Many senators wanted to forbid the government from secretly collecting information about your internet habits, but an amendment failed by just one vote.
Many senators wanted to forbid the government from secretly collecting information about your internet habits, but an amendment failed by just one vote.
The measure needed 60 votes to pass. It got 59.
The outcome is especially frustrating since four senators didn’t vote on the amendment at all, and at least one would have voted yes. Lamar Alexander couldn’t vote because he’s quarantined. Two others — Ben Sasse and Bernie Sanders — didn’t respond to request for comment on where they were during the vote. An aide told Politico that Patty Murray would have voted yes had she been there, but the senator was not in Washington, DC, when the vote occurred.
Sen. Rand Paul on Tuesday introduced an amendment to the House-passed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to protect Americans’ privacy, citing the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn as an example of “abuse” and saying it “should never be allowed to happen again.”
Paul, R-Ky., who is an outspoken advocate for privacy reforms, proposed an amendment to the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020 – which passed the House on a bipartisan basis earlier this year – to protect Americans’ privacy, ensure due process and “reassert the Fourth Amendment.”
In the Senate in recent months, Republicans have joined Democrats to pass similar measures, but not enough to override a presidential veto.
Both Concerned Veterans for America and VoteVets have long argued that Congress needs to take back its power to declare war from the executive branch and put an end to the „Forever Wars“ by revoking the 2001 authorization for use of military force against Al Qaeda, which presidents have used to justify military operations all over the world.
The flurry of amendments to the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) moving through the House of Representatives is finally wrapping up Friday, where a series of Thursday night debates gave way to key votes early Friday on some contentious issues.
Major subjects of those debates included amendments that aim to end both the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF). The 2001 repeal passed 237-183, while the 2002 repeal passed even easier at 242-180.
Debates on the AUMF centered on concern that the authorizations could be used by President Trump or future presidents to authorize wars they were never intended for. The aim is to replace the 2001 version with something more current on the global war on terror, and to do away with the 2002 version entirely, since its main goal was to unseat the long-dead Saddam Hussein and conquer Iraq, now a US ally.
The House voted Friday to curb President Trump’s ability to strike Iran militarily on Friday, adopting a bipartisan provision that would require the president to get Congress’s approval before authorizing military force against Tehran.
(26.3.2019) MPs voted by 329 to 302 to back the Letwin amendment, led by former ministers Oliver Letwin and Dominic Grieve, which effectively allowed the Parliament to take control of the Brexit process, and delivered another blow to Prime Minister Theresa May.
The Guardian reported that 30 MPs from May’s party including three ministers voted for the amendment. The three ministers were also reported to have resigned.
Mrs May will next week bring her Brexit deal back to the Commons for a third meaningful vote.
She says that if it passes, she will then ask the EU for a „short technical extension“ until the end of June, to give Parliament the time to force through the necessary legislation.
But if the deal is defeated again, the PM has warned that Britain will have to stay in the EU beyond the summer and take part in European Parliament elections.
ca. 18:30 Uhr – LIVE – London:
Schaltgespräch mit ZDF-Korrespondentin Diana Zimmermann
anschl. – Brüssel:
Schaltgespräch mit ZDF-Korrespondent Stefan Leifert
anschl. – LIVE – London:
Brexit-Debatte im britischen Unterhaus über eine Verschiebung des Austritts-Datums
Zu Gast im Studio:
– Grahame Lucas (Britischer Journalist)
– Sigrid Fretlöh (EU-Expertin)
Meeting started at 9.33am
We live in a “representative democracy” – or so we tell ourselves. But who or what is the present parliament representing? Not the majority in the country, as expressed by in the 2016 referendum and the 2017 general election. Some two thirds of constituencies voted for Brexit – a vote that would give an unprecedented landslide majority in a parliamentary election – and yet most MPs still support Remain.
We would have to go back rather a long way to find a precedent, to a time when “democracy” was a dirty word.
– Watch the Brexit debate in the live stream above
– MPs to vote on Thursday afternoon on delaying Brexit
– Remainer plot to postpone Brexit by up to two years
– Brexiteer hopes pinned on Geoffrey Cox changing legal advice
– Will the EU allow an Article 50 extension that will delay Brexit?
