Mr Bercow

[Whorty]

Quite right. Expert advice to elements of the government are obviously to be kept confidential and not disclosed to anyone. Ermm....

But then the guy was always an idiot. He is now a liability. For which we can blame HMG's Opposition for using the speaker's position to attack the government, mainly because they can't manage it by themselves.

Meh! They were just using the most appropriate tool that had to hand to get the job done. Seems for the opposition Bercow was the right tool

Just loving the apoplexy from Brexiters .... the 52% don't like it when they don't get 100% of their own way

[BlasterBates]

Yes I find it interesting how the sovereignty of parliament is becoming inconvenient. Eurosceptics always used to point their fingers to Westminster as to where decisions should be made.

[stonehenge]

Yes I find it interesting how the sovereignty of parliament is becoming inconvenient. Eurosceptics always used to point their fingers to Westminster as to where decisions should be made.

Unfortunately, this is not the type of "take back control" that they wanted.

[meridian]

Just loving the apoplexy from Brexiters .... the 52% don't like it when they don't get 100% of their own way

Don’t worry, they’ll fight back by paying their council tax a bit late...

[malvolio]

I knew it was pointless arguing with idiots.

Parliamentary procedure is laid down in Erskine May (get a copy, it's only £408 from HMSO). Bercow has unilaterally, and against advice, changed a key element of that and both hamstrung HMG by forcing an impractical deadline and simultaneously further weakening what little influence we have over the EU negotiations.

The Speaker is there to maintain the rules and ensure adherence. He is not there to rewrite them to suit his pals on the benches.

And while Grieve is a Tory (well spotted...) he is also trying to stop Brexit by any means possible. He and this various co-frères are the reason we're in this mess in the first place.

[AtW]

I thought the whole point of Brexit was for UK Parliament to take back control?

[meridian]

I knew it was pointless arguing with idiots.

Parliamentary procedure is laid down in Erskine May (get a copy, it's only £408 from HMSO). Bercow has unilaterally, and against advice, changed a key element of that and both hamstrung HMG by forcing an impractical deadline and simultaneously further weakening what little influence we have over the EU negotiations.

An impractical deadline was forced when May (cheered on by Brexiters) sent her A50 letter, triggering a hard deadline with no plan. If there is an impractical deadline in only having 3 days after the vote to provide a Plan B, it's because there has been no Brexiter able to come up with a Plan A yet. You've only had two years (and the previous 40) to provide a plan.

It's nothing to do with having any influence. Negotiations are over.

The Speaker is there to maintain the rules and ensure adherence. He is not there to rewrite them to suit his pals on the benches.

If giving Parliament a greater say over a Government that has already been ruled to be in contempt of Parliament is the price, that sounds like democracy to me.

And while Grieve is a Tory (well spotted...) he is also trying to stop Brexit by any means possible. He and this various co-frères are the reason we're in this mess in the first place.

No, Brexiting without any plan or even any agreed Leave position on what Brexit means is the reason why we're in this mess.

[jamesbrown]

Should the gov't want to proceed with no deal (and, most likely, it doesn't and won't), there is no parliamentary procedure that prevents a no-deal departure other than bringing down the gov't. As far as Brexit is concerned, the Speaker is virtue signalling. HTH for those among us that have a sub-mince understanding of parliamentary process

The only practical significance is that future speakers elected by future parliaments where the gov't has a large majority will be chosen by the gov't.

In that sense, I heartily admire the mutable principles of the lefties among us who would ordinarily decry such shenanigans.

Margaret Beckett said it best:

Abuse is terrible, it shouldn't happen, it should be stopped, behaviour should change anyway - whether the speaker goes or not.

But yes, if it comes to it, the constitutional future of this country - the most difficult decision we’ve made not just since the war but... possibly for hundreds of years - yes, it trumps bad behaviour.

You ain't going to like it when it's up you.

[meridian]

Perhaps the Brexiters should have asked him to leave back in 2013 then. Or does it only matter when it’s not in their interests?...

Parliament is now at war with government - and it's winning

There is also an awful lot of nonsense about the idea that Bercow is abusing his impartiality as Speaker to help Remain. In actual fact, the last time Bercow went against convention so aggressively was in 2013, during the Queen's Speech, when he allowed an unprecedented third amendment about the absence of a bill for a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU. When he breaks the conventions for Brexiters, they say nothing. When it is against their interests, they scream about parliamentary procedure.

[jamesbrown]

Or does it only matter when it’s not in their interests?

You first

As I recall, there was no suggestion that the Speaker had demurred from the expert advice of his Clerk in 2013.

But perhaps you’ve had enough of experts