Labour MP charged with Perverting Course of Justice

(my bold)
A vote in the House of Commons has been defeated by one vote after the Speaker John Bercow cast the deciding ballot. MPs were voting on a motion to hold more indicative votes on alternative plans for Brexit but the result was tied with 310 votes for and 310 against.
Mr Bercow then voted "no" in accordance with precedent.
BBC News site.
No, that was an earlier vote. Last night's was an attempt to prevent a no-deal departure from the EU - it passed by 313 votes to 312.

Had the MP for Peterborough not voted, it would have been a tie; by convention, the Speaker's casting vote would then have been "Nay" as you mention in your post.

How ironic that such an important and controversial vote in the Mother of Parliaments should have been decided by an "Aye" from a convicted perverter of the course of justice.
 
No, that was an earlier vote. Last night's was an attempt to prevent a no-deal departure from the EU - it passed by 313 votes to 312.

Had the MP for Peterborough not voted, it would have been a tie; by convention, the Speaker's casting vote would then have been "Nay" as you mention in your post.

How ironic that such an important and controversial vote in the Mother of Parliaments should have been decided by an "Aye" from a convicted perverter of the course of justice.
Agreed .... and from part of my Post #2148 ...

Future votes on Brexit could enter a situation in which they are won or lost by the whim of convicted criminal awaiting sentence deciding first whether to vote and second how to vote ... interesting times .
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
It appears that what "the people want" has no say in this matter.
That was a point that came up yesterday. An American friend sent me an email asking me to explain Brexit. I could've just said it was like plaiting snot but instead I sat down and tried to write something, from the beginning.

It was actually. quite depressing:


"Grab a coffee. This may go on.

David Cameron put a referendum in his election manifesto to try and scupper the U.K. Independence Party. Manifestos are non-binding in the U.K. but if he hadn’t held one he would have been accused of cowardice. The thing is, he never expected to lose.

That meant a campaign - from the government - of ‘information’ designed to ensure a Remain vote: dire warnings of the financial consequences; printing leaflets using public money on behalf of the Remain campaign but not the Leave campaign and so on.

Cameron was also explicit: this was a once-in-a-lifetime vote which would not be gone back on. It was also a straight Remain or Leave vote; no half measures. He lost. It was close but he lost. He then walked away leaving his mess to others to sort out.

The Remain campaign immediately claimed the moral high ground: it was so close that we needed a second vote; those who voted Leave were racists and bigots; the young voted Remain but will have to live with the consequences of a bigoted elderly Leave vote; and so on.

The reality is different, in my view. I voted Leave because of several factors. The EU is corrupt and has not published audited accounts in many years. There is a process of creeping federalism which threatens national sovereignty. We were supposed to be a trading bloc but suddenly, for instance, we have Germany dictating immigration policy. ...we are net financial contributors to the EU, so it is galling to see countries across Southern Europe failing to address massive tax fraud/non-payment, as well as subsidies simply disappearing into the hands of corrupt politicians and criminals. It is galling to see Greeks protesting at having to work past 55 when our retirement age is going up to 71.

I am not a racist or a bigot but the accusations from the Remain side of xenophobia and so on are deafening. I voted out because I am seeing the fabric of the nation changing and because the EU needs fundamental reform.

The Remain campaign says we will be destitute. The reality is that we have a symbiotic relationship with Europe. We are a third of the total market for German car manufacturers. They are looking at a three-day week if we leave without agreement. Merkel knows this, they have warned her, but she has ordered them to stay silent. Normandy is one of France’s poorest regions. Its principle industry is agriculture and its principle market the U.K. Without us, it’s stuffed. So, leaving isn’t all one-sided but the federalists continue to play a game of brinkmanship. That extends to threatening not to share intelligence on terrorism - yet we are by far the greater contributor on that score. They play dangerous games.

The vote was binary: Remain or Leave. It wasn’t about various shades of ‘Remain Lite’. Cameron was explicit on that, and his gambit failed. What should have happened was that we should have said to the EU ‘Our starting point is WTO rules - no deal. What can you offer which is better and benefits all?’