– Nick Timothy: Mrs May is responsible for losing control of Brexit
– Nigel Farage: Brexit betrayal one of most shameful chapters in our history
Speaker John Bercow has refused to call the cross-party amendment B rejecting a second referendum, despite the fact that it was signed by 127 MPs including the entirety of the DUP and had numerous Labour MPs as leading co-signatories including Caroline Flint, Gareth Snell and John Mann. Shameless…
Instead Bercow has selected four amendments more to his own liking:
John Bercow, the speaker, says he is calling four amendments, plus an amendment to an amendment.
1) Sarah Wollaston’s – calling for an extension to article 50 to allow for time for a referendum on Brexit.
2) Hilary Benn’s – saying next Wednesday should be set aside for a debate that would start the process of allowing MPs to hold indicative votes on Brexit alternatives. There is also an amendment to this amendment, from Labour’s Lucy Powell, changing the timing.
3) Labour’s – saying article 50 should be extended to allow time for MPs to find a majority for a different approach to Brexit.
4) Chris Bryant’s – saying Theresa May should not be allowed to put her deal to the Commons again.
Go to Sky News for the latest on tonight’s vote: http://po.st/DqKz6E
Meeting started at 11.33am
France would block a delay to Brexit unless it had a “clear objective” based on a “new choice” by the British, Emmanuel Macron has said.
Speaking at a joint press conference with German chancellor Angela Merkel in Paris, the French president gave the clearest signal from an EU leader so far that there would be conditions on an extension to the Article 50 negotiating period.
MPs are now debating what steps should be taken next in the Brexit process. They will debate amendments put forward by MPs from across the House, with votes expected to start at around 7pm.
12.30pm: Urgent Questions, Ministerial Statements (if any)
Up to 20 minutes: Ten Minute Rule Motion: Planning (Affordable Housing and Land
Compensation) (Helen Hayes)
No debate: Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2)
Bill: Second and Third Reading
Until any hour*: Business of the House (Today) (Motion) (*if the 7.00pm Business of the House Motion is agreed to)
Until 7.00pm: UK’s withdrawal from the European Union
(19.2.2019) What role does Parliament have in extending Article 50?
Although it is not explicitly stated in UK legislation, Parliament is not thought to have a formal role in deciding whether the Article 50 process should be extended as a matter of EU law. Extension is ultimately a question that is resolved by the UK Government acting on the UK’s behalf, negotiating with the European Union.
(8. Dezember2016) A vote by MPs to back Theresa May’s Brexit plans was not legally binding, the Government’s lawyers have admitted.
James Eadie QC made the concession during the final day of Supreme Court appeal which is considering whether the Prime Minister has sufficient authority to trigger Article 50 without a vote by MPs.
A key part of the case against the Cooper-Letwin plan is that it is unlikely to work without a degree of Government support.
Labour chairman Ian Lavery was described as “very angry” as he branded the support for a second referendum “political suicide” – arguing that the move risks shedding votes in the Midlands and northern England.
Shadow Justice Secretary Richard Burgon attacked the leadership for failing to consult the shadow cabinet before announcing the U-turn – asking Mr Corbyn: “Why did we hear about it in the media?”
He has betrayed his party’s own manifesto in the 2017 general election, which promised to respect the outcome of the referendum. He has betrayed his old Labour mentors, most notably his hero Tony Benn, who was the left’s most articulate critic of the EU. And he has betrayed himself. He has betrayed his own longstanding and correct belief that the EU is an illiberal, undemocratic, anti-worker outrage of an institution. Has any politician ever betrayed so many people in such a short space of time?
Asked if that stance would put her on the “same side as Jeremy Corbyn”, Ms Thornberry replied: “Yeah. Of course.
“If there’s a choice between a disastrous Tory Brexit or no deal and Remaining, then that is what we will have to do.”
Labour’s 2017 manifesto says the party “accepts the referendum result” and will fight for “a Brexit deal that delivers for all regions and nations of the UK”.
The prime minister said she will put her withdrawal agreement – including any changes she has agreed with the EU – to a meaningful vote by 12 March.
If that fails, MPs will be offered two separate votes:
One, on the following day, on whether MPs support a no-deal Brexit – so the UK would „only leave without a deal on 29 March if there is explicit consent in the House for that outcome“
If that fails, then MPs will get a vote by 14 March on requesting an extension to the two-year Article 50 negotiation process to delay EU withdrawal beyond 29 March
Yvette Cooper, a senior Labour MP, and Sir Oliver Letwin, a senior Conservative MP, have been rallying support for a proposal that would force the government to hand power to parliament if no UK-EU withdrawal deal has been approved by March 13.
