John Bercow explains use of casting vote to block Brexit indicative votes 

Can you please teach me what are "backbench indicstive votes" in this matter about?

Oh, for more chances this friday to find support for any kind of brexit deal... I found explanation

Phaedrus Socrates Backbench MP’s are trying to (for the first time ever and the 3rd time in a week) take control of the business of the house for one day. Meaning they would choose what motions to debate and vote on for that day. The business of the house (what motions are put forward for debate and therefore what laws / policies are voted on) is always decided by the government of the day but MP’s who are unhappy with the government’s handling of Brexit have now taken control of the House of Commons for 2 days and voted on a variety of motions relating to Brexit. None of them achieved a majority.

He was awful

Probably one of the few occasions in the Brexit process where he was non-partisan. But thankfully he was bound by Speaker Dennison's rule.

He didn't come up with those lines. It's a custom that the Speaker casts his/her vote with the noes.

@@ewouthonig371 not always. The speaker cast the casting vote 'to maintain the status quo' or to have 'further debate'. A speaker would vote 'no' to a closure motion, final passage of a bill, a no confidence motion or to an amendment BUT would vote 'aye' to pass a bill on its first reading as this passes it for a formal debate in the house of commons for a second reading.

Thats a precedent in the UK house of commons. The Speaker has to renounce party and political affiliation before taking the chair and it is a long established and well regarded practice by Speakers of the HOC to vote in such a way as to prevent changing the status quo if there is not a majority of MPs voting that way. The idea is the speaker is not the one who should create a majority where none exists. It guarantees the Speaker does not overrule the will of the people who, through their MPs, have not provided a majority for supporting the legislation in question.

Speaker Betty Boothroyd. RU-vid has video.

That's very interesting

And in the end the casting vote wasn't needed due to a tabulation error.

He's the only Tory with my respect

Too much credit. He casts his vote "according to precedents". This is how it's always done.

TheLionBrony96 he’s technically non-aligned. The Speaker is neutral

Now what? Want a medal or something?

And it wasn't even needed.

*Betty

Reg Munday funnily enough it was to do with the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty

Bercow's explanation does make sense. But equally true, his absolute faith and confidence in himself was on clear display as he lectured people about how he's doing his job perfectly. I think Bercow's love for himself is well-earned, since he's an exceedingly competent and charismatic speaker. The job itself calls for a strong degree of leadership and certainty, so it's a good match for him. That said, the man is clearly in love with himself, and cherishes every moment that he gets to be the center of attention.

Aaron Fisher Let him have it

@@G.Aaron.Fisher Not a bad thing in moderation

He's obviously kept 50 percent happy and 50 percent upset lol

@@G.Aaron.Fisher "the man is clearly in love with himself": so says the Anonymouse who doesn't know him anymore than I do. And I choose to have an, (though totally appropriate given he's quite taken), massive crush on him 😀

He's just following the precedents set before him

Oh sweet jesus why does everybody here think Bercow came up with this explanation and solution all by himself?!?! It is HOW IT'S DONE, regardless what HE thinks or wants.

No, Betty Boothroid put it far better shen she was the Speaker.

No, no no no no no. He's got work to do in my countrys Senate first! :P

Yeah, me too!

WolfyOfHonor indicative votes

A vote on Labour MP Hilary Benn’s plan to once again ask the Commons to back a range of Brexit outcomes resulted in a tie - with both supporters and opponents registering 310 votes each. That led Bercow to deliver the casting vote. Delivering his verdict, Bercow said: “In accordance with precedent and on the principle that important decisions should not be taken except by a majority I cast my vote with the Noes.” That handed the government victory by one vote. The result means there are now no plans to hold indicative votes on Monday, although Theresa May has vowed to use that mechanism to help break the Brexit logjam if she and Jeremy Corbyn are unable to agree a deal. In a subsequent vote allowing the Commons to vote on a bill making it the law for Theresa May to ask for a Brexit delay, the government lost by just one vote - 311 to 312. MPs have had two rounds of indicative votes in the past week, but no plan has received the backing of a majority. A proposal for the UK to enter into a customs union with the EU came closest to success, losing by three votes.

