Another new Brexit thread

[FlemishDuck]

Crucially, i believe a "overly impartial" speaker wouldn't survive the HoC a week? That is to say, whatever Bercow's faults clearly both sides of he HoC thought he wasn't partial enough to disfavour their side too much?

Aka Bercow was "Bercow partial", he has his own oppinion but it doesn't always make him pick the same side? Isn't that normal. Afaik the speaker vote's aswell right*, he is supposed to hold an oppinion at the end?

*ah, the Speaker doesn't vote unless perhaps to break a tie.

 

[mcfc1632]

The office of speaker and his partiality has only become an issue as a result of Brexit. Unfortunately - as is often the case - if someone does their job and that job isn't to Brexiteers liking its suddenly called into question. Its funny how Bercow wasn't an issue for most of his time as speaker then suddenly he was - and that coincided with Brexit frustrations. As predicted from the outset failure to execute Brexit was always going to be blamed on others rather than those trying to execute it owning up to their own political inadequacies - if the speaker brings up a measure that frustrates an attempt because it is against Parliamentary rules or if he allows a challenge because it is allowed under Parliamentary rules its not his fault - maybe those attempting to effect change via Parliament need to wise up

Nope - totally wrong in that first sentence

The impartiality of the Speaker comes into question because of the actions of Bercow - previous Speakers were not so accused

If you had read:

You agree that he has not been impartial - that is enough to confirm him as a failure in his role, a key responsibility of which is:

"The Speaker is the chief officer and highest authority of the House of Commons and must remain politically impartial at all times.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/the-speaker/the-role-of-the-speaker/role-of-the-speaker/

The link in the post you will - or at least should - also conclude that he has failed in a core responsibility of his role - just a simple fact​

 

[west didsblue]

He hasn’t been impartial, it would be absurd to suggest otherwise, but has stood up to an Executive that has itself acted outside convention and tried to undermine the primacy of Parliament. Given that, he has fulfilled his duty.

I would say he has used Erskine May and precedent appropriately, rather than bow to the executive when they have tried to persist with inappropriate actions. That has made it seem that he is not impartial however it is the government’s own fault for poor planning.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Why are you changing the topic?

I commented upon the post about Bercow - so did you

Given the responsibilities of his role it is my opinion that he is clearly a failure in that role

Given that you are also clear that he has not been impartial it follows that you must acknowledge that to be true

Now I can understand Remainers enjoying how he has gone against his responsibility to be impartial to favour their side - much as I could understand the Everton fans finding no fault with Peter Walton whenever he refereed our matches - but that does not change the fact that he was also a failure

It doesn’t follow at all and I wouldn’t try and put words in my mouth like that; you aren’t articulate enough to pull it off.

Unlike you, it would appear, I’m capable of making my own mind up without referring to some wanky rule-book.

He’s favoured Parliament over the Executive and in that sense he’s principally done his job imo - defending the primacy of Parliament.

You disagree with that analysis - you know what? I’ll get over it.

 

[west didsblue]

Nope - totally wrong in that first sentence

The impartiality of the Speaker comes into question because of the actions of Bercow - previous Speakers were not so accused

If you had read:

The link in the post you will - or at least should - also conclude that he has failed in a core responsibility of his role - just a simple fact​

Wrong.
Your biased opinion not fact.

 

[mcfc1632]

Crucially, i believe a "overly impartial" speaker wouldn't survive the HoC a week? That is to say, whatever Bercow's faults clearly both sides of he HoC thought he wasn't partial enough to disfavour their side too much?

Aka Bercow was "Bercow partial", he has his own oppinion but it doesn't always make him pick the same side? Isn't that normal. Afaik the speaker vote's aswell right*, he is supposed to hold an oppinion at the end?

*ah, the Speaker doesn't vote unless perhaps to break a tie.

Do you have a view/experience to call on of previous speakers?

It would help your understanding I would suggest

 

[mcfc1632]

It doesn’t follow at all and I wouldn’t try and put words in my mouth like that; you aren’t articulate enough to pull it off.

Unlike you, it would appear, I’m capable of making my own mind up without referring to some wanky rule-book.

He’s favoured Parliament over the Executive and in that sense he’s principally done his job imo - defending the primacy of Parliament.

You disagree with that analysis - you know what? I’ll get over it.

Hey - less of the hissy fit please

The only words that I was considering to come from your mouth were:

He hasn’t been impartial, it would be absurd to suggest otherwise, but has stood up to an Executive that has itself acted outside convention and tried to undermine the primacy of Parliament. Given that, he has fulfilled his duty.

Sorry to ruffle your feathers​

 

[FlemishDuck]

Do you have a view/experience to call on of previous speakers?

It would help your understanding I would suggest

Well it's kinda hard to do in retrospect, and you can immagine that i won't nessecarily take the time to look into that now. Why am i even wasting my time on you, ah you asked me a question and i guess i dare to belief something sound will come out of you this time. I'm keeping my expectation low, but:

Since you claim that Speaker Bercow hasn't been impartial, can you kindly point me to those instances in which you feel he has been impartial in youre own words? Surely, if it's so plain to see for you that Bercow is partial, then you can give me the specific examples where he was no impartial?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I would say he has used Erskine May and precedent appropriately, rather than bow to the executive when they have tried to persist with inappropriate actions. That has made it seem that he is not impartial however it is the government’s own fault for poor planning.