Under the proposal, which is set to be tabled as an amendment on Wednesday, the government would be legally obliged to offer MPs the option of requesting an extension in the Article 50 exit process beyond March 29.
Brexit-backing backbencher John Mann said the decision to endorse a so-called „People’s Vote“ would infuriate Leave supporters in the Midlands and north of England.
At a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party on Monday evening, the Bassetlaw MP told Mr Corbyn: „This decision will stop you being Prime Minister.“
Help us fight to save Brexit at leave.eu/get-involved
BBC News – Labour prepared to back new Brexit referendum
The Labour Party slumped by six points from 40 per cent to 34 per cent in the past fortnight, according to a survey by Opinium for The Observer, seeing them leapfrogged by the Conservatives who went from 37 per cent to 41 per cent.
She declared: “The leaders of the campaign for a second referendum had the chance to put their plan before the House of Commons a few days ago.
“But they recognised there is no majority in this Parliament to hold another vote. Indeed, I believe there never will be.”
MPs vote down proposal by Labour MP Yvette Cooper.
British opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said on Tuesday his party would back a three-month delay to Brexit if the government cannot get an exit deal approved by parliament before Feb. 26.
Das britische Parlament (House of Commons, „Unterhaus“) wird den am 29. März rechtskräftig werdenden Austritt des Landes aus der „Europäischen Union“ wieder aufheben und dessen „Verschiebung“ beschließen.
Damit fliegt die Demokratie-Simulation im Zuge der „Globalisierung“ auch im Vereinigten Königreich auf.
Analyse, Hintergründe, Livestream.
A group of between 10-15 MPs confronted Labour’s chief whip Nick Brown in his office last night demanding him explain the decision. Sources said the group included some of Mr Corbyn’s biggest leftie supporters.
One furious insider said: “How are we going to explain this when we claim not to be blocking Brexit but we’re effectively going to kick it into the long grass.”
It would mean Brexit would not happen and the UK would remain in the EU.
The other alternative is to extend the Article 50 period, allowing more time to finalise a deal, or perhaps come up with an alternative outcome via an election or another referendum.
The Prime Minister made a personal plea to her backbenchers to support a plan to renegotiate the Northern Irish backstop, but Eurosceptics refused on the grounds that it would not be legally binding.
On Monday night Downing Street frantically tried to claw back support by telling Brexiteers Mrs May will seek to reopen the EU Withdrawal…
– Jeremy Corbyn was asked whether he would back Yvette Cooper’s plan today
– He snapped ’no comment‘ at reporters and stalked off away from questions
– Labour sources said there would be no official position from the party today
– Cooper’s plan to delay Brexit instead of a no deal will be voted on tomorrow
– But it can only succeed if Corbyn tells all his MPs to vote for it in the Commons
However, only some amendments will be picked for a vote by the Speaker, John Bercow. Asked which ones the government might back, May’s spokesman said it was impossible to say before they were selected.
So the important votes will not be based on Mrs May’s plans, but on amendments to it.
The consequences could see Brexit delayed by nine months, a time-limit put on the backstop and calling a second referendum.
Bear with us, we’ll take you through them all step by step.
The British constitution is based on four things: statute law, common law, works of authority, and Parliamentary conventions. These conventions exist for a reason. They’re unwritten understandings about how something in Parliament should be done which, although not legally enforceable, until now has been almost universally observed.
To the public, process is arcane, boring, and sometimes incomprehensible. But given that we lack a written constitution, it is important, and Parliament must be conducted in a manner which is recognised and respected.
(24.1.2019) The gang of Labour and Tory MPs who were backing a so-called People’s Vote blasted Jeremy Corbyn for killing off their chances of winning.
Tory MP Dr Sarah Wollaston had planned to table the ‚doctor’s amendment‘ to next Tuesday’s crunch Brexit motion to demand a second referendum.
But stood outside Parliament this morning flanked by pro-EU Labour MPs Luciana Berger and Chuka Umunna, she announced a U-turn.
Members of the the cross-party People’s Vote campaign have admitted they don’t yet have enough support from MPs to get another EU referendum.
(20.1.2019) The results came as at least two cross-party groups of MPs plan to table amendments in the House of Commons to delay or frustrate Mrs May’s Brexit plans.
One group, including senior Labour MP Yvette Cooper and Tory former minister Nick Boles, is backing a bill to suspend the Article 50 withdrawal process if there is no new deal with Brussels by the end of February.
Having been a Labour member since the 80’s, he told LBC: “If Jeremy Corbyn goes for a People’s Vote and there’s a general election I will not vote for Labour.
