the media messages that suit or beliefs.
There was much talk after the leave vote that many remain voters would endure the 7 Stages of Grief and the same would probably have happened to the voters who chose out.

• SHOCK & DENIAL- You will probably react to learning of the loss with numbed disbelief. ...
• PAIN & GUILT- ...
• ANGER & BARGAINING- ...
• "DEPRESSION", REFLECTION, LONELINESS- ...
• THE UPWARD TURN- ...
• RECONSTRUCTION & WORKING THROUGH- ...
• ACCEPTANCE & HOPE-

I think it’s safe to say you haven’t got to 7 yet.

I was just reading an article from Norman Tebbit with the headline -
“Scaremongering Remainers are responsible for so much of the ill-will over Brexit.”

You won’t agree with him as “maybe he's better at ignoring reality than we are”.
That chap has seen quite a lot in his life but to you, at 87 years old, he’s probably just an old fart who shouldn’t be entitled to an opinion like the rest of the older generation who voted out. After all WTF do they know?

[martin_p]

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.

It’s also obvious the Tories won’t back a hard Brexit.

[summitclaret]

We will end up eith a canada type deal if people stop interfering.

[martin_p]

We will end up eith a canada type deal if people stop interfering.

We’ll end up with no deal if people don’t interfere.

[summitclaret]

Just listened to a new interview with Sir Graham Brady on Sky News. Absolute pragmatic common sense, practically and politically from Sir GB.

We now need John Mann, Caroline Flint, Graham Stringer,Kate Hoey etl to vote for the amendment to balance out the tory remainer traitors.

[martin_p]

Just listened to a new interview with Sir Graham Brady on Sky News. Absolute pragmatic common sense, practically and politically from Sir GB.

We now need John Mann, Caroline Flint, Graham Stringer,Kate Hoey etl to vote for the amendment to balance out the tory remainer traitors.

Like Jacob Rees-Mogg? He isn’t backing the amendment.

[summitclaret]

We will see tomorrow.

[Greenmile]

In response to Lancaster.

I did all my research before the referendum and concluded that the UK would be better off out. This despite having spent in excess 60% of the previous 5 years working on the “mainland” in several countries.
As I mentioned in a previous post the vote was to leave or not. You seem to have mentally changed the question to do we leave the EU with a deal or not, after being bombarded by project fear propaganda and (as we all do) only choosing the media messages that suit or beliefs.
There was much talk after the leave vote that many remain voters would endure the 7 Stages of Grief and the same would probably have happened to the voters who chose out.

• SHOCK & DENIAL- You will probably react to learning of the loss with numbed disbelief. ...
• PAIN & GUILT- ...
• ANGER & BARGAINING- ...
• "DEPRESSION", REFLECTION, LONELINESS- ...
• THE UPWARD TURN- ...
• RECONSTRUCTION & WORKING THROUGH- ...
• ACCEPTANCE & HOPE-

I think it’s safe to say you haven’t got to 7 yet.

I was just reading an article from Norman Tebbit with the headline -
“Scaremongering Remainers are responsible for so much of the ill-will over Brexit.”

You won’t agree with him as “maybe he's better at ignoring reality than we are”.
That chap has seen quite a lot in his life but to you, at 87 years old, he’s probably just an old fart who shouldn’t be entitled to an opinion like the rest of the older generation who voted out. After all WTF do they know?

I’m sure the folk who lose their jobs as a result of a no deal Brexit can just get on their bikes and find new ones.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

I’m sure the folk who lose their jobs as a result of a no deal Brexit can just get on their bikes and find new ones.

Haven't you heard?

Nobody will lose anything, Doc Foster says we'll be better off out and anybody who thinks otherwise has been brainwashed by project fear.

[Greenmile]

Haven't you heard?

Nobody will lose anything, Doc Foster says we'll be better off out and anybody who thinks otherwise has been brainwashed by project fear.

I think a few people might suffer, but that’s all the remainers’ fault for not believing hard enough.

[Lancasterclaret]

Norman Tebbit has one vote, like I have

His time has passed though. He's voting for a future he will not see. That doesn't mean he's not allowed to vote, but he's not bothered if it all goes tits up because he's got a nice, secure pension, a house and he's defo comfortably well off.

The young and the middle aged are still battling to hold on to jobs, and are battling to get on the housing ladder, and are battling to raise families, and they don't want this by a a large %.

I think they deserve the same chances that you and I have had. You don't.

