May's Brexit deal in chaos as Speaker sparks 'constitutional crisis'

[Spidey]

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

OK. You want it, you organize it! 

Hopefully parliament will do that for us, but I'm not holding my breath.

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, Spidey said:

No but I can clearly see the flaw in your argument. I was juxtaposing May's deal being put through parliament a possible 4 times, with a second referendum. Your argument doesn't mention Mays's deal, just bangs on about not having a second referendum. Kinda proves my point.

The only thing you have done is deflected (as usual). I will ask you again, have referendums suddenly become legally binding or are they still only advisory, if you say advisory, what would be the point in having one?

[cleopatra2]

12 minutes ago, jpinx said:

"backing the deal" is the next, big step in getting out of EU, and Bercow could easily see that fewer MP's were refusing to back the  deal. 

 

Everyone is playing chess here, and many moves are made for reasons that do not become clear immediately.

Like I stated previously , if he acted to thwart Brexit, why JRM and Bill Cash both declared support and agreed the decision was correct.

Failure to rule as per standard orders , would have led to the accusations that he was facilating a breach of the rules due to  his remain.bias.to allow the motion more leeway than justified.

 

 

[cleopatra2]

1 minute ago, vogie said:

The only thing you have done is deflected (as usual). I will ask you again, have referendums suddenly become legally binding or are they still only advisory, if you say advisory, what would be the point in having one?

Referendums can be legally binding , as evidenced by the AV referendum ( binding) . The advisory/binding is dependent upon the relevant act which brings them into life.

 

As a side note the 1979 Scottish referendum resulted in a Yes vote but was not enacted.

[jpinx]

4 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Like I stated previously , if he acted to thwart Brexit, why JRM and Bill Cash both declared support and agreed the decision was correct.

Failure to rule as per standard orders , would have led to the accusations that he was facilating a breach of the rules due to  his remain.bias.to allow the motion more leeway than justified.

 

 

What "standard orders"?  The "rules" are his to interpret and apply.  This is the flaw in UK governance.

[vogie]

1 minute ago, cleopatra2 said:

Referendums can be legally binding , as evidenced by the AV referendum ( binding) . The advisory/binding is dependent upon the relevant act which brings them into life.

 

As a side note the 1979 Scottish referendum resulted in a Yes vote but was not enacted.

I think you really should be directing your evidence towards remainers, that is not what they are telling us.

I wish I had a baht for everytime I've read that 'referendums are only advisory'

[Spidey]

9 minutes ago, vogie said:

The only thing you have done is deflected (as usual). I will ask you again, have referendums suddenly become legally binding or are they still only advisory, if you say advisory, what would be the point in having one?

And I will ask you again (although I know that you'll deflect the question). Why is it so wrong to have a second referendum but OK for May to insist on her deal being voted on several times?

 

As to your question, if, after all this time, you have finally admitted that referendums aren't legally binding, will you be happy with parliament deciding to revoke Article 50 because withdrawal from the EU is unworkable?

[Basil B]

7 hours ago, JAG said:

Oh I rather doubt it, as soon as Bercow's time as speaker up, he will push into the limelight, and as he seems to be central to the business, he will not be able to resist talking about it.

That is definitely his style.

His term is for the life of this parliament, first elected as speaker in 2009, and has been elected unopposed after every GE since, it is reported that he intends to resign this summer after ten years in the job, certainly no toady of the government but more a man for MP's with more than a little humor with a sharp wit and very much unconventional.

 

I am sure he will move to the other house when he stands down thereby triggering a by-election in his constituency of Buckingham Possibly the Tory's first test following the shenanigans of the last few months, this probable one of the Tories strongest seats and if it falls the writing will be on the wall for the Tories.

[cleopatra2]

10 minutes ago, jpinx said:

What "standard orders"?  The "rules" are his to interpret and apply.  This is the flaw in UK governance.

The rule is very clear, it does not require interpretation .

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, cleopatra2 said:

The rule is very clear, it does not require interpretation .

If the rule favoured Brexiteers, it wouldn't need interpretation. As it doesn't, it does. (Brexiteer logic, closely allied to Thai logic).

[vogie]

3 minutes ago, Spidey said:

And I will ask you again (although I know that you'll deflect the question). Why is it so wrong to have a second referendum but OK for May to insist on her deal being voted on several times?

 

As to your question, if, after all this time, you have finally admitted that referendums aren't legally binding, will you be happy with parliament deciding to revoke Article 50 because withdrawal from the EU is unworkable?

 

 

This is the last time I will try for an answer from you, if you answer the question we can progress, if you cannot answer it, I really don't want to be going around in circles. What would be the point of a referendum if it isn't legally binding.

[jpinx]

3 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The rule is very clear, it does not require interpretation .

What rule?  Please quote/link in full.....  ????

 

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, vogie said:

 

 

This is the last time I will try for an answer from you, if you answer the question we can progress, if you cannot answer it, I really don't want to be going around in circles. What would be the point of a referendum if it isn't legally binding.

What was the point of it the first time around? You have made no attempt to answer my question, but then again, you never do. You're just a deflection monkey.

[Spidey]

5 minutes ago, jpinx said:

What rule?  Please quote/link in full.....  ????

 

The rule that is the subject of this thread. Do try and keep up.

[vogie]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

What was the point of it the first time around? You have made no attempt to answer my question, but then again, you never do. You're just a deflection monkey.

As I expected, you cannot answer my question but rather point the blame to someone else to cover your tracks. 