“I will not vote Labour again, I’m absolutely sickened.”
He then turned his anger towards Labour MPs, who he accused of “acting disgracefully”.
Indeed, some of the more stinging critiques have come from the left. Guardian columnist Owen Jones, a supporter of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, declared the People’s Vote campaign an ‘absolute disaster’. If there is another referendum, he says, ‘and they run the Remain campaign, we might as well chalk up a second Leave victory now’.
(22.1.2019) Pro-Remain MPs and officials on the People’s Vote campaign are split on the overarching strategy of how to secure a public vote, on campaign events and tactics, whether People’s Vote should run the Remain campaign if a second referendum is called, and over the actions and motivations of its leading politicians, the sources said.
The ongoing internal wrangling is making it less likely that the Labour party will ultimately back a public vote, a shadow minister and a senior Labour backbencher told BuzzFeed News.
(1.2.2017) She added: “Are we going to vote with the Tories come what may? This is a question of opening the process. We will seek to amend and, if we are not able to get any of our amendments through, clearly we will have to review our position.”
(22.1.2018) Labour’s move was welcomed by a leading anti-Brexit campaigner.
Speaking to The Daily Telegraph Eloise Todd, chief executive of Best for Britain, claimed it represented “a momentous day in our campaign”.
She added: “Labour have put a second referendum on the table with this amendment and this is a massive step forward.”
Re-released today – Best of Tony Benn – talks European union (todays EU) and democracy to Roy Jenkins in 1975 – These are the highlights and have never sounded more relevant than today with the Brexit debate.
For full debate see playlist. Subscribe to our channel and share our playlists if you agree with Tony Benn.
Comments welcome below on anything to do with the current EU / Brexit debate.
The left leave case for democracy from Tony Benn – President of the Stop the War Coalition – 2001 – 2014 –
Tony Benn 1975 European Communities debate highlights
With thanks to Why Vote Leave
When young children are losing at board games they demand to change the rules. Yet this same juvenile intent drives the cabal of democracy defying MPs.
Speaking to BBC business editor Simon Jack in Davos, Mr Osborne said that the prospect of no deal meant „the gun is held to the British economy’s head“.
„Russian roulette is a game which you should never play because there’s a one-in-six chance that the bullet goes into your head,“ he said.
(20.1.2019) Former Ukip leader says he will ‘re-enter the fray’ if Brexit is put back beyond 29 March
– Corbyn tables amendment for Government to debate alternative Brexit plans
– It would require the Government to give Parliament time to legislate for new vote
– Mr Corbyn’s move is the closest he has come to backing a second referendum
– The move reflects the pressure he is under from party members to shift to a position of trying to block Brexit
Join us: studentsforbrexit.com
Some deal or proposition that can command a Commons majority, versus—what?
Corbyn’s move, tabled on Monday night, “requires” ministers to vote on alternatives that would avoid a no-deal Brexit.
Corbyn’s u-turn came Labour MPs today openly defied Jeremy Corbyn by heading for a Downing Street meeting with Theresa May’s top aides.
Chuka Umunna, Chris Leslie and other leading moderates visited the Cabinet Office this morning for talks with ministers along with Tories such as Anna Soubry.
Jeremy Corbyn has endorsed a plan to force a second EU referendum as he bowed to pressure from Labour party members and MPs.
Mr Corbyn wants the Government to give MPs the final say next week on a second referendum. If a majority back a referendum, Parliament could force Theresa May to hold a new in/out public vote that could lead to Brexit being reversed.
as ever, it’s worth reading a lawyer’s exact words rather than simply accepting assurances about intent. Here is the precise wording (with my emphasis):
‘…a Motion in connection with the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union in the name of at least 300 Members of the House elected to the House as members of at least five parties and including at least 10 Members elected to the House as members of the party in Government shall stand as the first item of business;’
So such a motion would not require the support of ten MPs from the governing party, only ten MPs ‘elected to the House as members’ of such a party. In other words, MPs who had defected, or resigned the Whip, or been expelled from the governing party would still count as lending support from the Government benches. How convenient.
Copy of the letter of complaint sent to Sunday Times from Sir David Natzler, Clerk of the House of Commons:
I write as Head of the House of Commons service to complain formally about the article published on the front page of The Sunday Times on 20th January.
