Wasn’t it a “retiring if” call?
As in, he’s left the option there.
I think he said after a GE or 31st Oct. Whichever comes first.
@saintbletch should be more woke to plagiarists.
This was on FB in much funnier form a long time ago.
Maybe, like me, he won’t touch FB with a barge pole 
1 Like
Yes, I know. He needs removing immediately, if not sooner.
1 Like
The voice of reason, well said 
I rest my case.
He had no choice really. Government brought back exactly the same motion.
He’s got the biggest case of small man syndrome on Earth.
I say this as a short arse.
I thought it was “if we leave on 31st”.
And that news* will probably turn @scotty and @CB-Saint into instant stayers, as i’m sure they’d both feel there was a void that couldn’t be filled when the great man steps down
* guess/vague memory
Bercow has been a very good leader of the opposition
1 Like
1 Like
He’s opposed attempts to subvert parliamentary democracy and he’s amusing(really). Does love the sound of his own voice though, can’t deny that.
After May and what happened with her attempts at the same, today’s play was no more than theatre. I’m embarrassed our media portray it as they do.
Bercow is an arse, and on at least one job requirement, impartiality, he has to go down as the worst speaker in living memory. His defenders will praise him for allowing the range of speech he has allowed in this Parliament, and rightly so.
All that is null and void if the Speaker has an agenda, and prevents votes from happening to serve that agenda. He is supposed to be the arbiter of our parliamentary procedures. He is abusing his power, having private, undocumented meetings with the head of the European Parliament.
He is a disgrace, and he does not deserve support just because people may happen to agree with his agenda. Under any normal circumstance, he would have been sacked long ago.
With a Parliament that is ostensibly majority Remain, he gets that support, and it is the only reason he’s still in that job.
1 Like
Have you started reading the Mail and the Sun pap? Refusing the vote yesterday was perfectly proper and expected. Not sure there was anything underhand about meeting Sassoli either.
2 Likes
Didn’t he do May’s deal, three times, when the substance was exactly the same?
So he’s not biased then?
In answer to your question, I do not read The S*n at all, ever. I do not click The S*n internet links. I was always very proud of @unionhotel for refusing to have it in his house, and I am always very proud of Liverpool for not having it in the city.
I will sometimes click a Mail link, and with qualification, even post a Mail link. I do not visit their site on purpose.
His excuse for refusing yesterday’s vote was that the motion had not changed. May’s motion didn’t change either, and without the support of the DUP, had little chance of getting through.
Why’d he allow May’s unchanged motion to be presented to the HoC three times and refuse a second reading of the Boris deal?
Especially if the HoC might vote on it tonight?