PM Boris forms a government

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49624334#

The Conservative Party plans to stand a candidate against Speaker John Bercow for his role in allowing MPs to take control of the Commons agenda.

Business secretary Andrea Leadsom accused the Speaker in the Mail on Sunday of "flagrant abuse" of process.

Breaching convention, the party plans to oppose Mr Bercow in his Buckingham constituency at the next election.

Hmm! I see they are looking for a scapegoat for all their woes..Maybe they just need to look in the mirror.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

Says a lot about the loss of perspective some have. Vichy Parliament? Really?

It's all getting pretty desperate. WW2 references. Talk of law-breaking and martyrs. Contesting the speaker's seat.
Not the kind of image we should be presenting to the outside world.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Damien

Says a lot about the loss of perspective some have. Vichy Parliament? Really?

It's a perfectly good analogy. What's wrong with it?



---------- Post added at 11:42 ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

As soon as someone tries to invoke WW2 metaphors in this context, you know they don't have a convincing argument. This letter is a prime example, published in a paper that is anti-EU as its rich proprietors the Barclay Brothers dislike attempts to clamp down on their tax lopholes.

Here you go again. A WW2 metaphor is entirely appropriate when we are talking about subservience and sovereignty.

And the rest of your tirade is entirely irrelevant to the topic.


---------- Post added at 11:49 ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49624334#



Hmm! I see they are looking for a scapegoat for all their woes..Maybe they just need to look in the mirror.

What makes you say something like that (see answer below)? Bercow has been top dead centre in mangling parliamentary convention to suit his personal agenda. It might be worth examining the powers that a Speaker has for the future.

Only Remainers who are dedicated to the undemocratic path of defying the Referendum would come out with what you've said.


---------- Post added at 11:51 ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's all getting pretty desperate. WW2 references. Talk of law-breaking and martyrs. Contesting the speaker's seat.
Not the kind of image we should be presenting to the outside world.

Three years of destructive politics by the Remainers in Parliament have told the world what they need to know about UK politics.

Analogies won't affect that and your high horse polemics is ridiculous.

[jfman]

What’s Brexit discourse without World War 2 analogies is like “what’s the sound of one hand clapping?”.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49624334#

Hmm! I see they are looking for a scapegoat for all their woes..Maybe they just need to look in the mirror.

Also taken from the link in by Maggy

In 2018 Mr Bercow let it be known he would stand down this summer - his tenth in office.

But earlier this month he told an audience at the Edinburgh festival fringe he would "fight with every breath in my body" to stop the government forcing through a no-deal Brexit by by-passing Parliament.

Last year, Mr Bercow was among MPs accused of bullying by staff in the House of Commons, although he denied the allegations.

The part in bold is questionable for an impartial speaker . . is it not?

[jfman]

No Speaker in any legislature is ever going to approve of being bypassed.

Originally Posted by jfman

No Speaker in any legislature is ever going to approve of being bypassed.

They can if they lose their Constituency Parliamentary seat. Which is hopefully what happens to the currently biased little prick in HoC.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mick

They can if they lose their Constituency Parliamentary seat. Which is hopefully what happens to the currently biased little prick in HoC.

In which case he’d not be the Speaker at all.

Nice to see the bad language rules only apply to us proles though.

[Carth]

Interesting reading, his role as speaker may not be all that secure . .

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7739351.html

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Carth

Interesting reading, his role as speaker may not be all that secure . .

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7739351.html

“archaic and blatantly anti-democratic”

Monarchy, House of Lords...

Pretty much the UK is archaic and blatantly anti-democratic. I, for one, cannot wait for its demise.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It's a perfectly good analogy. What's wrong with it?

It's much too far. The EU are not Nazi Germany and this Parliament are not the Vichy Government. We're not occupied by EU forces. Parliament very much is NOT increasing the powers of Boris Johnson. It's not sending Jewish people in Nazi concentration camps.

In what ways does the analogy make any sense?

It's the same as people saying Boris Johnson staged a coup. The country has lost its mind.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

It's much too far. The EU are not Nazi Germany and this Parliament are not the Vichy Government. We're not occupied by EU forces. Parliament very much is NOT increasing the powers of Boris Johnson. It's not sending Jewish people in Nazi concentration camps.

In what ways does the analogy make any sense?

It's the same as people saying Boris Johnson staged a coup. The country has lost its mind.

Well explained. I'm genuinely shocked that the events our grandparents fought a war over have been so easily forgotten and false equivalence sought from them. And like him or loath him, BoJo is currently only using the powers legally available to him.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Not really. It certainly doesn’t help you.

Article 50 is the mechanism in the “Treaty” of Lisbon. Which is a Treaty, is it not? To terminate membership

In the discussion Nomadking claimed the Backstop was illegal because it prevented the unilateral Withdrawl from an agreement. I.e. A.50 Treaty of Lisbon.

You then went off about the Vienna convention, which quite simply doesn’t apply in this instance because A.50 exists in the Treaty of Lisbon for this very purpose.

The backstop isn’t illegal, because it is not binding and we can choose to ignore it if we so wish. But the question over whether agreement of us leaving or not has been answered and is not in question.

So next time you try to put an amusing Gif on a post, make sure you fully understand what it is you’re trying to take the piss out of, or you may look a bit thick.

---------- Post added at 07:54 ---------- Previous post was at 07:51 ----------



Not to Hugh it isn’t.

Bless...

The Vienna Convention provides the overarching rules for treaties - it states that treaties cannot be unilaterally revoked, only bilaterally.

Again, hope this helps.

Originally Posted by jfman

In which case he’d not be the Speaker at all.

Nice to see the bad language rules only apply to us proles though.

You have been reading the wrong rules then....

Some forms of swearing have been allowed on this forum for some time. You're just not allowed to swear at or use offensive language at other members and that's the rule.

[jfman]

That’s odd because you gave me a warning for swearing (in asterisks) about Jacob Rees-Mogg. Must be on the wrong side of the Brexit debate.