BBC article

we simply cannot claim that the Speaker is unimpeachable on a Monday, as Clegg did, and then argue the toss over something like this on a Tuesday

Why not? Questions about the personal probity of the speaker are different from questions about parliamentary procedure. Or, to put it another way, “don’t hate the player, hate the game”. It’s perfectly possible that, on some issues, the speaker has been unjustly criticised, in which case he deserves to be left alone. We reserve our criticism for when we think that a genuine wrong has been committed. The alternative would be to cry ‘wolf!’ every time we think that someone might be listening, and I’m not sure how much good that would do us in the long run.

My point is we can’t keep playing this game of obsequiously backing the establishment while protesting every time it doesn’t work in our favour.

I think that our aim here is to change the system, not to change the personnel. Suppose we did go for Martin’s scalp, and suppose that, following a lengthy campaign in the papers, he was removed from office. What’s the long-term achievement here? This is why jumping on the media bandwagon over expenses was not necessarily good politics. Whether or not the people get to vote on the EU is a far bigger issue that Mrs. Martin’s taxi fares, and is therefore the issue to take a stand on.

All of this talk of going along with tabling an amendment in good faith strikes me as politically naive and entirely lacking in strategic nous. The more you insist on this, the worse it makes the Parliamentary Party’s position sound.

So, you’re saying that to have continued to protest after going through the procedure was wrong. But how else are we meant to demonstrate the unfairness of the system? We have to play the game if we’re going to show people that the game doesn’t work. If we never bothered to table the amendment correctly, our claims of unfairness would have no evidence to back them up.

You seem to be saying that we make ourselves look bad by trying to use the system then refusing to accept the result, but I simply draw the opposite conclusion. We needed to do it to prove that it doesn’t work.

There are lots of reasons to put the boot into Martin at the moment. The fact that he has lead opposition to moves towards greater transparency in MP expenses for one (the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill came directly from the Speaker’s committee). Clegg had an opportunity to raise this point on Monday; he specifically did not.

My point is we can’t keep playing this game of obsequiously backing the establishment while protesting every time it doesn’t work in our favour. It’s like football supporters chanting “The referee’s an arsehole! But efforts to get rid of him are a bit of a witch hunt.”

All of this talk of going along with tabling an amendment in good faith strikes me as politically naive and entirely lacking in strategic nous. The more you insist on this, the worse it makes the Parliamentary Party’s position sound.

I’m more inclined to go with Alex W’s broader point in the other thread: “It’s ludicrous . . . that a major party can’t get a major issue tabled for debate. This is a democracy, not a gentlemen’s club.”

On the other hand, this is probably making great reading for constitutional politics students

I find it astonishing that nowhere is it set out the criteria the Speaker uses in selecting amendments. It really does seem to be completely Speaker’s discretion, with the only sanction at the end of the day being the ultimate one of removing the Speaker, if MPs are sufficiently unhappy with him/her.

In the circumstances it is not surprising that I have heard it suggested that the Speaker decided it was in his best interests to keep the Labour and (especially) Conservative front benches sweet at the cost of p*ssing off the Liberal Democrats on this occasion.

The UK has always been able to leave the EU at any time it chooses, without Article 50. What do you think would have happened if the 1975 referendum had resulted in a “no” vote? The papers with contingency plans for withdrawal in that event are in the National Archives.

The purpose of Article 50 is to make withdrawal of a member state a matter of EU law, rather than national law, and therefore subject to the (at least tacit) approval of the ECJ. Rather than facilitating withdrawal, it is in fact an attempt to impede it.

And they decided it was – which is one of the reason why the Liberal Democrat MPs repeatedly protested at the Deputy Speaker’s suggestion that the issue is raised through “the normal channels” – because the wording had gone back and forth numerous times already to get to a point where the House authorities were happy to accept it.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk:80/pa/cm200708/cmagenda/ob80226.htm

The Motion proposed by the Prime Minister:

“That this House approves the Government’s policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning the effectiveness of the EU institutions and EU decision-making.”

The amendment which the Liberal Democrats tabled:

“Line 3, at end add ‘except that this House considers that, in the light of Article 1, paragraph 58 of the Treaty of Lisbon, inserting into the Treaty on European Union Article 49A which provides for Member States to withdraw from the Union in accordance with their own constitutional requirements, the Government should declare its intention that, once the Treaty of Lisbon has come into force, there will be a referendum on the United Kingdom’s continuing membership of the European Union.’.”

I’m a) sceptical that the clerks accepted anything other than the fact that the language of the amendment was in order, which I have no doubt it was. That’s what clerks do: they go through your bill or amendment, line by line, and ensure the language is clear and suitable.

The issue regarding whether it was acceptable for debate is outside of their competence to determine, quite properly. If an individual gave Heath and Hughes a nod and a wink, then they shouldn’t have done.

I would also put it to you that the clerks don’t have a monopoly of wisdom (nor does the Speaker for that matter).

Earlier you were agreeing with Dave H that the Lib Dem attempt to have an amendment selected “was not even within the remit of discussion on the Lisbon Treaty”. But if the clerks accepted it was in order, then it clearly was within the remit.

No, of course that doesn’t mean the Speaker *has* to accept it – and Mark never for a moment suggested he did – but it does beg the question: why wasn’t it selected if it was perfectly in order?

Amendments get drafted by the clerks every day which don’t get selected for debate. Unless you are claiming that they had a copper bottomed guarantee from Martin that he would accept the amendment, then this is a silly argument.

Letting someone put something down and then at the last moment saying, “oh, we’ve changed our mind, no vote after all” is just the sort of absurd way to run a democratic body I’d normally expect you to be criticising

But of course there has never been anything to stop us from leaving the EU. All Lisbon does is provide a clear framework (and some guarantees that we would be treated fairly if we chose this course of action).

Sort of a catch 22.