Brexit: MPs' vote piles fresh pressure on Theresa May Watch

MrDystopia
  • Section Leader
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#1
Rebel Tory MPs have joined forces with Labour to inflict a fresh blow on Theresa May's government in a Commons Brexit vote.

It means Mrs May will have to return to Parliament with fresh plans within three days if her EU withdrawal deal is rejected by MPs next week.

It could also open the door to alternatives, such as a referendum.

The government lost by 11 votes, with 297 MPs voting with them and 308 against.

It comes ahead of five days of debate on the PM's Brexit deal. Commons Speaker John Bercow faced an angry backlash from some Conservative MPs over his decision to allow MPs to vote on the issue.

The MPs claim Mr Bercow broke Commons rules and ignored the advice of his own clerks.

Mr Bercow said he had made an "honest judgement" after consulting his clerks and said that if people wanted to vote against the amendment they could.

MPs, including Commons leader Andrea Leadsom, challenged his ruling in a series of points of order after Prime Minister's Questions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46805269

Once more, this weak Government goes forth and loses another vote. This time, the Grieve Amendment. If you recall, this was an amendment proposed a while back which stated that if the PM's preferred outcome (in this case, May's Deal) is voted down, then the PM would have to return to Parliament within 3 days with an alternative, an alternative which MPs now have the power to have a meaningful say on.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 weeks ago
#2
I feel that our great Parliamentary democracy has turned into a scene from Bugsy Malone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnPq2_gq3IA&t=0m42s
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by MrDystopia)
Rebel Tory MPs have joined forces with Labour to inflict a fresh blow on Theresa May's government in a Commons Brexit vote.

It means Mrs May will have to return to Parliament with fresh plans within three days if her EU withdrawal deal is rejected by MPs next week.

It could also open the door to alternatives, such as a referendum.

The government lost by 11 votes, with 297 MPs voting with them and 308 against.

It comes ahead of five days of debate on the PM's Brexit deal. Commons Speaker John Bercow faced an angry backlash from some Conservative MPs over his decision to allow MPs to vote on the issue.

The MPs claim Mr Bercow broke Commons rules and ignored the advice of his own clerks.

Mr Bercow said he had made an "honest judgement" after consulting his clerks and said that if people wanted to vote against the amendment they could.

MPs, including Commons leader Andrea Leadsom, challenged his ruling in a series of points of order after Prime Minister's Questions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46805269

Once more, this weak Government goes forth and loses another vote. This time, the Grieve Amendment. If you recall, this was an amendment proposed a while back which stated that if the PM's preferred outcome (in this case, May's Deal) is voted down, then the PM would have to return to Parliament within 3 days with an alternative, an alternative which MPs now have the power to have a meaningful say on.
The Government controls what other MPs can do by control of the Order Paper. Government business always has precedence except when the Government agrees that it doesn't and the Government decides the order in which Government business is taken.

Bercow's ruling today means that the Government can't control the Order Paper merely through being the Government but only by having the voting power to win Commons votes.

If a backbencher introduced a 10 minute rule Bill demanding another referendum or a Norway option, then until today, that bill would never get a second reading because the Government wouldn't allow time for it to be debated.

After today, Parliament could amend a Government business motion to make time for all Parliamentary stages of the Bill despite the opposition of the Government.

For the first time in centuries (specifically 1708), a bill could pass the Commons and the Lords over the opposition of the Government.

And then what happens?

What Advice does Theresa May give?

La Reine le veult

or

La Reine s'avisera

Strange days.
2
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by nulli tertius)
The Government controls what other MPs can do by control of the Order Paper. Government business always has precedence except when the Government agrees that it doesn't and the Government decides the order in which Government business is taken.

Bercow's ruling today means that the Government can't control the Order Paper merely through being the Government but only by having the voting power to win Commons votes.

If a backbencher introduced a 10 minute rule Bill demanding another referendum or a Norway option, then until today, that bill would never get a second reading because the Government wouldn't allow time for it to be debated.

After today, Parliament could amend a Government business motion to make time for all Parliamentary stages of the Bill despite the opposition of the Government.

For the first time in centuries (specifically 1708), a bill could pass the Commons and the Lords over the opposition of the Government.

And then what happens?

What Advice does Theresa May give?

La Reine le veult

or

La Reine s'avisera

Strange days.
Great explaination!
0
reply
jackcade
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by nulli tertius)
The Government controls what other MPs can do by control of the Order Paper. Government business always has precedence except when the Government agrees that it doesn't and the Government decides the order in which Government business is taken.

Bercow's ruling today means that the Government can't control the Order Paper merely through being the Government but only by having the voting power to win Commons votes.
If it was always in the power of the speaker to choose to do this, and the speaker is elected by a majority in the Commons, wasn't this always in some sense true? Does the government have any power to choose who is speaker other than by commanding a majority in the Commons?
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by jackcade)
If it was always in the power of the speaker to choose to do this, and the speaker is elected by a majority in the Commons, wasn't this always in some sense true? Does the government have any power to choose who is speaker other than by commanding a majority in the Commons?
Prior to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, it was necessarily the case that a Government capable of continuing in office had the power to reverse any ruling of the Speaker with which it disagreed by making the issue a matter of confidence.

