[Politics] Brexit

[Thunder Bolt]

Which other Speaker has intervened over Brexit?

You only seem worried about Brexit, rather than lawful Parliamentary procedure.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Please confirm you've understood point 1 before I move on to point 2. It's really key.

Well, I know who the Speaker is now.

 

[Mellotron]

But they do, they do. They voted so, our MPs agreed to adhere to it.

How do you know they want to leave (present tense, I notice)?

Or are you talking about a confirmed illegal-if-it-was-binding vote from nearly 4 years ago?

I'm assuming not, and that you have some fresh information.

 

[A1X]

But they do, they do. They voted so, our MPs agreed to adhere to it.

The electorate in 2016 is not the same as the electorate in 2019.

If the electorate in 2019 do not wish to leave the EU why are you taking them out against their will? That's tyranny.

 

[Is it PotG?]

You only seem worried about Brexit, rather than lawful Parliamentary procedure.

I have many other concerns aside from leaving the EU.

 

[Mellotron]

Well, I know who the Speaker is now.

OK, that'll have to do for now.

Let's move on to part 1.5 then.

You also understand that the Brexit vote was undertaken in June 2016, 7 years after he took his position, correct?

 

[Is it PotG?]

The electorate in 2016 is not the same as the electorate in 2019.

If the electorate in 2019 do not wish to leave the EU why are you taking them out against their will? That's tyranny.

OK. I'm with you, ignoring 2016 is fine, so go with 2019 instead. Righto. And should Leave win again, wet pants time.

 

[Mellotron]

The electorate in 2016 is not the same as the electorate in 2019.

If the electorate in 2019 do not wish to leave the EU why are you taking them out against their will? That's tyranny.

Sounds incredibly undemocratic.

 

[Is it PotG?]

OK, that'll have to do for now.

Let's move on to part 1.5 then.

You also understand that the Brexit vote was undertaken in June 2016, 7 years after he took his position, correct?

You do seem rather well informed.

 

[Mellotron]

You do seem rather well informed.

OK. I'll take your sarcasm as you having understood point 1.5.

Therefore, when a number of people called you up on a daft comment about Bercow, asking for evidence that he has acted in a different way to other Speakers, you said and I quote "Which other Speakers have intervened on Brexit?"

 

[A1X]

OK. I'm with you, ignoring 2016 is fine, so go with 2019 instead. Righto. And should Leave win again, wet pants time.

If Leave wins again (provided they put up a credible Leave option, such as the Government's withdrawal agreement), then that is fair enough. It's also not a case of "ignoring", unless you also believe holding an election in 2017 was undemocratic because it ignored the result of the one in 2015?

 

[Is it PotG?]

OK. I'll take your sarcasm as you having understood point 1.5.

Therefore, when a number of people called you up on a daft comment about Bercow, asking for evidence that he has acted in a different way to other Speakers, you said and I quote "Which other Speakers have intervened on Brexit?"

Aaaah, I see your point now. Wish you'd got to it a little quicker.

By using the example of Brexit, I was showing that the Speaker had appeared to intervene on the result of a referendum which Parliament had agreed by 6:1 to adhere to. The interventions were in some areas unprecedented and APPEARED to be led by his own views on the subject in hand.

Happy to hear of any other past incidents as such.

 

[Is it PotG?]

If Leave wins again (provided they put up a credible Leave option, such as the Government's withdrawal agreement), then that is fair enough. It's also not a case of "ignoring", unless you also believe holding an election in 2017 was undemocratic because it ignored the result of the one in 2015?

But the result of the 2015 election was implemented, prior to the subsequent one taking over?

 

[Mellotron]

Brexiteers - we have another fun conundrum for you. Do you feel the June 2016 Brexit vote should be seen as legally binding?

A.) Yes.

The 2016 vote was binding and therefore as confirmed, declared null and void for illegality due as per the Electoral Commission's ruling. In which case no doubt you will be pushing for a new binding referendum that is kept within legal guidelines.

or

B.) No.

The 2016 vote wasn't binding and therefore there is no requirement to Leave the EU, merely to take the advice on board, given the vote was advisory. In which case no doubt you will be pushing for a confirmatory and binding referendum.

 

[A1X]

I was showing that the Speaker had appeared to intervene on the result of a referendum

Has Bercow expressed a desire for the UK not to leave the EU? I must have missed this, please enlighten me when this was.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

But the result of the 2015 election was implemented, prior to the subsequent one taking over?

The referendum was implemented when Article 50 was triggered.
Theresa May wanted to do it unilaterally but as we joined the EU with a Parliamentary vote, Gina Miller took her to court to make sure it was done lawfully.
Lawfully - that word again.
Everything has to be done lawfully.

MPs cannot agree how to pass the Withdrawal Agreement including leavers because it isn't hard enough.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I've been busy all day. I assume no one has been embarrassing themselves again while I've been away

Which other Speaker has intervened over Brexit?

Oh dear. And today's Two profs award goes to

You do seem rather well informed.

But it's all comparative isn't it. I can see how to yourself, BG seems extremely well informed

 

[A1X]

But the result of the 2015 election was implemented, prior to the subsequent one taking over?

But had all the manifesto commitments on which the 2015 Government was elected been undertaken? In which case why did they hold another election if they hadn't carried out what they promised to do?

 

[Mellotron]

Aaaah, I see your point now. Wish you'd got to it a little quicker.

By using the example of Brexit, I was showing that the Speaker had appeared to intervene on the result of a referendum which Parliament had agreed by 6:1 to adhere to. The interventions were in some areas unprecedented and APPEARED to be led by his own views on the subject in hand.

Happy to hear of any other past incidents as such.

OK. Fair enough. You've now put forward a much more lucid case, after a slightly daft initial remark.

Now of course, I'm going to ask for chapter and verse showing that no previous Speakers have ever gone against the Government in Parliamentary history.

Take your time, no rush.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Another 1 million turnout in London yesterday, one arrest I notice that the DM actually are trying to make a story out of this

What was really striking yesterday wasn't just a sense of wanting to stay in the EU, but also of patriotism for Britain, so many union jacks. A real sense now that our Union is really hanging by a thread.

There were flags from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and I even saw one from Gibraltar.

By where were the English flags, has this flag now become toxic in the face of nationalism? Starting to feel that way...

Did Diane Abbott give you that estimate? ... Another 1 million turnout?

https://fullfact.org/europe/peoples-vote-march-count/

Just more lies and fake news from the 5th column undemocratic loons then, fortunately, central London has some of the most advanced facial recognition cameras in the world ... so the Home Secretary, Priti (and she knows it) Patel will know who to put in the Brexit Britain internment camps.