“we have delivered Mr Adams to the required destination…”

Room for one more post to follow Brian’s coda on the appointment of Gerard Adams to the position of Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead.

The BBC reports today, the Shadow Leader of the House, Hilary Benn, has called for a change in the constitutional rules on MP’s resignations.  From the BBC report

In the Commons on Thursday morning, Hilary Benn asked his opposite number if the government would consider changing the rules.

He said: “Does the Leader (of the House) agree with me that it is time we changed these ancient ways of enabling members to step down and move to a simple system where a member can write to you, Mr Speaker, and step down?”

Sir George Young said the office had been granted by the chancellor in line with “long-standing precedent”.

So Mr Speaker, we have delivered Mr Adams to the required destination, though we may have chosen a vehicle and a route that was not one of his choosing,” he added. [added emphasis]

He dismissed the “hypothetical possibility” raised by some members that a future chancellor could appoint an MP to an office under the crown without a relevant application.

“I find it inconceivable that such a situation would occur. It is a matter of constitutional principle that the chancellor does not act without an unambiguous request from a member to relinquish his or her seat.”

BTW, the BBC might want to revisit what they’ve said about that ‘apology’ if this Irish Times report is accurate

A Downing Street spokesman said last night Mr Cameron was standing by remarks he made during prime minister’s questions yesterday regarding Mr Adams’s status.

But he said Mr Cameron’s private secretary had apologised to Mr Adams for the fact that news of the appointment had been made public without his foreknowledge.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • cynic49

    So the “Brits” have delivered Gerry to the required destination! Now that he is there he can now start concentrating on getting up to speed with the basic in’s and out’s of the Republic’s economics without the distraction of silly parliamentary protocols. Hope he remembers its the Euro down there and not the Queens Shilling.

  • redhugh78

    Interesting to see the laughable attempts by some to somehow justify their ill timed glee when they thought Gerry Adams had applied for some archaic Brit position.

    The Brits can do what they want, at the end of the day Adams told them to get stuffed and rather like some posters on Slugger the Brits are now pathetically trying to save face. 🙂

  • fitzjameshorse1745

    Agreed RedHugh.

  • Neil

    Likewise. My prediction that Gerry will ignore them and the Brits will come up with a workaround is I reckon pretty much spot on. They’ve called him names in the past and he ignored them then.

    I do hope posh boy call me Dave has to make an embarrassing apology, as given his glee at attempting (and failing) to make an arse of Gerry, one can only assume he hates Republicans as much as most Loyalists/Unionists.

  • Rory Carr

    On 21 January 2011 at 6:11 pm in reply to Cynic2 I wrote this:

    It’s even more simple than you think, Cynic 2. Adams has already resigned. Job done.

    If some bizarre procedure is required to satisfy Westminster tradition then it will be the Speaker, or Leader of the House, or Sergant-at-Arms, or whatever eminent Westminster box-wallah charged with such frippery, who will have to jump throught the necessary hoops to preserve their sense of how things ought to be.

    What will happen is simply that what is required to be done to effect resignation will simply be deemed to have been done.

    And on the 25 January I wrote that:

    There is no doubt but that Adams’s resignation has put the House of Commoms in a quandary but it is a problem of their own making and one to which they must find a solution. I have every confidence that they will but that it will not involve Adams applying for an office of profit under the crown.

    And so it came to pass.

    Ironically these predictions were posted in a thread headlined with what we now can see to be either startling inaccuracy (or wishful thinking at best), “The resignation that never was…”

    So much for what one commenter on here referred to as the “sacred traditions” of the House of Commons. If they are indeed sacred then it seems that parliament’s iconoclast tradition (which developed mainly during the Civil War and therefore after 1623 when this sacred tradition was first instituted) would prefer that they be torn down which might be preferable for decorum’s sake than to see them besullied by the hypocrisy with which they have been slyly circumnavigated by the Speaker, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister himself on this occasion.

    But, when all is said and done, in this staring contest in which the Brits blinked first, we have had a British solution to what I have maintained throughout was none other than a British problem and they solved it in the time-honoured British method – through the use of deceit and hypocrisy.

    So I suppose, in that regard, it is nice to see that British tradition triumphed after all.

  • pippakin

    The British blinked first? If he had spoken to them they probably would have told him a letter wasn’t necessary, offered to pay his fare to Louth and even his removal expenses. Oh yeah its definitely another republican ‘victory’

    Some of these comments almost sound as though they think the Brits are sorry to see him go…

  • fitzjameshorse1745

    I keep getting this feeling of deja vu…..or is it just Groundhog Day?