Thank you, all 3

@@Jezz_Mcfly Thank you

Nothing is getting done because of the extreme partisanship. Also, Mr Bercow clearly knows more about his job than Ms Pelosi does about hers. She replaced the worst House Speaker of my lifetime, Ryan. Despite it being her second stab at the job, she's not a lot better at it.

That is partly because in the UK the Speaker is no longer a member of a political party and in elections they stand as 'Speaker seaking re-election' and the main parties, by tradition, do not stand candidates against him/her.

Technically, it's more "ORR-Duh" or even "Orr-Da!". But I like him and hate pointing out that he's defied English convention by having the unmitigated gall of pronouncing an "R" at all! He could be in grave danger of being accused of being part Uhmareuhkun!

No. because it is a motion to apportion time. It ousts other business unless the sitting were extended. So it is a final decision.

@@keithcross2102 What other business is more important right now? The question of Speaker casting a vote is a question of responsibility to a greater cause and therefore it never should be just a simple rule or based on a precedent, but each situation should be assessed on its own. Since discussion and indicative votes are not political decisions or policies making, there was no burden on him, nor potential partiality, in creating a majority for anything definitive at this time, yet the motion was significant and useful enough to support it with "aye". If I was him I would take a five minutes break and think first and try to avoid making snap judgements in these kind of situations.

@@abilityoflove This was an amendment to business of the house, the speaker voted with the government as there would be no further discussion on the amendment if passed. It is irrelevant that the amendment itself would have allowed further discussion on another topic.

@@clioaspinade9275 Yes, it is obviously what he did, but how did you arrive at "irrelevant" in this situation, I wonder?

@@abilityoflove He made the decision on the procedure for passing the amendment - not the content of the amendment. The content is irrelevant to the casting vote convention. As there was no more discussion to be made on the passing, he made the correct decision.

"The eyes to the right". "The nose have it".

The ayes to the right, the nose to the left.

Order ordeeeeer

And it is a beautiful sight to behold, and even better to listen to :)

diesel92kj1 it was the correct decision precedent says that the casting vote should not pass legislation it should only be used to extend debate or block it that’s what happened if you don’t like it find another MP to support the bill

How do you work that out? His decision and behaviour was entirely proper and orderly

@@wargey3431 This was not a vote to pass legislation, it was not a bill, it was an amendment to business of the house. As there is no second or third reading to such an amendment he voted with the government.

Clio Aspinade yes I know he said if it had been it wasn’t he can’t make a majority apart from to advance a bill to a father reading and he can’t make a majority for something the house could not make a majority for at final reading as such he had to rule with the govt of it had been the government trying to pass something and it had been even he would have done the same

Why don't you put yourself forward then? Go on! Clearly you're a very passionate individual who really wants to improve life for a select few that we don't care about... So I'm sure we'd all be very impressed when you show us your ideas.

@Graham Stroud We absolutely do not want a far right English centric party. Why don't you face facts and realise that this political and economic union on the island of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is finished. Those who have condemned the European Union have failed at the same time to recognise similar and many times worse flaws in our own union and have shown no desire to rectify those whilst criticising the EU. So, to hell with your so called United Kingdom as clearly, the predominantly English parliament is unfit to organise their own affairs let alone be the major stakeholder in an union. To cap it all off, so many of you right wingers complain about Germany, and sometimes France, trying to be the major influencer of the EU whilst all the time blatantly ignoring that England enjoys that very same position in the United Kingdom.

Britains finest moment was in it's stand against the far right, it was a five year period called WW2.

Read V for Vendetta. It's fictional but the society it produce was far less than optimal. Or are you so arrogant you think you can make the best decisions for all? If so, perhaps a bit of reading about Henry Tudor might bring some enlightenment.