The Crown’s privileged position under the Standing Orders was a reflection of that political reality.

Since 2010 the Government does not necessarily have that power and since 2017 the Government clearly in fact lacks that power. The Standing Orders are no longer a reflection of the Government’s political power but a substitute for it. Bercow has realigned the Government’s status under the Standing Orders for controlling the Order Paper with its true current (lack of) political power.

So the answer to your question is that the question has only been intelligible since 2010.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
jackcade
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Prior to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, it was necessarily the case that a Government capable of continuing in office had the power to reverse any ruling of the Speaker with which it disagreed by making the issue a matter of confidence.

The Crown’s privileged position under the Standing Orders was a reflection of that political reality.

Since 2010 the Government does not necessarily have that power and since 2017 the Government clearly in fact lacks that power. The Standing Orders are no longer a reflection of the Government’s political power but a substitute for it. Bercow has realigned the Government’s status under the Standing Orders for controlling the Order Paper with its true current (lack of) political power.

So the answer to your question is that the question has only been intelligible since 2010.
OK.

Bercow was made speaker in 2009 by Labour votes. He has long been seen as not loyal to the Conservative leadership. Should he have been replaced?
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by jackcade)
OK.

Bercow was made speaker in 2009 by Labour votes. He has long been seen as not loyal to the Conservative leadership. Should he have been replaced?
Was there ever a point when there was sufficient Commons support to get rid of him?

He has been less deferential to weak governments than other Speakers have been to strong governments.

The two Speakers who presided over weak governments between 1974 and 1979 were Speaker Lloyd and Speaker Thomas. Speaker Lloyd was seen as rather ineffectual. Thomas was seen as too deferential to Government and the reaction was that the next Speaker, Speaker Weatherill was chosen because he was perceived to be a very strong defender of backbench rights.

The key thing that Bercow has achieved is to reverse the decline of leading ministers answering to the Commons. Theresa May has probably spent a greater proportion of her time in the Commons answering for her policies than any PM since Churchill.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
Last edited by nulli tertius; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
jackcade
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 week ago
#9
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Was there ever a point when there was sufficient Commons support to get rid of him?

He has been less deferential to weak governments than other Speakers have been to strong governments.

The two Speakers who presided over weak governments between 1974 and 1979 were Speaker Lloyd and Speaker Thomas. Speaker Lloyd was seen as rather ineffectual. Thomas was seen as too deferential to Government and the reaction was that the next Speaker, Speaker Weatherill was chosen because he was perceived to be a very strong defender of backbench rights.

The key thing that Bercow has achieved is to reverse the decline of leading ministers answering to the Commons. Theresa May has probably spent a greater proportion of her time in the Commons answering for her policies than any PM since Churchill.
Presumably Cameron could have chosen to replace him in the second half of 2015 or the first half of 2016, the time after the passage of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act in which there was a Conservative majority.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 week ago
#10
(Original post by jackcade)
Presumably Cameron could have chosen to replace him in the second half of 2015 or the first half of 2016, the time after the passage of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act in which there was a Conservative majority.
He didn't have the votes to do it.There were 23 Conservative rebels (plus a lot of absentees some of whom might have had the urgent need to wash their hair that day) against the plot to oust Bercow before the 2015 election (including the Chairman of the 1922 Committee). That well exceeded Cameron's 2015 post-election majority.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...er-john-bercow
0
reply
TensorTympani
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 week ago
#11
(Original post by MrDystopia)
Rebel Tory MPs have joined forces with Labour to inflict a fresh blow on Theresa May's government in a Commons Brexit vote.

It means Mrs May will have to return to Parliament with fresh plans within three days if her EU withdrawal deal is rejected by MPs next week.

It could also open the door to alternatives, such as a referendum.

The government lost by 11 votes, with 297 MPs voting with them and 308 against.

It comes ahead of five days of debate on the PM's Brexit deal. Commons Speaker John Bercow faced an angry backlash from some Conservative MPs over his decision to allow MPs to vote on the issue.

The MPs claim Mr Bercow broke Commons rules and ignored the advice of his own clerks.

Mr Bercow said he had made an "honest judgement" after consulting his clerks and said that if people wanted to vote against the amendment they could.

MPs, including Commons leader Andrea Leadsom, challenged his ruling in a series of points of order after Prime Minister's Questions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46805269

Once more, this weak Government goes forth and loses another vote. This time, the Grieve Amendment. If you recall, this was an amendment proposed a while back which stated that if the PM's preferred outcome (in this case, May's Deal) is voted down, then the PM would have to return to Parliament within 3 days with an alternative, an alternative which MPs now have the power to have a meaningful say on.
Idk why the Mps put pressure when they could never do what Theresa May is doing and she is making the possible out of the impossible.
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 week ago
#12
Bercow is, and has always been, a massive ******* who is far too self obsessed to be in a position of any power. He has overstepped the mark on this occasion though, wouldn't it be wonderful if there were a legal cjchallen against his remainer biased ruling which prevented the Grieve amendment to be enacted, won't happen of course
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (109)
19.75%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (224)
40.58%
Nope, not that interesting (219)
39.67%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed