It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

British speaker invokes rule from 1604 to block crucial vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 02:29 AM
link   
www.news.com.au... a609f0ba5571608846a216e1998

"The Brexit mess keeps on getting messier. Now a rule dating from 1604 could see the UK crash out of the EU even though MPs have voted against just that."




British Prime Minister Theresa May’s last-gasp attempt to get a Brexit deal through the UK parliament may have been dealt a deadly blow due to a technicality that dates back to 1604.

The Speaker of the House of Commons has ruled Mrs May cannot bring her deal with the European Union back to parliament potentially setting the stage for the UK to crash out of the bloc with no deal or have to ask for lengthy delay to Brexit.

The situation has been labelled a “constitutional crisis” for Britain.








The PM had been hoping to bring the deal back to parliament next week in the hope enough MPs will have mulled over the detail of the deal and now decided to back it.

But that plan is now in disarray due to a judgment by the Speaker, John Bercow.

He told Mrs May that parliamentarians would be unable to have a “third meaningful vote” if the motion was “substantially the same” as the one rejected last week.

Mr Bercow cited a parliamentary convention dating back to 1604 and reaffirmed in 1864, 1870, 1882, 1891 and 1912. This declares that the question “may not be brought forward again during the same session” of parliament.

“One of the reasons the rule has lasted so long is that it is a necessary rule to ensure the sensible use of the house’s time and the proper respect for the decisions it takes,” Mr Bercow said.


hahahaha...I love it.

Will she bite the bullet and fall on her sword?....or




One method would be to “prorogue” parliament. This would mean the current session of parliament is discontinued and a new session started. If that was the case the deal could indeed be voted on.

The last time that was done was in 1949. But it could involve bringing the Queen back to the chamber to reopen parliament.

Whatever happens, it’s a mess. Speaking to The Guardian, MP Tim Laughton said: “Just when it looked like order was about to finally emerge from the chaos, Bercow has fashioned a way to reassert the chaos.”


Lets call the Queen...she'll sort it out....hahahaha

democracy be damned.

The will of the people be damned.




posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

The situation has been labeled a “constitutional crisis” for Britain?? Well perhaps so but its nothing compared to the constitutional crisis in Australia, which you have heard nothing of either.

In Australia, our constitution says that if someone disagrees with an elected candidate right to sit in the Parliament, they have 30 days in which to raise the matter and have it heard by the Parliamentary chamber the problem is in.

After 40 days later the Commonwealth Attorney General referred the case to the HIGH court claiming the senator concerned was bankrupt because he would not handover a $7 truck key he took out of his farm truck as a result of a bank foreclosure. For this they commenced bankruptcy proceedings and he is still fighting on to this day.

Seems it does not take much for there to be a constitutional crisis in Britain ..... by comparison that is. No wonder the brits are hopeless at cricket.



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Is "No Deal" better than "A Deal"? Why?

Is "No Deal" better than "Lets wait a little bit longer"?

Is "A Deal" better than "Lets wait a little bit longer"?

I do not see easy, simple answers to all these questions, and neither do your MPs who will be hold responsible to all the mass what *will* follow, any way.


This person just wanted to stop all the useless "lets vote in parliament about the brexit AGAIN and no cheating or backpaddling this time, or else!" - because this "else" always becomes "again".



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 03:13 AM
link   
They couldn't sort out a piss up in a brewery these lot....



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 03:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: MyToxicTash
They couldn't sort out a piss up in a brewery these lot....


They don't need to.

The Houses of Parliament has 8 subsidised bars to keep them suitability lubricated...



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 03:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

Is "No Deal" better than "A Deal"? Why?



Yes because the dice is loaded against the UK in the only deal on offer

Anyone who can't see that needs *to go to spec savers*





Is "No Deal" better than "Lets wait a little bit longer"?
Is "A Deal" better than "Lets wait a little bit longer"?


Both the same question? The answer is we have waited long enough already

the best part of three years is long enough for anything





I do not see easy, simple answers to all these questions, and neither do your MPs who will be hold responsible to all the mass what *will* follow, any way.


They will know the feelings of the people ...... at the next election.



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue

You mean Culleton?
en.wikipedia.org...