Your claim that a named official was “drawing up plans to overturn the normal rules of parliament” in support of “rebel MPs” are insinuations of improper behaviour and support for a particular political position, and a gross misrepresentation of the nature of the relationship between Clerks and Members of Parliament. Providing advice to MPs is a key part of the job of Clerks. MPs from all parties and with a range of views will regularly approach the Clerks to get advice on how to get their view into a motion or amendment, or how to draft a Private Member’s Bill on a particular topic. They will offer such advice regardless of any personal views on the subject.
The pro-EU Tory will this week table an amendment which would give a minority of MPs the power to keep Britain in the EU.
He wants to hijack the Commons statement being made today by Theresa May on the way forward for Brexit.
If successful, his amendment would allow Article 50 to be suspended indefinitely on the say-so of 300 MPs.
Leaked emails obtained by this newspaper show that Dominic Grieve, the former attorney-general, has been in secret communications with Colin Lee, the clerk of bills, with the explicit intention of suspending Britain’s departure from the European Union.
Lee drew up three versions of the plan for Grieve — each of which would overturn centuries of parliamentary precedent — and then swore him to secrecy.
9:02 AM – 18 Jan 2019
May’s spokesman said the vote due to be held on 29 January was not “a second meaningful vote” and the government’s motion would not spell out in detail the next stage of the prime minister’s plan to get a Brexit agreement through parliament.
Instead, it is likely to be a vehicle for multiple solutions from backbench and opposition MPs, who will attempt to amend it.
Shifty Dominic Grieve fancies himself as a Remain superhero, outwitting the Government to rob 17.4million voters.
He doesn’t give a damn about the little people, of course, being a grand QC and former Attorney General.
But Grieve is doing catastrophic harm to his party, to Parliament and our democracy. History won’t be kind to him.
As you might expect from Grieve, a QC, it’s well put-together. It identifies a weak point in Britain’s constitutional architecture, and proposes to take a shot. If he hits his target, it might not just take down Brexit but a whole lot more besides.
If his amendment passes a minority of 300 MPs across five parties – with only 10 Tories needed – would be able to control the parliamentary agenda. Effectively creating a minority opposition controlled legislature.
Legislation could then be tabled by backbenchers to block a no-deal Brexit — something for which there is likely to be a Commons majority.
Previously it has been thought that only the executive would be able to extend or revoke Article 50 to stop the UK crashing out of the EU without a deal.
The calamitous situation in Parliament is being exploited by a small band of MPs determined to use any mechanism, however constitutionally absurd and deleterious to the public’s faith in our democratic institutions, to stop Brexit.
The move, which was launched by Labour’s Yvette Cooper, demands Parliamentary approval for a withdrawal agreement by February 26.
And if the Prime Minister fails, MPs would automatically get the chance to extend Article 50 and delay our exit until the end of the year or even 2020.
The bill is supported by senior backbenchers, including Select Committee chairs and former ministers, from across the House.
Europhile Grieve is working with other Remainers, including Labour rebels, to try and block the UK leaving the EU on March 29 without an agreement with Brussels.
They plan to put their motion to a vote in Parliament which if backed by 300 MPs could spark legislation to extend or revoke Article 50.
That would be considered highly controversial as it would challenge the unwritten constitution that only an elected majority government can control UK policy.
And there is only one possible name for this one. It has to be the Parliament of Pygmies, presided over as it is by the pygmy-in-chief, Speaker John Bercow, who, early in his period of office, was denounced by one infuriated Minister as a ‘sanctimonious, stupid dwarf’.
Ordinarily all this would be no more than matter for wry amusement. But the times are anything but ordinary. So strange are they, in fact, that the pygmies think they are giants and ape the gestures of the parliamentary greats of the past.
Commons Speaker John Bercow secretly met Tory rebel Dominic Grieve just hours before throwing out centuries of tradition to allow the MP to scupper Theresa May’s Brexit plans.
The pair spoke in Mr Bercow’s grace-and-favour Commons apartment the day before the Speaker tore up the rule book to allow the former Attorney General to table an amendment to wrest control of Brexit from the Prime Minister, The Mail on Sunday can reveal
SPEAKER John Bercow hurled insults at aides and binned their advice when they tried to warn against anti-Brexit bias, it was claimed yesterday.
He allegedly bawled them down and declared: “I’m not interested in what a gaggle of clerks has to say.”
The astonishing clash came two hours before he ripped up the Commons rule book to allow rebel MPs the chance to frustrate Britain’s exit from the EU.