I’m reminded of a quote attributed to the Judge, Mr Justice Medford Stevenson, that presided ever the Kray twins’ trial, who was reported to say at a social event afterwards that Ronnie Kray only said two truthful things in the course of his trial. “One was that I was biased against him and his brother and the other was that the prosecutor was a ****”(!)

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Hey - less of the hissy fit please

The only words that I was considering to come from your mouth were:

Sorry to ruffle your feathers​

I’m well aware of what you were referring to, which needs to be read in conjunction with the rest of the post in order to provide context and explain my overall reasoning.

Hissy fits are not really my style.

 

[Ric]

Seriously - it would not be a problem and would ensure that we have a genuine and shared view of the truth of things

Seriously, it’s not necessary. We just need some of the main protagonists on both sides to reign it in a bit and, dare I say, show a bit more self-awareness and we should be fine.

 

[Gabriel]

Seem to recall Hague trying to oust Bercow in 2015, in what was a shameless piece of political chicanery on the part of the Conservatives. They didn’t show much impartiality and respect then.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Nope - totally wrong in that first sentence

The impartiality of the Speaker comes into question because of the actions of Bercow - previous Speakers were not so accused

If you had read:

The link in the post you will - or at least should - also conclude that he has failed in a core responsibility of his role - just a simple fact​

Previous speakers may not have stood accused because the fevered topic of Brexit wasn't on their watch.

 

[bluethrunthru]

 

[Rascal]

He hasn’t been impartial, it would be absurd to suggest otherwise, but has stood up to an Executive that has itself acted outside convention and tried to undermine the primacy of Parliament. Given that, he has fulfilled his duty.

Absolutely, he has stood for the legislature against the executive. Which is the right thing to do.

It would be a very poor Speaker that allowed the Executive to over ride the legislature, because in effect he would be condoning despotism and increasing the power of the PM. I don't think many realise what the title of PM actually means. It equates to the First amongst Equals, hence the Prime minister. No one person should have unequal amounts of power in a democracy and Bercow for all his faults realises that.

 

[Rascal]

I have sat on the fence throughout this whole charade, primarily because I do not believe the use of direct democracy in a representative democracy is in any way the correct option to solve anything. I have thought long and hard about this, I have always lent towards the lexit position because of my Socialist principles and I have come to a conclusion, for the first time I am no longer a 51/49 49/51 person I am now a 52/48 person.

As a result of genuinely trying to understand it all, even though a lot of it is way above my knowledge and intelligence I now realise for certain that we do have to leave, and the sooner the better. Simply because this impasse is tearing the country apart.

12 months ago I wasn't sure, 6 moths ago I was uncertain, now I know we have to and that whether we all agree or not we must. The referendum for its flaws and there were many has to be enacted upon. Then those who want to remain can campaign to rejoin if they wish but the democratic mandate will have been fulfilled and above all democracy must prevail.

I think Johnsons deal is shit, I think he is lying narcissistic philandering twat, I despise him and his deal is not good for the country but we are where we are and it has to end somewhere. I don't think any of us had any idea of the rancour this referendum would cause and the fallout will last a generation, the effects of it may well make us poorer, allow the hard right Tories to have their Singapore on Thames dreamland and it will damage our standing in the world. But the majority voted for it and without democracy what are we?

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Someone sitting to the left of Corbyn is unlikely to ever be elected as PM of this country.

Because , for whatever reason . there are some members of the population who either don't care for anyone else or consistently vote against their own interests.

 

[mcfc1632]

I have sat on the fence throughout this whole charade, primarily because I do not believe the use of direct democracy in a representative democracy is in any way the correct option to solve anything. I have thought long and hard about this, I have always lent towards the lexit position because of my Socialist principles and I have come to a conclusion, for the first time I am no longer a 51/49 49/51 person I am now a 52/48 person.

As a result of genuinely trying to understand it all, even though a lot of it is way above my knowledge and intelligence I now realise for certain that we do have to leave, and the sooner the better. Simply because this impasse is tearing the country apart.

12 months ago I wasn't sure, 6 moths ago I was uncertain, now I know we have to and that whether we all agree or not we must. The referendum for its flaws and there were many has to be enacted upon. Then those who want to remain can campaign to rejoin if they wish but the democratic mandate will have been fulfilled and above all democracy must prevail.

I think Johnsons deal is shit, I think he is lying narcissistic philandering twat, I despise him and his deal is not good for the country but we are where we are and it has to end somewhere. I don't think any of us had any idea of the rancour this referendum would cause and the fallout will last a generation, the effects of it may well make us poorer, allow the hard right Tories to have their Singapore on Thames dreamland and it will damage our standing in the world. But the majority voted for it and without democracy what are we?

The effects of it could also allow you to see your Lexit dreamland - which Remaining in the EU most certainly will not

Whether it results in a move to the Right or Left - depends on the electorate

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Another peak at the shit

I read through Lucas' post this morning , he has Gove Johnson & Cummings as the main actors in Brexit .... with their hands all over the Electoral breaches... his questions to Johnson asking him to force Gove to respond to various questions and accusations have been met with radio silence... making Johnson complicit and actively obstructing Parliament.

A prison cell should be waiting for the three of them.

 

[Coatigan]

Another peak at the shit

Doesn't matter in the slightest. All that matters, is, Leave Won, it is done now, can't go back. Just get on with it! Democracy.

etc etc.