ChatterBank0 min ago
There's Only One Thing Worse
Apart from the complete mess and obstruction these idiots are delivering too the people of this country, as regards to leaving the EU, the thorn in my side, is to see Bercow with that silly smurking grin on his face, I wish someone would wipe it off, its almost as thou he's enjoying this mess. I would also like to see some of the expense accounts that have been racked up over the last 3 years, that would make good reading. May be that's what he's grinning about?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by teacake44. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sir Bernard Jenkin knocked the smirk off his face yesterday for a couple of minutes when he announced in Parliament an influential committee on which he sits was poised to launch a wide-ranging hearing on the “Speaker’s role”. Bercow certainly has 'little man' syndrome and on the surface seems to think he's the President of the UK. How anyone in that role can decide whether an important bill gets a vote or not is beyond me. This decision should have been made by a committee.
The Speaker wasn't bothered about the hearing.
Regarding the claim of bias made by Bernard Jenkins, the Speaker said, "Thirdly, with regard to how unfortunate it is that one side seems to be disadvantaged by judgments from the Chair, I say to the hon. Gentleman—and there are people in this Chamber who know very well the truth of what I say—that I do not have, off the top of my head, a count of the number of times that I have in the past granted urgent questions, and in some cases, though they were less fashionable at the time, emergency debates, to people of what was then called a Eurosceptic disposition and would now be called a Brexiteer disposition—and he was one of them. When I was granting him and some of his hon. and right hon. Friends the opportunity to challenge, to question, to probe, to scrutinise, and, in some cases, to expose what they thought were the errors of omission or commission of the Government of the day, I do not recall him complaining that I was giving him too many opportunities to make his point and that it was not a fair use of the House’s time—that it was very unfair on his party and a violation of the rights of his Government. "
Regarding the claim of bias made by Bernard Jenkins, the Speaker said, "Thirdly, with regard to how unfortunate it is that one side seems to be disadvantaged by judgments from the Chair, I say to the hon. Gentleman—and there are people in this Chamber who know very well the truth of what I say—that I do not have, off the top of my head, a count of the number of times that I have in the past granted urgent questions, and in some cases, though they were less fashionable at the time, emergency debates, to people of what was then called a Eurosceptic disposition and would now be called a Brexiteer disposition—and he was one of them. When I was granting him and some of his hon. and right hon. Friends the opportunity to challenge, to question, to probe, to scrutinise, and, in some cases, to expose what they thought were the errors of omission or commission of the Government of the day, I do not recall him complaining that I was giving him too many opportunities to make his point and that it was not a fair use of the House’s time—that it was very unfair on his party and a violation of the rights of his Government. "
Bernard Jenkin’s case against the ruling was incorrect anyway as I posted elsewhere. Not that I really have a problem with him as a person. He’s unfailingly courteous and as a matter of fact used to be a Remainer :-)
But how could the Speaker allow a motion to be raised again which had been tabled only two days previously and rendered obsolete by the subsequent amendment?
I believe the Speaker for that reason called it “repetitive and disruptive” - the former presumably because there was nothing to stop another amendment like the first one being tabled again.
“Disruptive” because probably a waste of time.
Even some fairly ardent Brexiteers recognised the ridiculousness of this.
But how could the Speaker allow a motion to be raised again which had been tabled only two days previously and rendered obsolete by the subsequent amendment?
I believe the Speaker for that reason called it “repetitive and disruptive” - the former presumably because there was nothing to stop another amendment like the first one being tabled again.
“Disruptive” because probably a waste of time.
Even some fairly ardent Brexiteers recognised the ridiculousness of this.
Danny, his obvious anger didn't remove any of the eloquence from his response, imho of course. "Also there were other MPs accusing him of bias." Bit like the away crowd at a football match accusing the ref of 'home bias', Danny. The notion of bias only appears when 3 or more consecutive decisions have gone against you. Usually evens itself out later, though.
Not really, danny. The one thing that's been notable about the Brexit debate over the last two years is how keen Government has been to see off any and all scrutiny about it. That is why the May government tried, and failed, to defeat the attempt to require Parliament to pass the legislation allowing Notification. That is why Theresa May forced an early election on flimsy excuses. That is why she then attempted, in the 2018 Withdrawal Bill, to stop "meaningful votes" from ever being held, ie to present any withdrawal agreement as a fait accompli. That is why, having been defeated on that point, she then attempted to introduce the same WA (with only some small changes) three times in succession. That is why Johnson decided to prorogue Parliament. That is why he fought the courts over it. And on, and on.
That the Courts, Parliament, the Speaker, etc, are fighting back at this attempt to ram a policy through with zero scrutiny, should come as no surprise. It should even be welcomed. As TTT noted yesterday, Bercow's ruling was both entirely justified and even quite welcome: the government had already been instructed by the House that it should bring forward legislation if it wanted the deal to be approved; trying to get the deal approved after that vote breaks Commons rules, and Bercow was entirely correct to say so. And besides, now the government has introduced that legislation.
It suits some in the Brexit camp to portray any and all scrutiny of the implementation of Brexit as some sort of establishment bias. It is not. No matter the policy, sensible scrutiny and proper process should and must be respected. Just because it suits Johnson's political ends to make him look like the People's Champion doesn't mean we should fall for it.
That the Courts, Parliament, the Speaker, etc, are fighting back at this attempt to ram a policy through with zero scrutiny, should come as no surprise. It should even be welcomed. As TTT noted yesterday, Bercow's ruling was both entirely justified and even quite welcome: the government had already been instructed by the House that it should bring forward legislation if it wanted the deal to be approved; trying to get the deal approved after that vote breaks Commons rules, and Bercow was entirely correct to say so. And besides, now the government has introduced that legislation.
It suits some in the Brexit camp to portray any and all scrutiny of the implementation of Brexit as some sort of establishment bias. It is not. No matter the policy, sensible scrutiny and proper process should and must be respected. Just because it suits Johnson's political ends to make him look like the People's Champion doesn't mean we should fall for it.