But if you think the only thing that matters is that a majority voted to leave the EU in the referendum, then you are likely to think Mr Bercow is a dishonest and biased scoundrel who has broken the rules in his determination to stop Brexit.
It is possible to take a different view of the Speaker’s behaviour. For a start it is entirely consistent with the way that he has done the job over the past 10 years – when a majority of MPs have repeatedly chosen to keep him in the chair.
Those 308 MPs were not voting to take back control of Brexit from the government, but from the 17.4million people who voted to leave the EU. They are not ‘rebels’ but the cross-party political wing of the Remain-backing UK establishment, determined to thwart the democratic vote for Brexit at all costs.
Far from defending democracy, Bercow was acting as the agent of this elitist ‘coup’.
The controversy sparked a near riot in Parliament as Brexiteers shouted their fury at the Speaker.
Amid scenes of chaos on the Commons floor, one livid Cabinet minister confronted Mr Bercow just before PMQs to accuse him of being “totally out of order”.
The Sun can reveal that seething Chief Whip Julian Smith – one of Mrs May’s closest lieutenants – accused Mr Bercow of “throwing centuries of precedence in the bin to thwart the referendum result”.
Prisons Minister Rory Stewart has been a doughty defender of Theresa May’s deal in the past weeks.
The ruling by Mr Bercow, whose relationship with the government has been rancorous for years and has deteriorated over recent months, began a procedural row lasting more than an hour in the Commons as Conservative MPs accused him of “sophistry” and bias, Labour MPs applauded him and the Speaker refused to deny that he had overruled…
Whatever shape Brexit takes, the effects of this unilateral change to parliamentary rules will be felt for a long time
Then there’s the matter of how the Commons works in the future, long after Bercow has gone. Does this mean that another Speaker can change procedure as he pleases, even against the advice of his own clerks? How can the Commons prevent this leading to the next referee being so obviously lacking in neutrality that their authority is even less than Bercow’s?
Given the propensity of thought-to-be-lost Morecambe and Wise episodes to turn up decades later in west African cinema store cupboards, we must advise the parliamentary archivists immediately to incinerate all recorded footage of the House of Commons between 12.41 and 13.53 on the afternoon of Wednesday 9 January 2019, and promptly blast the ashes deep into outer space.
Actually, perhaps that’s too risky.
It is true to say that you cannot really make an argument that Bercow’s action is supported by precedent or the rules of the House. What matters is if they are supported by the one rule of British politics that does matter: do you have a majority in the House of Commons? If you have a majority in the House of Commons, it doesn’t matter if you are found to have misled MPs, provided that majority is willing to sustain you in office. It doesn’t matter if you are upending centuries of precedent, because the only precedent that matters in our constitution is that Parliament can do whatever it wants.
Furious Brexiteers raise questions about the Remain-supporting Speaker in angry parliamentary exchanges.
Raising a point of order after PMQs, he said: “Mr Speaker, I have not been in this House as long as you but I have been here for 18 years and I have never known any occasion when any Speaker has overruled a motion of the House of Commons. “You have said again and again you’re a servant of this House and we take you at your word, and I have heard you many times on points of order when people have challenged you say ‘I cannot do X or Y because I am bound by a motion of the House’. “You have done that multiple times in my experience, so why are you overruling this today?”
Follow the #Brexit debate here: http://po.st/FKBjwo
I suspect that, one way or another, Mr Bercow’s turbulent tenure in the Commons chair is coming to an end.
Perhaps in months rather than weeks, but not before the big Brexit votes (and it’s not impossible that somewhere along the way, he might have to make this kind of ruling again).
The basic question his would-be successors will have to answer is how much of the Bercow revolution in the way the Commons works should be scrapped – and how much should be retained?
A row has broken out in the House of Commons over #Brexit – follow the latest here: http://po.st/FKBjwo
> MPs have voted by 308 to 297 to force Theresa May to return to the Commons with a Brexit plan in just three days if her current deal is defeated
> Tory MPs accused Commons Speaker John Bercow of not being impartial on Brexit – but he denied the charges.
By 321 votes to 299 the Government was defeated on the vote over Mr Grieve’s amendment, which will allow MPs to vote on amendments to the EU exit deal if it is defeated in next week’s meaningful vote. Mrs May’s Government had already been defeated in two shock votes in the House of Commons this evening as an ongoing contempt row threatens to derail the start of five days of Brexit debate. Mr Grieve’s victory will allow the final Brexit deal to be repeatedly amended – ending Mrs May’s threats of her Brexit deal or no deal.