Thats fair enough but it doesn't make you right.

And finally, there is not a mandate to leave with no deal, and if Tebbit says there is, then its not the first time he's lied is it?

[martin_p]

I think a few people might suffer, but that’s all the remainers’ fault for not believing hard enough.

Well a fairy does die every time someone says they don’t believe in them.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Have we confirmed if it’s ringo in that clip or not yet?

[Lancasterclaret]

I'm sure this doesn't apply to you Doc, but one of the main reasons I'm very against this is the blase assurances that have changed over two years from "this is going to be ace" to "this is going to hurt, but it will be worth it".

As that wasn't mentioned in 2016, I've got this funny feeling that they don't have a scooby, but for the reasons I've mentioned above don't mind risking it, but millions might take a hit because of it.

Thats why I'm in, rather than out.

And i want a managed withdrawal from the EU as that complies with the result of the referendum. I've said that on here repeatedly.

But I'm dead against a "No Deal", and if its a choice between that and remain, then I'm backing remain.

[Devils_Advocate]

In response to Lancaster.

I did all my research before the referendum and concluded that the UK would be better off out. This despite having spent in excess 60% of the previous 5 years working on the “mainland” in several countries.
As I mentioned in a previous post the vote was to leave or not. You seem to have mentally changed the question to do we leave the EU with a deal or not, after being bombarded by project fear propaganda and (as we all do) only choosing the media messages that suit or beliefs.
There was much talk after the leave vote that many remain voters would endure the 7 Stages of Grief and the same would probably have happened to the voters who chose out.

• SHOCK & DENIAL- You will probably react to learning of the loss with numbed disbelief. ...
• PAIN & GUILT- ...
• ANGER & BARGAINING- ...
• "DEPRESSION", REFLECTION, LONELINESS- ...
• THE UPWARD TURN- ...
• RECONSTRUCTION & WORKING THROUGH- ...
• ACCEPTANCE & HOPE-

I think it’s safe to say you haven’t got to 7 yet.

I was just reading an article from Norman Tebbit with the headline -
“Scaremongering Remainers are responsible for so much of the ill-will over Brexit.”

You won’t agree with him as “maybe he's better at ignoring reality than we are”.
That chap has seen quite a lot in his life but to you, at 87 years old, he’s probably just an old fart who shouldn’t be entitled to an opinion like the rest of the older generation who voted out. After all WTF do they know?

Have you ever heard about something called "confirmation bias" cos you seem to have caught a big dose of it of late? If you're not familiar with it Id recommend you look it up

[AndrewJB]

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"

John Bercow has consistently helped backbenchers (of all parties) to have their say since he became the speaker. It's not as though he's stood in the way of government business, but just given a voice to those who can call them to account. I'd rather that than a parliament that merely rubber stamps a government's every wish and desire.

And now more than ever his position has become more important, not because he's "stepped into the limelight" as some people seem to suggest, but because the government has lost control of the direction of things. It's his job to grease the wheels, where the government cannot do it.

Although I believe we should remain in the EU, I'm shoulder to shoulder with you on parliament taking back control.

[Burnley Ace]

In response to Lancaster.

As I mentioned in a previous post the vote was to leave or not. You seem to have mentally changed the question to do we leave the EU with a deal or not?

As I pointed out in a previous post (with quotes) that’s as valid a statement as “everyone knew that the referendum was advisory”

[AndrewJB]

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.

I don't really understand your Singapore example, but to keep the conversation on a military analogy; Labour are fighting a guerrilla war. The Tories are a large and mostly disorganised host (and Labour aren't united and disciplined either), but as the no confidence vote proved, the Tories with their DUP mercenaries can combine to defeat Labour and the rest. So instead, Labour are encouraging the Tories to keep marching forward into the "killing ground" and sowing as much dissension as possible within their ranks, without giving the Tories the opportunity to choose a field of battle and win a decisive victory. Instead Labour know that by opposing the Tories in skirmishes they know they can win, and setting peace terms they know the Tories will never accept, so with the clock ticking and the Tory host running out of space, it will soon grind to a halt. When a guerrilla army takes on a superior force in open pitched battle they usually lose, so Labour are wise not to do this. Especially when they know their enemy is running out of time and supplies. So by vigorously opposing a 'no deal' brexit, and May's deal, while offering cooperation only if May accepts staying in the customs union (which they know she can't do), Labour is shepherding the Tories into a space that can only end with a second referendum (unless of course the Tories find some means of coming together over May's deal), and in doing this not alienating the leave vote. Labour's objective, if a general election can't be made to happen and agreement can't be found within parliament, is a second referendum. I would imagine that if agreement is found only within the Tories and DUP - then another referendum will become more important to Labour.

