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

    20
    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    There will likely be a VoNC against the Speaker if Saracen's Fez does not allow the MoNC to be withdrawn after two proposers have removed their support from the MoNC.
    Your attempt at manipulation won't work. There will be a VoNC if he blatantly ignores the GD and allows the withdrawal of support. I am not suggesting you and Hazzer cannot remove your support; what you cannot remove is your statuses as proposer and seconder respectively.

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

    Just to add to my above post, I am happy to accept that with a new proposer, if the constitutional abberation is made, a new 3-day discussion period would be required.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    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.
    No, that's my six years of experience with the MHoC and its members. We've already encountered many occasions when the GD failed to provide solid guidance or allowed exploitations such as the one you mentioned (the repeated use of MoNC by the government to stay in power), yet we always managed to agree on a reasonable interpretation. Why those things aren't amended is unknown to me—it's not my job—however I see no reason why an MoNC should not be withdrawn in this case.

    Besides, perhaps they've already asked Fez for guidance. Let's see what he thinks and remember he's superior to the GD.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    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).
    This page seems most relevant..

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...1944116&page=7

    Showing..

    1) That people can withdraw and if more than x MP's are required then this does not progress

    2) The implication (which i can evidence through other VoNC's but Metrobeans was very clear) is that the proposer has the power to control the fate of a MoNC disputing the intervention point.

    ..

    While i only wish peace and a pleasant atmosphere in the House, using the same reasons are valid for you if you get the required number of seconders.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Also people should read that thread just for interest. You witness one of Labour's darkest hours and my rise to power.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Your attempt at manipulation won't work. There will be a VoNC if he blatantly ignores the GD and allows the withdrawal of support. I am not suggesting you and Hazzer cannot remove your support; what you cannot remove is your statuses as proposer and seconder respectively.

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

    Just to add to my above post, I am happy to accept that with a new proposer, if the constitutional abberation is made, a new 3-day discussion period would be required.
    (Original post by cBay)
    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.
    You both think I did not ask questions before I made my decision to withdraw support for the MoNC, I am withdrawing my support because I have asked the Speaker what would happen. It is not manipulation to ask a question on procedure, then use the answer to make a plan that should work: with you threatening a VoNC is the Speaker does not do what yo want, the Speaker is going to face a VoNC.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    While i only wish peace and a pleasant atmosphere in the House, using the same reasons are valid for you if you get the required number of seconders.
    … and wait at least two weeks since the primary proposer has decided to withdraw his support and new seconders mean nothing.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    All this talk about VoNCs in the speaker for not doing what you want needs to stop. It's okay to call a MoNC for that reason but threatening the speaker to try and manipulate him isn't right at all.

    Then there is the classic 'you are only doing that because you are partisan' which needs to stop too. It's just distasteful and a poor show.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    No, that's my six years of experience with the MHoC and its members. We've already encountered many occasions when the GD failed to provide solid guidance or allowed exploitations such as the one you mentioned (the repeated use of MoNC by the government to stay in power), yet we always managed to agree on a reasonable interpretation. Why those things aren't amended is unknown to me—it's not my job—however I see no reason why an MoNC should not be withdrawn in this case.

    Besides, perhaps they've already asked Fez for guidance. Let's see what he thinks and remember he's superior to the GD.
    Fez is not superior. His job is to follow the GD except where it produces perversity. His job is to follow the Consitution, even where it produces perversity. That is the only sense in which the GD is less 'binding'.

    Also, your experience means nothing, since you've shown repeatedly that you think one-off past precedents are superior to written rules, which is beyond absurd (but also experience is generally of no argumentative value and cannot be used to support an argument, even as a quasi-fallacious argument to authority).

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

    Rakas21 , let me quote the relevant post:

    "I should probably explain what this means. It's Speaker discretion as the constitution does not provide for this.

    A seconder cannot withdraw a VoNC by themselves, however it cannot progress without both a proposer and seconder. This means that the VoNC will not progress to vote unless a seconder is found. A seconder does not have to be a party, but it must be an MP."

    First, it is stated it is speaker discretion. He is not claiming or purporting to lay down a rule which should be followed in the future, or should even be considered persuasive in the future. It can therefore be flat-out ignored.

    If it is not to go that way, it is clear that he permits the substitution of people in the names in the VoNC. If that is the case, then myself and cBay are sufficient (more than) to make this continue, and if this is followed, it also follows that an extra 3-day period is not even required.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    … and wait at least two weeks since the primary proposer has decided to withdraw his support and new seconders mean nothing.
    "A Motion of no confidence can be called against the Government at any point during a term of governance unless the government was formed less than two weeks prior to the motion, or less than two weeks have passed since the last motion of no confidence was called against the government. The person calling the vote must be an MP of any party."

    The motion is equated with a vote. If this is classed as withdrawn, a MoNC has not occurred, and the two-week period ended ages ago (not to mention the absurd protection against MoNCs point I mentioned above).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Also, your experience means nothing, since you've shown repeatedly that you think one-off past precedents are superior to written rules, which is beyond absurd (but also experience is generally of no argumentative value and cannot be used to support an argument, even as a quasi-fallacious argument to authority).
    I was merely using it to explain why I think I know what the creators of the relevant clauses of the GD meant and how they've been used over the years. :dontknow:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    "A Motion of no confidence can be called against the Government at any point during a term of governance unless the government was formed less than two weeks prior to the motion, or less than two weeks have passed since the last motion of no confidence was called against the government. The person calling the vote must be an MP of any party."

