Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Pretty sure you can't do this under the GD.
    Good afternoon Mr Speaker, oh wait.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    lol your motives are so transparent hazzer
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    There is no clause which allows for a MoNC to be withdrawn, and it automatically goes to the Division Lobby - it also cannot be amended. These are the differences which indicate that the sole decision point with a MoNC is deciding whether or not to submit it - after that, it is entirely out of the proposer's hands, and the proposer has no control over it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    The alternative has spoken, a government with the Socialist Party, or the Green Party in is not a good government, nor is a government with the Liberal Party but the Conservative government with the useless, power hungry Liberals is the better of governments available this term. The week has been full of Labour Party members fantasising about a getting one over on Life_peer, Jammy Duel, and the Conservative Party who they spent their time insulting. I cannot support the attempts of those members to target other members by support a MoNC with the aim of removing the smugness from some members of the Conservative Party, and the Liberal Party: I follow Hazzer by withdrawing my support for the MoNC.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    There is no clause which allows for a MoNC to be withdrawn, and it automatically goes to the Division Lobby - it also cannot be amended. These are the differences which indicate that the sole decision point with a MoNC is deciding whether or not to submit it - after that, it is entirely out of the proposer's hands, and the proposer has no control over it.
    There is no clause allowing me to post random crap in the Commons Bar, but I do - so far, I haven't had any punishment from it.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Pretty sure you can't do this under the GD.
    You can. In the 14th parliament Ukip withdrew their official support to be more neutral to what they saw as a Tory-Labour fight.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    There is no clause allowing me to post random crap in the Commons Bar, but I do - so far, I haven't had any punishment from it.
    Read the section on MoNCs in the government. It is pretty clear that from the point of submission, everything is automatic, and intervention is impossible. Contrast it with 4.1.7.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    There is no clause which allows for a MoNC to be withdrawn, and it automatically goes to the Division Lobby - it also cannot be amended. These are the differences which indicate that the sole decision point with a MoNC is deciding whether or not to submit it - after that, it is entirely out of the proposer's hands, and the proposer has no control over it.
    1. It's just the GD.
    2. ‘Everything which is not forbidden is allowed’ is one of the basic constitutional principles of English law.
    3. There is precedent (see Rakas's post).
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    1. It's just the GD.
    2. ‘Everything which is not forbidden is allowed’ is one of the basic constitutional principles of English law.
    Yes, and the GD impliedly forbids it. All other items require a positive action to be sent to the Division Lobby, a MoNC does not. There is no opportunity to edit any of the text. What in any of this makes you think that support can be withdrawn?

    Furthermore, this isn't about whether something is allowed or not. The decision is made and complete at the point of submission. There is nothing to be allowed. Hazzer can say he removes his support, it would just have no effect whatsoever on the content and names on this as it goes to Division.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    You can. In the 14th parliament Ukip withdrew their official support to be more neutral to what they saw as a Tory-Labour fight.
    Can you link me to both the thread, and tell me what the GD said on MoNCs at the time?

    Furthermore, if precedent is to be followed, especially if it is a one-off precedent rather than a sustained course of action, it should be included in the GD. A one-off precedent is pretty likely to be wrong and therefore has extremely weak informational power.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Yes, and the GD impliedly forbids it. All other items require a positive action to be sent to the Division Lobby, a MoNC does not. There is no opportunity to edit any of the text. What in any of this makes you think that support can be withdrawn?

    Furthermore, this isn't about whether something is allowed or not. The decision is made and complete at the point of submission. There is nothing to be allowed. Hazzer can say he removes his support, it would just have no effect whatsoever on the content and names on this as it goes to Division.
    See my edit.

    Nothing prohibits them from withdrawing their support and effectively the whole MoNC. If the regulations don't explicitly prohibit such an action, it's reasonable to assume that normal procedures apply. There is precedent for this so your moaning is rather misplaced. Even from the practical standpoint, we can either be done with it now or bicker for three more days only to reach the same conclusion.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    See my edit.