The problem is we have a political class that didn’t want to leave but which is now ignoring its electorate. Yes, the result was close... but that’s democracy. The EU has an agenda. Several other countries want out. The Southern European countries which have seen an influx of refugees in particular. The EU wants to make an example of the U.K. in order to scare them back into line. Too many politicians’ careers depend on it. So between domestic politicians’ leanings and EU politicians’ ambitions we have a bit of a mess.

No, we shouldn’t have a second vote. It was made clear at the outset that we wouldn’t. Increasingly, I err towards a No Deal (i.e. WTO rules) exit... because be damn sure that in no time at all, because of their car industries and so on, EU governments will be looking to cut deals with us. What we’ve seen only reinforces in my mind why I voted Leave.

I have a suspicion that if we had a second vote that the politicians would get a shock, not least because people feel dictated to. But a second vote would make a mockery of what democracy is supposed to be about. A vociferous socialist minority would be bullying the compliant political class to keep voting until it got the result that it - not the majority - wants."

...

I don't feel that that's an unfair summation.
 
That was a point that came up yesterday. An American friend sent me an email asking me to explain Brexit. I could've just said it was like plaiting snot but instead I sat down and tried to write something, from the beginning.

It was actually. quite depressing:


"Grab a coffee. This may go on.

David Cameron put a referendum in his election manifesto to try and scupper the U.K. Independence Party. Manifestos are non-binding in the U.K. but if he hadn’t held one he would have been accused of cowardice. The thing is, he never expected to lose.

That meant a campaign - from the government - of ‘information’ designed to ensure a Remain vote: dire warnings of the financial consequences; printing leaflets using public money on behalf of the Remain campaign but not the Leave campaign and so on.

Cameron was also explicit: this was a once-in-a-lifetime vote which would not be gone back on. It was also a straight Remain or Leave vote; no half measures. He lost. It was close but he lost. He then walked away leaving his mess to others to sort out.

The Remain campaign immediately claimed the moral high ground: it was so close that we needed a second vote; those who voted Leave were racists and bigots; the young voted Remain but will have to live with the consequences of a bigoted elderly Leave vote; and so on.

The reality is different, in my view. I voted Leave because of several factors. The EU is corrupt and has not published audited accounts in many years. There is a process of creeping federalism which threatens national sovereignty. We were supposed to be a trading bloc but suddenly, for instance, we have Germany dictating immigration policy. ...we are net financial contributors to the EU, so it is galling to see countries across Southern Europe failing to address massive tax fraud/non-payment, as well as subsidies simply disappearing into the hands of corrupt politicians and criminals. It is galling to see Greeks protesting at having to work past 55 when our retirement age is going up to 71.

I am not a racist or a bigot but the accusations from the Remain side of xenophobia and so on are deafening. I voted out because I am seeing the fabric of the nation changing and because the EU needs fundamental reform.

The Remain campaign says we will be destitute. The reality is that we have a symbiotic relationship with Europe. We are a third of the total market for German car manufacturers. They are looking at a three-day week if we leave without agreement. Merkel knows this, they have warned her, but she has ordered them to stay silent. Normandy is one of France’s poorest regions. Its principle industry is agriculture and its principle market the U.K. Without us, it’s stuffed. So, leaving isn’t all one-sided but the federalists continue to play a game of brinkmanship. That extends to threatening not to share intelligence on terrorism - yet we are by far the greater contributor on that score. They play dangerous games.

The vote was binary: Remain or Leave. It wasn’t about various shades of ‘Remain Lite’. Cameron was explicit on that, and his gambit failed. What should have happened was that we should have said to the EU ‘Our starting point is WTO rules - no deal. What can you offer which is better and benefits all?’

The problem is we have a political class that didn’t want to leave but which is now ignoring its electorate. Yes, the result was close... but that’s democracy. The EU has an agenda. Several other countries want out. The Southern European countries which have seen an influx of refugees in particular. The EU wants to make an example of the U.K. in order to scare them back into line. Too many politicians’ careers depend on it. So between domestic politicians’ leanings and EU politicians’ ambitions we have a bit of a mess.