I think that if Labour had campaigned for a second referendum before all the options had been exhausted, then the Tories would lay claim to being the only leave party, and hold a general election on that one issue.

[AndrewJB]

In response to Lancaster.

I did all my research before the referendum and concluded that the UK would be better off out. This despite having spent in excess 60% of the previous 5 years working on the “mainland” in several countries.
As I mentioned in a previous post the vote was to leave or not. You seem to have mentally changed the question to do we leave the EU with a deal or not, after being bombarded by project fear propaganda and (as we all do) only choosing the media messages that suit or beliefs.
There was much talk after the leave vote that many remain voters would endure the 7 Stages of Grief and the same would probably have happened to the voters who chose out.

• SHOCK & DENIAL- You will probably react to learning of the loss with numbed disbelief. ...
• PAIN & GUILT- ...
• ANGER & BARGAINING- ...
• "DEPRESSION", REFLECTION, LONELINESS- ...
• THE UPWARD TURN- ...
• RECONSTRUCTION & WORKING THROUGH- ...
• ACCEPTANCE & HOPE-

I think it’s safe to say you haven’t got to 7 yet.

I was just reading an article from Norman Tebbit with the headline -
“Scaremongering Remainers are responsible for so much of the ill-will over Brexit.”

You won’t agree with him as “maybe he's better at ignoring reality than we are”.
That chap has seen quite a lot in his life but to you, at 87 years old, he’s probably just an old fart who shouldn’t be entitled to an opinion like the rest of the older generation who voted out. After all WTF do they know?

As much as the referendum was a binary choice, there was no clear plan from the leave side as to what would then happen, and indeed there couldn't have been, because it would have fractured the leave vote to such a degree remain would have won. That's how things go, but now we're having those discussions - and because the country just voted to "leave the EU" we all now get a say in what it looks like next. You can't have it both ways.

[AndyClaret]

Remainers and the ERG unite around a plan.

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/ ... 3432338432" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BennyD]

Bercow; add to the prick list. In capital letters.

[Lancasterclaret]

Which isn't acceptable in the slightest to the EU

No wonder the ERG have leapt at the chance to sign something that isn't remotely acceptable to the EU, they can play on the narrative that its the nasty EU stopping those "sunlit uplands". Course, it only works if you are prepared to ignore three things

- the evidence of your own eyes
- the evidence of your own ears
- reality

[Lancasterclaret]

Think this explains the backstop to those of you who don't want to understand it from the side of the EU

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47036591" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[summitclaret]

Surely the ERG and DUP will back the brady amendment but say they will only vote for a deal when the time comes that has something legally binding rw the backdrop. That gives a clear message ti the EU and stops the anti no deal amendment. This all assumes Bercow does what he should and take brady first.

[Lancasterclaret]

Bercow could dance naked around this amendment and praise as the greatest work of political theory since time began, but it is completely unacceptable to the EU. So its just pointless.

Only reason I think both the ERG and the remainers are backing it is that is keeps the Conservative Party together for another two weeks.

[nil_desperandum]

Surely the ERG and DUP will back the brady amendment but say they will only vote for a deal when the time comes that has something legally binding rw the backdrop. That gives a clear message ti the EU and stops the anti no deal amendment.

It really doesn't matter whether the DUP and ERG send a clear message or not, I just don't see any possible way that the EU can, let alone will, agree to something that leaves the door open to violate an international treaty.
The backstop is there to guarantee that there can be no "hard" border. The EU have to stand by the Belfast Agreement, and in its white paper on Brexit, the United Kingdom government reiterated its commitment to the Belfast Agreement.
It's also one of May's red lines, so in supporting the Brady amendment she has broken the first of her red lines. When she fails to get the EU to budge on this, which of the red lines will be the next to go in order to try to hold her party together?

[summitclaret]

Same old same old. I am still waiting for the EU to budge on anything significant. Their unity will soon imo.

[Quickenthetempo]

The EU officials are getting very nervous now as it says it the article posted by Lancaster.

They underestimated how stubborn the Brits could be. They thought they could dictate terms to us while peddling propaganda about us self combusting.
Cameron's worst mistake was getting Obama involved. People who weren't bothered about voting got ****** off with him sticking his nose in.