[jpinx]

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

 

 

This is the last time I will try for an answer from you, if you answer the question we can progress, if you cannot answer it, I really don't want to be going around in circles. What would be the point of a referendum if it isn't legally binding.

Referendums seem to default to "advisory" unless the enabling act of parliament says otherwise.  The whole concept of referendums is an anachronism in the UK's government system.  Switzerland almost always use referendums and the people are happy to do so much voting, but UK folks are far too argumentative !!  ????

 

[jpinx]

4 minutes ago, Spidey said:

The rule that is the subject of this thread. Do try and keep up.

I see no "rule" in this thread's title.......

[cleopatra2]

7 minutes ago, jpinx said:

What rule?  Please quote/link in full.....  ????

 

It is in Erskine May

A motion or amendment which is the same in substance as a question that has been during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, vogie said:

As I expected, you cannot answer my question but rather point the blame to someone else to cover your tracks. 

OK. I'll answer your question in full. A second referendum, would advise parliament whether the British public want to leave under May's deal or revoke article 50. They could then act accordingly.

 

If the result was to revoke Article 50, MPs would have the excuse to vote as they have always wanted to with less fear of losing their seats than at present. If the vote was to accept May's deal, it would give MPs the excuse to blame the Great British Public for the debacle when it all goes horribly wrong.

 

Now answer the question that you originally replied to. Why is a second referendum so wrong but repeatedly putting May's deal to parliament, despite 2 heavy defeats, OK?

 

[jpinx]

Does the same rule apply to referendums as does to parliamentary motions?

[Spidey]

5 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Does the same rule apply to referendums as does to parliamentary motions?

What rule?  Please quote/link in full.....or are you referring to the old guy's rule? 555

[jpinx]

19 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

It is in Erskine May

A motion or amendment which is the same in substance as a question that has been during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconsideration_of_a_motion

...also...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rethinking

 

[sidgy]

Only hard Brexiteers, who's number are dwindling by the day.

By default the 52% are hard brexiteers. There was no soft brexit option. I don’t see any dwindling of numbers only a hardening resolve amongst those who have been cheated by their elected representatives


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Spidey]

4 minutes ago, sidgy said:

By default the 52% are hard brexiteers. There was no soft brexit option. I don’t see any dwindling of numbers only a hardening resolve amongst those who have been cheated by their elected representatives


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

You should've gone to Specsavers.

[david555]

I think the whole discussions about new referendum doesn't matter much anymore , as the latest news from E.U. indicates that they could / would give a extension ...., BUT only for a solid reason needing substantial proposals, not just a few weeks,.. month's ..to let May kicking the can further on the road ,hoping for ...?  (Sky News live just now 30 min. +)

Even Merkel was very strict on it ...seems the E.U. is fed up withit ...who wouldn't..?
10 days  tick tock ….

[StreetCowboy]

When you offer the unobtainable to the disenfranchised, it is scarcely surprising that they become more truculent when they learn they cannot have it.

 

Sadly, the thrawn and truculent are the least likely to learn from their mistakes, and Brexit would take us no further forward in that regard.

[Chomper Higgot]

The question needs to be asked, and answered. 

 

Brexit, the mess it is, the damage it has done to British politics and the international reputation of the UK. 

 

cui bono?

 

[Spidey]

2 minutes ago, david555 said:

I think the whole discussions about new referendum doesn't matter much anymore , as the latest news from E.U. indicates that they could / would give a extension ...., BUT only for a solid reason , not just a few weeks month's to let May kicking the can further on the road ,hoping for ...?  (Sky News live just now 30 min. +)

Even Merkel was very strict on it ...seems the E.U. is fed up withit ...who wouldn't..?
10 days  tick tock ….

I'm pretty sure that they would consider a second referendum, if it were May's deal/ remain, a solid reason, providing MPs agreed to be bound by the result.

[vogie]

3 minutes ago, Spidey said:

OK. I'll answer your question in full. A second referendum, would advise parliament whether the British public want to leave under May's deal or revoke article 50. They could then act accordingly.

 

If the result was to revoke Article 50, MPs would have the excuse to vote as they have always wanted to with less fear of losing their seats than at present. If the vote was to accept May's deal, it would give MPs the excuse to blame the Great British Public for the debacle when it all goes horribly wrong.

 

Now answer the question that you originally replied to. Why is a second referendum so wrong but repeatedly putting May's deal to parliament, despite 2 heavy defeats, OK?

 

"OK. I'll answer your question in full. A second referendum, would advise parliament whether the British public want to leave under May's deal or revoke article 50. They could then act accordingly."

 

who decided the questions you express, was it you Spidey? the UK has already voted to leave the EU so maybe the questions should be Mays deal or no deal. 

When you say "act accordingly" you do know that is meaninless, act accordingly to me means ignore the vote if it went the leavers way, like last time, infact it could mean anything.

 

To your question, I have never mentioned Mays deal in any of our debate, but I would be happy to answer it. Mays deal is worse than useless, maybe it does want burying RIP. I am sure that most of the country would be more than happy to walk away at the end of March, everybody surely is getting brextipation, it needs finalising, not going on for another 2 years. I would certainly need councilling if I had another 24 months of your posts. ????

[elliss]

14 hours ago, vogie said:

He said it was his wifes car, I havn't seen the log book, have you, do you believe everything thing you read. He is the one with personalised Bercow number plates, he is the one driving around flaunting his impartiality. You would think someone of his neutrality (????) would have enough nous to show more sense.

 

     EU ,   resgistration ,  Merc.?