No, we shouldn’t have a second vote. It was made clear at the outset that we wouldn’t. Increasingly, I err towards a No Deal (i.e. WTO rules) exit... because be damn sure that in no time at all, because of their car industries and so on, EU governments will be looking to cut deals with us. What we’ve seen only reinforces in my mind why I voted Leave.

I have a suspicion that if we had a second vote that the politicians would get a shock, not least because people feel dictated to. But a second vote would make a mockery of what democracy is supposed to be about. A vociferous socialist minority would be bullying the compliant political class to keep voting until it got the result that it - not the majority - wants."

...

I don't feel that that's an unfair summation.
What did your Septic friend say? Possibly:

"Uh huh. What's the Brit and EU policy on guns?"
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
What did your Septic friend say? Possibly:

"Uh huh. What's the Brit and EU policy on guns?"
He's a gay guy trying to live in the era of Trump. He's well-read, very cosmopolitan and centrist in his politics.

We went on to have a discussion about the pendulum effect and how things in various countries have swung too far to one side. Both of us are waiting for things to swing back - not so far in the other direction but to where the majority feel represented - or, to put it another way, to a place where extremists of whichever ilk don't get inordinate say/have inordinate influence.

A lot of people in this country don't realise how conservative the majority of the US remains. It's 'conservative' in the sense of being very buttoned-up and pretending that everything is fine when it isn't. All my friend and his partner are interested in is living life and being contributing members of society. They are not politically radical - they have very middle-class views and believe in family, respect and so non. They are not, as a lot of mainstream America would have it, predatory a**-f*cking pederasts. They leave that to members of the church.

He expresses a lot of the same concerns as many of us do: lowest-common-denominator bread-and-circuses policies; soundbites overriding considered debate; the general dumbing-down of society and a political class which doesn't/refuses to trust its electorate to have the intellectual capacity for considered debate; a political class which perhaps doesn't want an electorate capable of considered debate; and so on.

There's that old saw that the public gets the politicians it deserves. Equally, I'd put it that policies over the years have shaped the public - Trump is an example/consequence of a "We know best" attitude from politicians. The state we are in over Brexit is, too. However much they wrangle, and protest otherwise, it's clear that our politicians are being forced to do something that they don't want to, and they hate it.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
Not sure if this has been posted before, but:

Fiona Onasanya 'discriminated against disabled employee who had to use male toilet', tribunal hears
Disgraced MP Fiona Onasanya is accused of discriminating against a disabled employee who was told to use the male toilet because she couldn't climb the stairs, a tribunal heard

Jane Goodenough, who suffers from a host of medical problem, worked as a case worker for the former Labour MP on a part-time basis from September to November 2017. But Ms Goodenough, who has multiple sclerosis, IBS, heart problems, chronic fatigue and arthritis, said problems with access to disabled lifts, parking and toilets at the Eco Innovation Centre in Peterborough left her unable to work there.
Why the f--- did she think she was entitled to treat a disabled employee like that?

On the bright side, if she has to pay damages, she's going to be both an ex-MP and bankrupt.

1554377517434.png


Wordsmith
 

Blogg

LE
No, that was an earlier vote. Last night's was an attempt to prevent a no-deal departure from the EU - it passed by 313 votes to 312.

Had the MP for Peterborough not voted, it would have been a tie; by convention, the Speaker's casting vote would then have been "Nay" as you mention in your post.

How ironic that such an important and controversial vote in the Mother of Parliaments should have been decided by an "Aye" from a convicted perverter of the course of justice.
Who was also possibly in breach of her Curfew.

And back on court today as detailed above thanks to alleged mistreatment of a disabled employee
 
Who was also possibly in breach of her Curfew.

And back on court today as detailed above thanks to alleged mistreatment of a disabled employee
Given the dissertation level of 'conditions' that Ms Goodenough suffers, I'd be hunting down the all-inclusive clown that took her on in the first place: the woman's a walking compo claim.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
Who was also possibly in breach of her Curfew.

And back on court today as detailed above thanks to alleged mistreatment of a disabled employee
Let's be serious here, she was probably allowed to vote to end a stalemate, if she hadn't, it would've been a tie and can you honestly see Bercow voting "Nay", especially as he allowed it to be rushed through in 5 hours?
 
