Westminstenders: Neglectful Drunkeness!

[RedToothBrush]

The HoC has spend the past 3 years in a state of Neglectful Drunkeness.

As it stands less then two weeks from Brexit Day, there is no deal we were promised. The Conservative and Labour Parties are more divided than ever.

The government is in disarray as 8 Cabinet ministers plus the chief whip voted against the Prime Minister including the Brexit Secretary who had minutes earlier argued for an extension only to vote against it. He is now on the brink of resignation.

The DUP look like they may be about to capitulate and vote for a deal. But it may not be enough even then.

This is what the cliff edge looks like.

Who wants to take a closer look?

Ha! Government did not know about speakers statement! I loathe A leadson and glad Berkow put her in her place. And he's put the government in their place. Oh I am loving this!

Leadsom comes across as a bit of a shit TBH, quite vindictive IMO.

Thanks @wheresmymojo

I'm sure Leavers are suitably aerated at this "betrayal" but IMO this is not good news for Remainers either. At the moment this just looks like more uncertainty and possibly an increased likelihood of No Deal crash-out (which apparently Leavers want so they should be happy). I knew MV3 was against EM and a massive piss-take by TM, but I had assumed that the Speaker would fudge to allow it, despite obviously there being no changes, because we're in a fucking crisis, man. Yet I am sort of pleased that parliamentary rules are being respected too.

Urgent question now...

Ah...it's about far right extremism and Govt plans to curb it. Not about Brexit.

But...
"Bercow says MPs could vote to change the Commons rule preventing repeat votes on the same motion."

Any takes on how many should be permitted?

I really dislike Leadsom too. Thank fuck she didn't end up PM.

Not about Brexit ???

I'm sorry, I don't agree that Mrs May is trying to circumvent Parliament. Were she trying to do that, surely she'd propose no more votes on the basis that without any being held, we leave on 29/03/2019 without a deal. This is currently what the law says.

I do agree on the general point that returning a bill repeatedly without changing it after is has been rejected is bad.

I'm not sure it is "bad for democracy". I don't think many of our representatives are fulfilling their function properly at the moment in respect of this, because of a fundamental conflict between representative democracy and direct democracy. Others will clearly have different views.

I had thought / hoped that May had sounded out the Speaker before placing her hopes on his breaking the rules to allow MV3 identical to MV2

(maybe she has)

Leadsom comes across as a bit of a shit TBH, quite vindictive IMO.

There's a lot to dislike about Theresa May - personally as well as politically. However, I think Loathsomes moniker is well deserved when she used her family in a obscene one-up(wo)manship over May in the leadership election. That's a real Tory, right there. (Although had positions been reversed, I have no doubt May would have done the same).

I'm not sure it is "bad for democracy".

It is because governments could effectively shut down parliament around one subject, while preventing others from being put to vote.

Agree with the general sentiment around Andrea Leadsom btw. Not a fan to put it mildly.

I'm sorry, I don't agree that Mrs May is trying to circumvent Parliament. Were she trying to do that, surely she'd propose no more votes on the basis that without any being held, we leave on 29/03/2019 without a deal.

Theresa May is against a no-deal Brexit....

That's why the hard Leavers are actually happy about Bercow's ruling today. Mark Francois for example gave a point of order where he made clear he was happy with Bercow's ruling.

Surely a government will want to pass as much of it's legislative programme as possible? It's not in the interests of any government to "shut down" parliament on one subject by holding repeated votes on the same thing to the exclusion of everything else.

IMO this is really only happening because leaving the EU has a direct mandate.

So, does this mean that No Deal is the most likely option?!

IMO this is really only happening because leaving the EU has a direct mandate.

No it doesn't

So, does this mean that No Deal is the most likely option?!

Unless "something" significant happens in the next (looks) 11 days, yes.

Of course it does! How can you seriously dispute that? More people, when the question was asked, voted for Leave than for Remain, that's a matter of fact, not an opinion.

Here's a govt minister who is ignorant of the UK Constitution

No surprise, they are ignorant of everything else. And arrogant about everything.
They think the constitution & the law should be what the Tory Party order them to be

Laura Kuenssberg@bbclaurak

One govt minister tells me Bercow is ‘breaking the constitution’ * by stopping them putting forward another vote on the deal*
.....
Daniel Hewitt @DanielHewittITV

Sir Graham Brady, < 1922 Committee > leaving Downing Street, says John Bercow’s ruling is “unsurprising”

and says “it is essential...we have another opportunity to vote on it.”

He adds: “it is clear the country wants closure...and we have an agreement which is clearly gathering support.”
....
^Rory Stewart@RoryStewartUK
^
In the normal course of events, as the speaker says, parliament says no, and the issue is dropped.

But in this case, this is not an option, because these votes respond to an instruction in a referendum, endorsed by parliament, which rules out dropping back to the status quo.

< Cameron's fault. If he had set a 55% / 60% threshold and Leave had nailed that, we would not be in this chaos >

But the house said no to no deal???

So if it's the only option by 10pm on 29th March then she should revoke??

Bercow stopped short of saying you lost, get over it I see

I have always loathed leadsom.she is a person that personifys the meaning of ' bitch'. No one could bully her for she is not a 'weak' and ' vunerable' woman she makes out she is. Her face when Berkow said he did not gave to inform the leader if the house or even the shadow leader if the house about his statement said it all! That face just made my week!
Berkow has given many hints about rule 24 and advised MPs looked at that to see their opportunity to bring forward votes on PV. He also said that opposition have had no parliamentary time which they were entitled to and looked to the leader of the house whilst agreeing they had not had enough time. I'm so pleased the government was not prepared for speakers statement. So relieved Berkow has a large set of balls and he is there when democracy seems to be disappearing. I'm sure he will get his Lordship under another government but you can see why the Tories hate him. But I don't hate him I luuuuurve him!

Of course it does! How can you seriously dispute that?

Because it was an advisory referendum with a political - not legal - acceptance. That's before we start investigating the illegal spending and data usage of the Leave side.

Beyond that, the UK doesn't have direct representation anyway. MPs are supposed to play a part.