Anyway, the backstop will go and all the MPs scared of No deal will vote Mays deal in at the last second.

[nil_desperandum]

Same old same old. I am still waiting for the EU to budge on anything significant. Their unity will soon imo.

But why would it "budge" after so long, and so close to the "finishing line" that we ourselves set?
But even if it had a mind to budge on certain issues, (as I just said) I can't see any way that it could agree to something that contradicts an International Treaty, especially as Ireland is one of its members.

[Lancasterclaret]

I am still waiting for the EU to budge on anything significant.

I posted a link which tells you exactly what the EU have budged most significantly on already this morning summit.

By all means don't read it, but it does devalue any arguments you may have if you are ignoring inconvenient facts.

[summitclaret]

We can't agree to being in a trap and have no doubt that is what it is. Any government that allows it will be out of power for a decade or longer.

If people want to they can find a way around it.

[Lancasterclaret]

But that "trap" makes Northern Ireland the place to invest in the EU.

Why would 27 other EU countries want that to continue any longer than it has to?

[Burnley Ace]

We can't agree to being in a trap and have no doubt that is what it is. Any government that allows it will be out of power for a decade or longer.

If people want to they can find a way around it.

Why is it a trap?

[Lancasterclaret]

"Caught in a trap

No turning back

I'm lost in backstop"

[summitclaret]

But that "trap" makes Northern Ireland the place to invest in the EU.

Why would 27 other EU countries want that to continue any longer than it has to?

As they need to stop the next country wanting a referendum for starters.

[RingoMcCartney]

John Bercow has consistently helped backbenchers (of all parties) to have their say since he became the speaker. It's not as though he's stood in the way of government business, but just given a voice to those who can call them to account. I'd rather that than a parliament that merely rubber stamps a government's every wish and desire.

And now more than ever his position has become more important, not because he's "stepped into the limelight" as some people seem to suggest, but because the government has lost control of the direction of things. It's his job to grease the wheels, where the government cannot do it.

Although I believe we should remain in the EU, I'm shoulder to shoulder with you on parliament taking back control.

You've changed your tune Andrew. Only last week you admitted I had indeed been a Mystic McCartney and, conceded you'd thought about my prediction coming to pass as Bercows, parliamentary procedural precedent and protocol busting, antics were there for all to see.

[martin_p]

Why is it a trap?

It’s a good question, because the Brady amendment assumes we can negotiate an acceptable agreement on the Irish border in less than two months. If that’s possible then it won’t be a problem to sort it out before the end of the transition period and the backstop will never come into force.

[summitclaret]

Why is it a trap?

As if you don't know by now.

[Lancasterclaret]

Answer the question please summit

You are coming across as someone who really doesn't have a clue about the specifics. As they are really, really, really important its worth your time getting your head around them.

Otherwise the danger is that you are making a giant leap into the unknown with a whole range of incorrect assumptions to sustain that jump.

[RingoMcCartney]

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.

As the thread title says it's not about what you or I think about the odious Mr Bercow.

History will judge him, and he's writing his own own history right now.

However, given -

1, he may well be the first speaker not to receive a peerage.

2. His highly respected predecessor, Betty Boothroyd, described his tearing up hundreds of years of parliamentary procedural precedent and protocol as "disgusting "

3. An independent QC lead independent parliamentary inquiry into bullying in Westminster calling for his head. And him being told in parliament "a fish rots from the head first!"

Which ever way you slice it. He's not exactly got of to a great start has he!

[Mala591]

Why not move the backstop into the non legally binding 'Political declaration' ? It will sit nicely alongside our £39 billion pay up front non existent trade deal.

[summitclaret]

Its very very simple. If we sign up to the WA as it is the EU will have no significant incentive to ever agree a type of trade deal that we would want. Time goes on and we enter the backstop and then we can't get out without the EU's agreement so we are trapped. Far worse than remaining imo and political suicide for government.

[Lancasterclaret]

Again, why would the EU agree forever for NI to be the gateway to both the EU and the UK?

You say its "very, very simple". It clearly is, if you just ignore the reality.

[dsr]

Norman Tebbit has one vote, like I have

His time has passed though. He's voting for a future he will not see. That doesn't mean he's not allowed to vote, but he's not bothered if it all goes tits up because he's got a nice, secure pension, a house and he's defo comfortably well off.