If that's gen and they cough up, it'll put some much needed funding into getting those poor ISIS members back to the UK.
Those luxury taxpayer funded houses in socialist boroughs don't come cheap.
 
That was a point that came up yesterday. An American friend sent me an email asking me to explain Brexit. I could've just said it was like plaiting snot but instead I sat down and tried to write something, from the beginning.

It was actually. quite depressing:


"Grab a coffee. This may go on.

David Cameron put a referendum in his election manifesto to try and scupper the U.K. Independence Party. Manifestos are non-binding in the U.K. but if he hadn’t held one he would have been accused of cowardice. The thing is, he never expected to lose.

That meant a campaign - from the government - of ‘information’ designed to ensure a Remain vote: dire warnings of the financial consequences; printing leaflets using public money on behalf of the Remain campaign but not the Leave campaign and so on.

Cameron was also explicit: this was a once-in-a-lifetime vote which would not be gone back on. It was also a straight Remain or Leave vote; no half measures. He lost. It was close but he lost. He then walked away leaving his mess to others to sort out.

The Remain campaign immediately claimed the moral high ground: it was so close that we needed a second vote; those who voted Leave were racists and bigots; the young voted Remain but will have to live with the consequences of a bigoted elderly Leave vote; and so on.

The reality is different, in my view. I voted Leave because of several factors. The EU is corrupt and has not published audited accounts in many years. There is a process of creeping federalism which threatens national sovereignty. We were supposed to be a trading bloc but suddenly, for instance, we have Germany dictating immigration policy. ...we are net financial contributors to the EU, so it is galling to see countries across Southern Europe failing to address massive tax fraud/non-payment, as well as subsidies simply disappearing into the hands of corrupt politicians and criminals. It is galling to see Greeks protesting at having to work past 55 when our retirement age is going up to 71.

I am not a racist or a bigot but the accusations from the Remain side of xenophobia and so on are deafening. I voted out because I am seeing the fabric of the nation changing and because the EU needs fundamental reform.

The Remain campaign says we will be destitute. The reality is that we have a symbiotic relationship with Europe. We are a third of the total market for German car manufacturers. They are looking at a three-day week if we leave without agreement. Merkel knows this, they have warned her, but she has ordered them to stay silent. Normandy is one of France’s poorest regions. Its principle industry is agriculture and its principle market the U.K. Without us, it’s stuffed. So, leaving isn’t all one-sided but the federalists continue to play a game of brinkmanship. That extends to threatening not to share intelligence on terrorism - yet we are by far the greater contributor on that score. They play dangerous games.

The vote was binary: Remain or Leave. It wasn’t about various shades of ‘Remain Lite’. Cameron was explicit on that, and his gambit failed. What should have happened was that we should have said to the EU ‘Our starting point is WTO rules - no deal. What can you offer which is better and benefits all?’

The problem is we have a political class that didn’t want to leave but which is now ignoring its electorate. Yes, the result was close... but that’s democracy. The EU has an agenda. Several other countries want out. The Southern European countries which have seen an influx of refugees in particular. The EU wants to make an example of the U.K. in order to scare them back into line. Too many politicians’ careers depend on it. So between domestic politicians’ leanings and EU politicians’ ambitions we have a bit of a mess.

No, we shouldn’t have a second vote. It was made clear at the outset that we wouldn’t. Increasingly, I err towards a No Deal (i.e. WTO rules) exit... because be damn sure that in no time at all, because of their car industries and so on, EU governments will be looking to cut deals with us. What we’ve seen only reinforces in my mind why I voted Leave.

I have a suspicion that if we had a second vote that the politicians would get a shock, not least because people feel dictated to. But a second vote would make a mockery of what democracy is supposed to be about. A vociferous socialist minority would be bullying the compliant political class to keep voting until it got the result that it - not the majority - wants."

...

I don't feel that that's an unfair summation.
An excellent post Well written, that man!.
 

anglo

LE
That was a point that came up yesterday. An American friend sent me an email asking me to explain Brexit. I could've just said it was like plaiting snot but instead I sat down and tried to write something, from the beginning.