Seems he had a colourful past avoiding creditors...when all else fails try for the Senate and hope your Politician status wipes the debts?



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: eletheia

Last time my wife and I went to specsavers to get our annual "health fund subsidized' cheap prescription glasses it did not end well.

She ended up buying more "age defying" creams and I was left with the account.

Britain can afford the $50 billion penalty. Just start a few more wars for profit or destabilize some African country for loot.

Maybe they can ask the Queen to chip in - after all she cried for help when 1 of her castles had that fire.




posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 04:32 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

We are not amused .

TM will now proceed to ask the 27 , who must decide unanimously , to grant an extension . R4 - the EPP just suspended 's it's Hungary element , and now wishes " to welcome them back " to the EPP family . Theoretically , Orban can still sit at that European Council meeting and refuse to deliver unanimity , as he did with Cameron before . Then we'd get a default brexit with no deal via article 50 itself .
You only have to abide by European law as a country while you're in the Union . Article 50 , as far as I can remember makes no recommendations after the two year negotiation period is over , it expects a withdrawal agreement to have been completed by then . It's up to Orban to slay the dragon here tonight who can cut them in an arterial junction and get us a no deal Brexit where politically , technically , legally , and by the EU's own rules , Britain walks away scot free .
Unanimity was always there for an important constitutional reason , they devolved most of it into qmv to suit partisan traction , but not all of it .
It's the same story as in 2009 at the Council , we're not going to just do anything the club captains want just so we can remain a part of the club . What it sounds like maybe is they've already approached for his vote /veto , he's not playing ball and so they've cut his priviliges already . Just think , if VO conveniently gets , offed , what happens next ?
It'd be like another Franz Ferdinand scenario , all treaty bound too . Tonights the night by the sound of it , operation Yellowhammer on
Monday .
It's been too long since we've seen many Yellowhammers , we want an agricultural policy that works after this , one that shows the world how it's done . Besides that these are hay days for historians

ft link













edit on 21-3-2019 by DoctorBluechip because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 04:38 AM
link   
a reply to: eletheia

Okay, but an optometrician cannot be the answer to "why is a No Deal better than A Deal"?
It cannot be better, all the companies are working in an endless fog, and both sides will just assume the worst and act the worst, enforcing complete border controls, high tariffs and long waits for the trucks.

Not to mention the NI-border, anyway..

I cannot see why "WE WAITED LONG ENOUGH; NOW MOVE" is automatically the best option. That makes just no sense at all.



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Odds on a 'No Deal' Brexit slashed amid chaos in parliament
Odds on a 'No Deal' Brexit slashed amid chaos in parliament
Tom Bloomfield | 16:05 Wednesday 20th March 2019

Oddschecker insight article


It's now as short as 7/2 that the UK leaves without a withdrawal agreement. Just 24 hours ago, it was 7/1 that the UK leaves the EU on March 30th with no withdrawal agreement in place. Since then, bookmakers have decisively slashed the odds into 7/2. In the last 24 hours, a whopping 87% of total bets have gone on the UK to leave in ten days’ time with no agreement. It looks like time is running out for Theresa May’s leadership too, with odds of 3/1 that she leaves her post in April, and 4/1 that she goes in May. May has often stated that her preference was to leave on the due date, but with an agreement. However, many MPs are still at loggerheads and with a vast amount of details still to be sorted and it’s looking more likely that either the UK leaves without an agreement. The other option is that the EU agrees to May’s written request a new leave date of June 30th is set, giving the government an extra three months. Oddschecker spokesman George Elek: “A no-deal Brexit looks to be creeping ever closer with uncertainty surrounding whether May's extension application will be accepted. The odds on Britain leaving without a deal have tumbled today, accounting 77% of bets on the market. Odds of 4/1 suggest that it's still an outside chance of happening at 20%, but the weight of money suggests that will continue to shorten up in the coming days.”


Comment : the odds have mainly been decreasing , 5:1 then 3:1 over recent weeks . A brief window was opened giving 7:1 during parliamentary confusion . Strange omission of straightforward coherence at the centre of article , ie @ either

edit on 21-3-2019 by DoctorBluechip because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Is "No Deal" better than "A Deal"? Why?

Is "No Deal" better than "Lets wait a little bit longer"?