The young and the middle aged are still battling to hold on to jobs, and are battling to get on the housing ladder, and are battling to raise families, and they don't want this by a a large %.

I think they deserve the same chances that you and I have had. You don't.

Thats fair enough but it doesn't make you right.

And finally, there is not a mandate to leave with no deal, and if Tebbit says there is, then its not the first time he's lied is it?

It's the same old rubbish again and again and again. You are utterly unable to accept there are two points of view.

It's more than reasonable to believe that you are right and we are wrong. I don't have a problem with that. But time after time, you make it clear that you think your view of what happens next is shared by everyone in the country, and the reason people voted for Brexit is because they want your version of what happens next to come true, This is absolute nonsense, and it amazes me that you can't see it.

Face the fact. Some people think you are wrong. They think you are wrong about the consequences of Brexit. They voted Brexit because they think Brexit is best for the country, and best for their children and grandchildren, and that all your fears will not come true. NOT because they want your chaos and disaster, but because they think your chaos and disaster will not happen.

[martin_p]

It's the same old rubbish again and again and again. You are utterly unable to accept there are two points of view.

It's more than reasonable to believe that you are right and we are wrong. I don't have a problem with that. But time after time, you make it clear that you think your view of what happens next is shared by everyone in the country, and the reason people voted for Brexit is because they want your version of what happens next to come true, This is absolute nonsense, and it amazes me that you can't see it.

Face the fact. Some people think you are wrong. They think you are wrong about the consequences of Brexit. They voted Brexit because they think Brexit is best for the country, and best for their children and grandchildren, and that all your fears will not come true. NOT because they want your chaos and disaster, but because they think your chaos and disaster will not happen.

Unless you can prove there is a mandate for a no deal Brexit I don’t see how you can class Lancaster’s assertion that there isn’t one as ‘absolute nonsense’. If you can’t you’re just doing exactly what your accusing him of doing.

[Burnley Ace]

Face the fact. They voted Brexit because they think Brexit is best for the country, and best for their children and grandchildren, and that all your fears will not come true. NOT because they want your chaos and disaster, but because they think your chaos and disaster will not happen.

Why do they think Brexit is best? What evidence are they basing this assumption on?

[Lancasterclaret]

I'm unable to accept that there are two points of view?

Jeez that is rich.

Face the fact. Some people think you are wrong. They think you are wrong about the consequences of Brexit. They voted Brexit because they think Brexit is best for the country, and best for their children and grandchildren, and that all your fears will not come true. NOT because they want your chaos and disaster, but because they think your chaos and disaster will not happen.

Based on what?

IT IS LIKE BELIEVING IN GOD. YOU DO NOT MAKE DECISIONS LIKE THIS BASED ON ZERO EVIDENCE.

Not once have I told you lot that you cannot have a point of view. Not once. All I want you to do is to look at the reality and the facts of the situation and then justify your decision to people like me.

This thread is a case in point. Summit is just ignoring stuff that doesn't fit in with his point of view.

He's entitled to that, just like I'm entitled to point that out.

You are dragging this country into an uncertain future based on belief and absolutely **** all else. That is bloody dangerous and I'll continue calling it out with fact based reasoning as long as you keep repeating the zero evidence reasons.

[Burnley Ace]

Its very very simple. If we sign up to the WA as it is the EU will have no significant incentive to ever agree a type of trade deal that we would want. Time goes on and we enter the backstop and then we can't get out without the EU's agreement so we are trapped. Far worse than remaining imo and political suicide for government.

When we are in the backstop we get FREE access to the Single Market, we don’t have free movement of people but still get FREE access to Single Market, we get all the benefits of the numerous free trade deals the EU have, for FREE.

Why would the EU want this position to remain?

[summitclaret]

LC- I had already seen the link and guess what concluded that what I have been saying for months was correct. The EU will not budge until the last minute and only when they see that whatever they agree we won't come back for more. That needs the HOC to agree something provisionally first.

We are getting closer by the day to the latter unless the remainers are allowed today to put a spanner in the works by interfering.

[dsr]

When we are in the backstop we get FREE access to the Single Market, we don’t have free movement of people but still get FREE access to Single Market, we get all the benefits of the numerous free trade deals the EU have, for FREE.

Why would the EU want this position to remain?

That's not the way it works, either now or in future.

The deal is, we get access to the single market - but not for free.

We have to pay the following:
Give the EU free access to our market.
€39bn divorce bill
€10bn or so annual fee
EU rights over part of the UK

So, not for FREE.