It was actually. quite depressing:


"Grab a coffee. This may go on.

David Cameron put a referendum in his election manifesto to try and scupper the U.K. Independence Party. Manifestos are non-binding in the U.K. but if he hadn’t held one he would have been accused of cowardice. The thing is, he never expected to lose.

That meant a campaign - from the government - of ‘information’ designed to ensure a Remain vote: dire warnings of the financial consequences; printing leaflets using public money on behalf of the Remain campaign but not the Leave campaign and so on.

Cameron was also explicit: this was a once-in-a-lifetime vote which would not be gone back on. It was also a straight Remain or Leave vote; no half measures. He lost. It was close but he lost. He then walked away leaving his mess to others to sort out.

The Remain campaign immediately claimed the moral high ground: it was so close that we needed a second vote; those who voted Leave were racists and bigots; the young voted Remain but will have to live with the consequences of a bigoted elderly Leave vote; and so on.

The reality is different, in my view. I voted Leave because of several factors. The EU is corrupt and has not published audited accounts in many years. There is a process of creeping federalism which threatens national sovereignty. We were supposed to be a trading bloc but suddenly, for instance, we have Germany dictating immigration policy. ...we are net financial contributors to the EU, so it is galling to see countries across Southern Europe failing to address massive tax fraud/non-payment, as well as subsidies simply disappearing into the hands of corrupt politicians and criminals. It is galling to see Greeks protesting at having to work past 55 when our retirement age is going up to 71.

I am not a racist or a bigot but the accusations from the Remain side of xenophobia and so on are deafening. I voted out because I am seeing the fabric of the nation changing and because the EU needs fundamental reform.

The Remain campaign says we will be destitute. The reality is that we have a symbiotic relationship with Europe. We are a third of the total market for German car manufacturers. They are looking at a three-day week if we leave without agreement. Merkel knows this, they have warned her, but she has ordered them to stay silent. Normandy is one of France’s poorest regions. Its principle industry is agriculture and its principle market the U.K. Without us, it’s stuffed. So, leaving isn’t all one-sided but the federalists continue to play a game of brinkmanship. That extends to threatening not to share intelligence on terrorism - yet we are by far the greater contributor on that score. They play dangerous games.

The vote was binary: Remain or Leave. It wasn’t about various shades of ‘Remain Lite’. Cameron was explicit on that, and his gambit failed. What should have happened was that we should have said to the EU ‘Our starting point is WTO rules - no deal. What can you offer which is better and benefits all?’

The problem is we have a political class that didn’t want to leave but which is now ignoring its electorate. Yes, the result was close... but that’s democracy. The EU has an agenda. Several other countries want out. The Southern European countries which have seen an influx of refugees in particular. The EU wants to make an example of the U.K. in order to scare them back into line. Too many politicians’ careers depend on it. So between domestic politicians’ leanings and EU politicians’ ambitions we have a bit of a mess.

No, we shouldn’t have a second vote. It was made clear at the outset that we wouldn’t. Increasingly, I err towards a No Deal (i.e. WTO rules) exit... because be damn sure that in no time at all, because of their car industries and so on, EU governments will be looking to cut deals with us. What we’ve seen only reinforces in my mind why I voted Leave.

I have a suspicion that if we had a second vote that the politicians would get a shock, not least because people feel dictated to. But a second vote would make a mockery of what democracy is supposed to be about. A vociferous socialist minority would be bullying the compliant political class to keep voting until it got the result that it - not the majority - wants."

...

I don't feel that that's an unfair summation.
Do you mind if I use that very good post elsewhere
 

no_idea

War Hero
Let's be serious here, she was probably allowed to vote to end a stalemate, if she hadn't, it would've been a tie and can you honestly see Bercow voting "Nay", especially as he allowed it to be rushed through in 5 hours?
In the event of a tie Bercow would have been compelled, by Parliamentary precedent, to vote against the Bill, thereby defeating it. The Speaker is required to vote for the status quo, as happened with the earlier 310 - 310 vote.

The look on his face as he was forced to do this would have been quite something.
 

Latest Threads

Top