    Nothing prohibits them from withdrawing their support and effectively the whole MoNC. If the regulations don't explicitly prohibit such an action, it's reasonable to assume that normal procedures apply. There is precedent for this so your moaning is rather misplaced. Even from the practical standpoint, we can either be done with it now or bicker for three more days only to reach the same conclusion.
    It cannot be withdrawn because the point of submission is the only relevant point of action. Saying that Hazzer can withdraw his support is like saying that a non-MP can vote in the Division Lobby - the capacity for such an action to occur does not exist.

    The precedent is very likely of little to no value, as I mentioned above. One-off precedents should be included in the GD by amendment to have much persuasive value in decision-making; and in any event, if the precedent is contrary to the wording of the constitution and GD, the precedent should be ignored.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Naturally, there will be firsts for everything; and precedent has to be set sometime, thats just natural.

    But I echo LP's comment on negative rights, it doesn't say you can't do it!
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Read the section on MoNCs in the government. It is pretty clear that from the point of submission, everything is automatic, and intervention is impossible. Contrast it with 4.1.7.
    Again not so, MoNC's (against both speaker and government) have been withdrawn a number of times before division. Intervention has therefore occurred beforehand.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Again not so, MoNC's (against both speaker and government) have been withdrawn a number of times before division. Intervention has therefore occurred beforehand.
    Hm. That is entirely unconstitutional IMO, and should require an amendment to have force (as should all precedent - ALL rules should be included in the GD).

    -----------------------------

    In any event, in the case that this constitutional absurdity is permitted, I would like to add my name in my capacity as a Socialist MP as proposer to precisely the same text, purely for constitutional reasons. Saracen's Fez

    If the motion is capable of being withdrawn at this stage, then clearly it is not 'less than two weeks' since the last MoNC was called (as 10.1.1.1 clearly equates the motion with the vote, and, in any event, if this were the case, the government could effective preclude any MoNCs by simply submitting then withdrawing a MoNC every two weeks - an absurdity which I'm sure the Speaker will agree cannot be intended by the drafters of the GD, and therefore conclude that for the two-week rule to apply, the MoNC must go to vote).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    It cannot be withdrawn because the point of submission is the only relevant point of action. Saying that Hazzer can withdraw his support is like saying that a non-MP can vote in the Division Lobby - the capacity for such an action to occur does not exist.

    The precedent is very likely of little to no value, as I mentioned above. One-off precedents should be included in the GD by amendment to have much persuasive value in decision-making; and in any event, if the precedent is contrary to the wording of the constitution and GD, the precedent should be ignored.
    Please, you're being desperate… The parts of the GD regarding motions of no confidence were meant to guide the Speaker to proceed automatically regardless of further input after fewer days than usual and without cessation unless people chose to retract their support, such as in this case.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I think we're gunna have to get the NEC to vote on this.

    But I'm with TDA, the GD seems pretty clear to me.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Please, you're being desperate… The parts of the GD regarding motions of no confidence were meant to guide the Speaker to proceed automatically regardless of further input after fewer days than usual and without cessation unless people chose to retract their support, such as in this case.
    That's just mindless speculation. The difference in the GD between the text on MoNCs and everything else is stark, and prior decisions to the contrary should be denigrated as the woefully unconstitutional decisions they are, and ignored because they are contrary to the obvious intention of the GD - if it were intended that the same process were to be followed, including the ability to withdraw, then the wording would be substantially the same.

    Rather, I think you're being desperate. Based on the wording of the GD (which must prevail over precedent), you have no argument.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    There will likely be a VoNC against the Speaker if Saracen's Fez does not allow the MoNC to be withdrawn after two proposers have removed their support from the MoNC.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    There will likely be a VoNC against the Speaker if Saracen's Fez does not allow the MoNC to be withdrawn after two proposers have removed their support from the MoNC.
    Lol, VoNC'ing the speaker for following the GD? Good one buddy.

    If the motion needs another seconder now, I'll put my name on it.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.