House of Commons Debates Same-Sex Marriage

[San Leggera]

Anyone got the link to the stream? Mine crashed and forced me to refresh but the BBC changed the page >.<

[Ostroeuropa]

481 - 34
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21325702

[Genivaria]

First France now the UK.
EUROPE! EUROPE! EUROPE!

[Jormengand]

The ayes have it!

[Great Nepal]

Each bill has 3 readings
They approved it on the second reading now 400 to 175
They voted to get it into the third reading 499 to 55
The reason the margins are higher is because the Tories are whipped to vote it through to the 3rd reading
After 3rd reading it goes to the Lords and then the Queen

They vote on same bill three times? What is the fucking purpose of that... do MP's not read the bill on first go or something.

[Souseiseki]

You mean, how is it narrow-minded for Tory MPs to vote against a bill that doesn't affect them personally in any way, shape or form, nor harm anyone else in any way, shape or form, simply because they have an aversion to legal equality based upon an outdated and non-exclusive definition of marriage?

The question answers itself.

The role of a Member of Parliament is to represent the interests of their constituents in the legislative chamber of this land. MPs should not vote on bills whilst relying merely on their personal whims and self-interests. So if a significant number of constituents write to their representative calling for him to vote against a bill they feel strongly about, what else can he do?

is there any limit to what an MP should support if he gets enough angry letters

Anyone got the link to the stream? Mine crashed and forced me to refresh but the BBC changed the page >.<

are you british

yes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_par ... /watchlive
no: welp

[Zanzor]

In the UK it doesn't the church is a state religion, that's why when a law is past like this they have to be made exempt, like with sexual discrimination it's illegal by law so it should be with the Church of England but there is a clause that makes the exempt.

And yet, they still manage to keep God out of the government better than the Americans do.

For example, the Queen is the head of the Church of England and yet she will be signing off on this bill when it becomes law.

Yes, but technically the government runs the Church of England, hence it's the state religion. Although they usually allow the Synod to decide church matters. The Queen being the head of state signs off on all the government does, she has to otherwise it can not become law.

America doesn't have a state religion, so therefore can not control what religions do or the out look of them. So then you find that religion controls the government. Also the states has to many pick and mix Christians.

[Jormengand]

Each bill has 3 readings
They approved it on the second reading now 400 to 175
They voted to get it into the third reading 499 to 55
The reason the margins are higher is because the Tories are whipped to vote it through to the 3rd reading
After 3rd reading it goes to the Lords and then the Queen

They vote on same bill three times? What is the fucking purpose of that... do MP's not read the bill on first go or something.

I believe it has something to do with amendments.

[Nemezree]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog ... -live-blog

This isn't a live stream from the Commons but if anyone hasn't seen it yet then it's v. helpful

[San Leggera]

481 - 34
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21325702

That's the page I was on, but they changed it so the stream is no longer there..

Anyone got the link to the stream? Mine crashed and forced me to refresh but the BBC changed the page >.<

are you british

yes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_par ... /watchlive
no: welp

thanks

[Samozaryadnyastan]

No, that's not the real vote. It's a vote to do admin stuff.

Fucking--

Oh, sorry. Feckin' british pol'tics is dunwroight confussing, laddie!

It's what happens when you have a system a few centuries older than certain other countries that then decides to retain a monarch
But yeah, it does need reform, but reform won't work in one sweeping move, but gentle reform moves won't get accepted. Vicious cycle.

[Naughtania]

Have they had the vote yet?

We're about to enter the stage where they select which MP shall face the dragon.
If the dragon is slain, we proceed to the summoning ritual. If that is successful, we have a vote with the fae mediating.

To clarify for those who care:

The first division was second reading (400 - 175)
The second was the programme motion, determining proceedings in committee (499 - 55)
The third division was on the money resolution, so the government can actually spend money to implement it (481 - 34)
This fourth division is on a carry-over motion, so the bill will not be killed off on prorogation in the spring.

They've basically said yes, these are effectively formalities.

Thank (insert deity)!

[Souseiseki]

DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE DIVI- FUCK

[Oneracon]

That's irrelevant.

Royal Veto hasn't been invoked in 305 years. I'd say it was relevant that her opinion didn't really matter and that she has no control over government.

It's a law that is enacted by her, on the advice of Parliament.

However unlikely that this will be the first time in 305 years the veto occurs, she still retains that power.

[Souseiseki]

ahahahahahha he's clearly resisting the urge to laugh

mister booooooone and peter hollooooooowboooooooooooone

[Nemezree]

They vote on same bill three times? What is the fucking purpose of that... do MP's not read the bill on first go or something.

I believe it has something to do with amendments.

Yes a Lib Dem is already planning amendments - to open up civil partnerships and allow humanist weddings

[Ostroeuropa]

ahahahahahha he's clearly resisting the urge to laugh

mister booooooone and peter hollooooooowboooooooooooone

If my name was bone and I were a politician i'd end every statement with "YOU JUST GOT BONED!"

[Naughtania]

Each bill has 3 readings
They approved it on the second reading now 400 to 175
They voted to get it into the third reading 499 to 55
The reason the margins are higher is because the Tories are whipped to vote it through to the 3rd reading
After 3rd reading it goes to the Lords and then the Queen

They vote on same bill three times? What is the fucking purpose of that... do MP's not read the bill on first go or something.

To clarify

Second reading was approved 400 to 175.
The arrangements the government proposed for committee stage were approved 499 to 55.

The three readings are for:

1) Formal, no vote - introduction of bill
2) Approval in principle
3) Final approval after amendments have been made in committee.

Unlike other countries, committee scrutiny is not the first stage, so multiple votes must be taken on the floor of the House.

[Oneracon]

ahahahahahha he's clearly resisting the urge to laugh

mister booooooone and peter hollooooooowboooooooooooone

If my name was bone and I were a politician i'd end every statement with "YOU JUST GOT BONED!"

You, sir, are a genius

[GrandKirche]

400. 400. I am just so happy right now I could propose.

[San Leggera]

So is nothing happening for 8 minutes, then?

[Zanzor]

Each bill has 3 readings
They approved it on the second reading now 400 to 175
They voted to get it into the third reading 499 to 55
The reason the margins are higher is because the Tories are whipped to vote it through to the 3rd reading
After 3rd reading it goes to the Lords and then the Queen

You missed a step. After the lords it goes back to parliament if there are no changes then it goes to the Queen. If they changed it or made recommendations it gets read again where it can either die, have the changes put in with the recommendations, then go back to the Lords. Or the original can be forced though

[Ostroeuropa]

So is nothing happening for 98 minutes, then?

It's time for snacks and tea.
Fuel of democracy.

[Souseiseki]

So is nothing happening for 8 minutes, then?

nothing interesting to watch, yes

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

The role of a Member of Parliament is to represent the interests of their constituents in the legislative chamber of this land. MPs should not vote on bills whilst relying merely on their personal whims and self-interests. So if a significant number of constituents write to their representative calling for him to vote against a bill they feel strongly about, what else can he do?


I'm glad to say that the MPs who I share alumnus with voted against the bill.

Why are you glad that your MP is entirely out of step with the majority of the population and doesn't want equality for gay people?