New Hp Printer - Small Problem Since...
Technology0 min ago
Brecow Rules Out 3Rd Brexit Vote
91 Answers
https:/
Not really a surprise, given his own views, and teh lengths some want to go to to prevent the vote happening again.
Not really a surprise, given his own views, and teh lengths some want to go to to prevent the vote happening again.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fiction-factory. 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.
This is interesting from the Telegraph:-
https:/
https:/
IMO there was nothing substantially different in what was being put in the second vote, compared to the first. Just some wooly 'trust us' "promises" sheets clipped to the main doc that was supposed to convince us that the main doc wasn't a threat after all. (And I understand one of them wasn't endorsed by the EU either, they stayed silent on it, it was just UK government waffle about how all was ok.) It even failed to solve the main issue of being able to leave whenever we chose to.
//That may have been a legitimate moral view of the updated package from last week, but it clearly makes no sense legally, which is what's important here. //
I thought that in the event of a deal being rejected, our legal position was to leave with no deal - or are we ignoring legalities in certain circumstances?
I thought that in the event of a deal being rejected, our legal position was to leave with no deal - or are we ignoring legalities in certain circumstances?
I was surprised as previously bercow had said (echoing Ld Denning) - if one stuck by precedent then we would still be in the sixteenth century
Jim he thay ( hey C16 english there! )
Parliamentary convention, the laws of the constitution -- does not allow multiple votes on the exact same question in a single Parliament. So May can't bring back the exact same vote again. This isn't a Remain issue, it's just how the law works in this country.
there is quite a lot wrong with this ( I have previously encouraged Jim to convert to Law and he can spend all day at this sort of thing)
Parliamentary convention -- ie, the laws of our constitution -- parliamentary convention is not really the subject of law in this country - and convention is precisely that ( convention and not law) - comes from the Bill of Rights 1689 ( oo-er Mrs!). The courts do not interfere in parliamentary proceedings - see the mess Aitken made of that a few years ago
// So May can't bring back the exact same vote again. //
yeah but no but - I am sure they have in the past you know. That is why it was such a surprise to the ministers
[oh, if there are standing orders er standing in the way of something, then you vote to suspend standing orders, do the forbidden vote and then reinstate standing orders - simples]
//it's just how the law works in this country.//
erm not really a question of Law see point above
These sort of points are Too Much Again for the average Aber - are they? or are they?
Jim he thay ( hey C16 english there! )
Parliamentary convention, the laws of the constitution -- does not allow multiple votes on the exact same question in a single Parliament. So May can't bring back the exact same vote again. This isn't a Remain issue, it's just how the law works in this country.
there is quite a lot wrong with this ( I have previously encouraged Jim to convert to Law and he can spend all day at this sort of thing)
Parliamentary convention -- ie, the laws of our constitution -- parliamentary convention is not really the subject of law in this country - and convention is precisely that ( convention and not law) - comes from the Bill of Rights 1689 ( oo-er Mrs!). The courts do not interfere in parliamentary proceedings - see the mess Aitken made of that a few years ago
// So May can't bring back the exact same vote again. //
yeah but no but - I am sure they have in the past you know. That is why it was such a surprise to the ministers
[oh, if there are standing orders er standing in the way of something, then you vote to suspend standing orders, do the forbidden vote and then reinstate standing orders - simples]
//it's just how the law works in this country.//
erm not really a question of Law see point above
These sort of points are Too Much Again for the average Aber - are they? or are they?
Naomi: yes, it currently is. There are legal mechanisms to change that; whether they will be used is anyone's guess at this point.
danny: Strictly he was citing Erskine May's Parliamentary Procedure, written in the 19th Century and recognised as the standard text on what is, and is not, constitutionally valid in the Houses of Parliament. Also, as can be seen even in this thread, the question on whether or not he's "scuttled Brexit" is open for debate amongst Brexit supporters. Quite a few of the more hardline members, such as Johnson and the like, welcomed Bercow's announcement alongside Remainers, because what it really has done is scuttle Theresa May's attempt to bring the same deal back for a 3rd, 4th, 5th... and on, and on, time.
danny: Strictly he was citing Erskine May's Parliamentary Procedure, written in the 19th Century and recognised as the standard text on what is, and is not, constitutionally valid in the Houses of Parliament. Also, as can be seen even in this thread, the question on whether or not he's "scuttled Brexit" is open for debate amongst Brexit supporters. Quite a few of the more hardline members, such as Johnson and the like, welcomed Bercow's announcement alongside Remainers, because what it really has done is scuttle Theresa May's attempt to bring the same deal back for a 3rd, 4th, 5th... and on, and on, time.
boggling Nigh writes
// Apparently Bercow got his authority from parliamentary proceedings of 1604. //
Bercow has declined to follow old precedent and I thought he would do so this time. Aitken got the bill of rights 1689 changed so he cd sue for libel - and lost ! and served time for perjury ! so that is another one....
I am not sure how you appeal a speakers ruling but a court case is certainly NOT the way - by agreement
1362 - language to be used in Parliament to be English and not French - that old enough ?
what about - custom and practice - if you can show custom was in place before 1189 ( time immemorial) then it has the force of law - or statute of Marlborough 1265 - on forcible entry to a tenanted house
being old doesnt imvalidate a precedent thro age alone
(Denning again) but we can wonder and boggle on:
Joyce - Lord hawHaw was prosecuted under the 1348 Treason Act ( adhering to the kings enemies)
hey if the dissolution of the monasteries act were inoperative froo age alone then we would have to give back all that land to the pope innit? [mi dio! - the pope speaks Italian]
// Apparently Bercow got his authority from parliamentary proceedings of 1604. //
Bercow has declined to follow old precedent and I thought he would do so this time. Aitken got the bill of rights 1689 changed so he cd sue for libel - and lost ! and served time for perjury ! so that is another one....
I am not sure how you appeal a speakers ruling but a court case is certainly NOT the way - by agreement
1362 - language to be used in Parliament to be English and not French - that old enough ?
what about - custom and practice - if you can show custom was in place before 1189 ( time immemorial) then it has the force of law - or statute of Marlborough 1265 - on forcible entry to a tenanted house
being old doesnt imvalidate a precedent thro age alone
(Denning again) but we can wonder and boggle on:
Joyce - Lord hawHaw was prosecuted under the 1348 Treason Act ( adhering to the kings enemies)
hey if the dissolution of the monasteries act were inoperative froo age alone then we would have to give back all that land to the pope innit? [mi dio! - the pope speaks Italian]
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.