Is "A Deal" better than "Lets wait a little bit longer"?

I do not see easy, simple answers to all these questions, and neither do your MPs who will be hold responsible to all the mass what *will* follow, any way.


This person just wanted to stop all the useless "lets vote in parliament about the brexit AGAIN and no cheating or backpaddling this time, or else!" - because this "else" always becomes "again".


Any deal is better than no deal at the moment as the Government and Parliament have spent the last three years advertising to the world that they haven't got the slightest clue how to prepare, research, negotiate, legislate, pass etc.. any form of plan for a single area of Brexit. People and politicians who think we're capable of getting a better deal than the terrible one May's put forward are deluded.

Bercow was right to stop a third reading based on Parliamentary rules, however now we're in constitutional and national crisis with Operation Yellowhammer starting on Monday exceptional circumstances mean a new precedent can be set and vote on it allowed.



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Maybe the smart approach was to not go down this route, as has been stated before the nonbinding resolution was voted on, the only deal the UK would get is one that makes things worse then staying in.

But then May wouldnt get to pretend to be in charge.



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 06:18 AM
link   
a reply to: bastion

Isn't it the case though that both parties can and must still deal after no deal . Negotiations are still negotiations after previous negotiations might have failed . Its just the circumstances of the parties and the grounds of negotiation which change over time , you can still negotiate and sign a deal or complete a task, after a deadline takes effect . A deadline is simply an imminently previous point in time . Deploy the diplomas in diplomacy , but after a deadline, if that's what suits your cause . Bend over backwards to achieve the impossible beforehand , running the clock down and all relying on the fact that in this case it's a requirement that both parties continue to hold summits and make progress , making passing the deadline without a deal a considerable net advantage to one side given that effective political liberation of the UK government from EU obligations takes effect . Britain fulfilled it's part of the current EU bargain by waiting for 2 years as the Lisbon treaty instructs it as a signed member , but before the Lisbon Treaty of 2009 all it had to do was to repeal the European Communities act 1972


The European Communities Act 1972 (c. 68) also known as the ECA 1972 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which made legal provision for the accession of the United Kingdom to the three European Communities, namely the EEC (or "Common Market"), Euratom, and the (now defunct) Coal and Steel Community.[1] The Treaty of Accession was signed by the Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath and the President of the European Commission Franco Maria Malfatti in Brussels on 22 January 1972; the UK's accession into the Communities was subsequently ratified via the 1972 Act. The Act provided for the incorporation into UK law of the whole of European Community law and its "acquis communautaire": its Treaties, Regulations and Directives, together with judgments of the European Court of Justice. By the Act, Community Law (subsequently European Union Law) became binding on all legislation passed by the UK Parliament (and also upon the UK's devolved administrations—the Northern Ireland Assembly, Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales—although none of these institutions existed at the time of the passing of the Act). Arguably the most significant statute to be passed by the Heath government of 1970-74, the Act is also one of the most significant UK constitutional statutes ever passed. The act has been significantly amended from its original form, incorporating the changes wrought by the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty, the Nice Treaty, and the Treaty of Lisbon. On 13 July 2017, the then Brexit Secretary, David Davis, introduced what became the European Union (Withdrawal) Act to Parliament which, as enacted, makes provision for repealing the 1972 Act on "exit day", defined as 29 March 2019 (at 11 pm).



posted on Mar, 22 2019 @ 02:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Azureblue

You mean Culleton?
en.wikipedia.org...

Seems he had a colourful past avoiding creditors...when all else fails try for the Senate and hope your Politician status wipes the debts?


I will accept your word that your claim has some substance to it. However, how would he be any different to any other politician and business man in that respect?

His dedication to fighting for the Australian Constitution and hence the Australian nation, is well documented and is costing him a lot of money. Who else is fighting for the constitution with the same vigor Culleton is?



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: DoctorBluechip

So Orban is back in play - ?

I wonder what promises they'll ( EU ) make him to tow the line?



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue




I will accept your word that your claim has some substance to it


I dont know if my claim has any merit. I'm just cynical when it comes to politics and motivations. He obviously had bad business outcomes and getting into politics was probably a way out for him.




top topics



 
4

log in

join