    The motion is equated with a vote. If this is classed as withdrawn, a MoNC has not occurred, and the two-week period ended ages ago (not to mention the absurd protection against MoNCs point I mentioned above).
    Called.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Called.
    Likewise, see 'The person calling the vote' - what is called is the entire motion process, including the vote (incidentally, this is even more reason why Hazzer cannot remove his proposer status).

    Also, as I'm sure you noticed, given your argument depends entirely on precedent, Metrobeans allowed substitution within the motion, and there is no good reason to think substitution of a proposer is different from substitution of a seconder (especially given this was obviously not written by Hazzer).
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Likewise, see 'The person calling the vote' - what is called is the entire motion process, including the vote (incidentally, this is even more reason why Hazzer cannot remove his proposer status).

    Also, as I'm sure you noticed, given your argument depends entirely on precedent, Metrobeans allowed substitution within the motion, and there is no good reason to think substitution of a proposer is different from substitution of a seconder (especially given this was obviously not written by Hazzer).
    A small oversight when changing it last year, rememnant from when they were voncs that nobody spottted.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    A small oversight when changing it last year, rememnant from when they were voncs that nobody spottted.
    Oh, so it's been changed since the relevant decisions?

    Right, then it's obvious that precedent is worth literally nothing since it's no longer the same text which is being worked from, and therefore it cannot be assumed to mean the same thing.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Oh, so it's been changed since the relevant decisions?

    Right, then it's obvious that precedent is worth literally nothing since it's no longer the same text which is being worked from, and therefore it cannot be assumed to mean the same thing.
    The changes were in name and the seconder criteria, there is no material change that would invalidate the precendent
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The changes were in name and the seconder criteria, there is no material change that would invalidate the precendent
    Can you produce a copy of the GD from the 14th Parliament? Hell, when did we even start using a GD?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Can you produce a copy of the GD from the 14th Parliament? Hell, when did we even start using a GD?
    GD came into force in 2007
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I am on record as saying I was unsure i this was the right time for such action, and I didn't second it, although if given a choice in the lobbies to support the tories or oppose them the choice is clear, just as I presume tories would say the same of Labour.

    However all I gleam from the conversation on this page is that the tories are trying to use the withdrawal of support of two people to call off the entire MoNC, and UKIP regret at realising the alternative would likely not be them in Government.

    I don't see the issue with this proceeding, we frequently have amendments where at least one backer has disagreed and voted against the amendment but seconded it anyway. And if one person feels so strongly they must take their name of it then it seems there are those who are happy to second it in their now vacant place, so I do not see any issue with this.

    As for this VoNC in the speaker malarkey, it feels nothing short of intimidation, rule in our favour or face a vote to dismiss you. Fez has consistently done a damn fine job as Speaker, and it is his job to rule on the GD, clearly there are different interpretations as shown by the arguments here so I think it is a feckless precedent to set to start issuing VoNC in speakers as you disagree with their rulings.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    I am on record as saying I was unsure i this was the right time for such action, and I didn't second it, although if given a choice in the lobbies to support the tories or oppose them the choice is clear, just as I presume tories would say the same of Labour.

    However all I gleam from the conversation on this page is that the tories are trying to use the withdrawal of support of two people to call off the entire MoNC, and UKIP regret at realising the alternative would likely not be them in Government.

    I don't see the issue with this proceeding, we frequently have amendments where at least one backer has disagreed and voted against the amendment but seconded it anyway. And if one person feels so strongly they must take their name of it then it seems there are those who are happy to second it in their now vacant place, so I do not see any issue with this.

    As for this VoNC in the speaker malarkey, it feels nothing short of intimidation, rule in our favour or face a vote to dismiss you. Fez has consistently done a damn fine job as Speaker, and it is his job to rule on the GD, clearly there are different interpretations as shown by the arguments here so I think it is a feckless precedent to set to start issuing VoNC in speakers as you disagree with their rulings.
    PRSOM
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    The rules of VONCS against the government at the time of the 14th Parliment were as follows:

    Votes of No Confidence against the government
    1) A vote of no confidence can be called against the government at any point during aterm of governance. The person calling the vote must be an MP of any party.
    2) The speaker must be notified by one person and get another to person to secondtheir vote of no confidence (both people need to be MP’s)
    3) This will automatically start a 3 days discussion where both sides get to argue theirpoints; the speaker will start a thread and post the reasons for the vote of noconfidence being called.
    4) After the 3 day discussion a 4 day poll will be opened in the Division lobby so thatall MP’s can have a vote. (the poll will be a private poll only showing the resultswhen it has ended)
    5) If the result of the poll is in favour of the Vote of No Confidence then a Generalelection will be called (using all the usual regulations for it)
    6) If the result of the poll does not favour the Vote of No Confidence then usualbusiness will resume in the House of Commons
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
  • 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.