  • Fionn

    Aaaah Peter how gracefully you craft blogs, slipping gently from “Applied for” to “Accepted” to “Appointed” one can only wonder what you will create from words beginning with the letter “B”

    Sinn Fein should return Camerons favour of giving unrequested appointments by appointing him to the chair of a Cuman

  • Itwas SammyMcNally whatdoneit

    So Davey has opted not to apologise for his own mistake which led to suggestions yesterday in the House that he had inadvertently misled parliament i.e. he fecked up and Unionists have indulged in a round of fretful questioning as to whether the British establishment sticthed up a deal with SF.

    Davey indeed, joined with said Unionists(in lighter mood at the time) in having a good laugh at the boul Gerry not realsing as he did so he was tripping over his own constitutional shoelaces.

    Rather ungentlemanly of the honourable member not to apologise in the circumstances – as they say in that funny old House shame.

  • Secret Squirrel

    Fionn says:
    ‘…Sinn Fein should return Camerons favour of giving unrequested appointments by appointing him to the chair of a Cuman ‘

    I think that’s an excellent idea. 🙂

  • 2 frys 2 teas

    it would be worse if Mr A had been claiming his expenses and not actually attending parliament….

  • Dec

    He does attend Parliament – he just doesn’t sit in the Chamber.

  • Itwas SammyMcNally whatdoneit

    Pete,

    “Room for one more post to follow ”

    Jeez – hopefully more that that.

    ps Has anyone given birth to a suitable label for this the most excellent and ongoing saga? e.g. Trivial Pursuit,

  • MichaelMac

    Maybe one more to follow, even after this one. Perhaps, why did Cameron lie to the Commons would make a good headline?

  • Itwas SammyMcNally whatdoneit

    “Perhaps, why did Cameron lie to the Commons would make a good headline?”

    … of course poor Davey did have to get his private secretary to ring Gerry – presumably not what he had in mind when he was guffawing with Unionists about Gerry’s predicament – perhaps when he gets over his embarassment he will put the record straight.

  • Rory Carr

    Why should anyone be surprised that Cameron lied to the House? Lying after all is what he does best as any brief glimpse at his pre-election promises bears out only too well.

  • MichaelMac

    He probably got carried away with the moment, the sight of Dodds and Mc Crea behaving like giddy school girls would be enough to throw anyone.

    The fact remains that he debased the office he holds and the house and constitution he put so much store by.

  • Fionn

    If SF do take up my suggestion of appointing Cameron to a party position, once he’s appointed a Shinner he’ll be fair game for Pete, Turgon and Mick …and Rusty ….and Cynic and ….oh you know Slugger

  • Fionn

    Does anyone know if the DUP element of the Executive are back at Stormont yet or are they wandering around Bluewater still

  • Reader

    Fionn: Sinn Fein should return Camerons favour of giving unrequested appointments by appointing him to the chair of a Cuman
    An incomplete analogy. That would only work if Cameron had first voluntarily joined (e.g.) the IRA without checking the terms and conditions, then discovered that the only way out of the IRA was by joining an SF Cumann.
    There you are then – realistic and complete, apart from that pesky “if”

  • Fionn

    not sure if the IRA would have someone who is leader of a country dabbling in Iraq, Afganistan. Palestine and undercover cops causing problems in Germany and Ireland, even the Provos’ have standards and thats all a bit blood thirsty for them, 1,500 dead in NI conflict is the pre-breakfast tally for Cameron on a good day. Couple of 5000lb bombs in Afganistan delivers that before the toast pops

    But I see your point, perhaps they could make him toilet cleaner to start atoning for his murders

  • fordprefect

    Hello again Fionn.
    Reader, Fionn is 100% right, I am a republican, but, I am no admirer of Adams, McGuinness and co., but, compared to the British and their killing of civillians, they make the IRA look like The Famous Five!

  • Reader

    Fionn: not sure if the IRA would have someone who is leader of a country dabbling in Iraq, Afganistan. Palestine and undercover cops causing problems in Germany and Ireland, even the Provos’ have standards and thats all a bit blood thirsty for them, 1,500 dead in NI conflict is the pre-breakfast tally for Cameron on a good day.
    I’m not sure if you can blame Cameron for any operations in Iraq (all over before he became PM), nor that any ‘blame’ would be appropriate for UN operations against the Taliban. Though friends of FARC might think the Taliban were the good guys, I suppose. I also think you have a bit of a problem with numbers – 1,500 is the number of people killed by the IRA for instance, which is probably why it sticks in your mind. Though I expect you would prefer a United Ireland to a high score.
    In any case, Cameron has never demonstrated anything remotely like the IRA’s zeal for killing Irish people, which would probably disqualify him from membership.
    You are working too hard at this, by the way – I was only helping you to round out your playful analogy.

  • Itwas SammyMcNally whatdoneit

    Reader,

    Cameron is the only Western leader who still believes that the decision to invade Iraq was correct – luckily there is a sensible leader in the US or Davey and some other right wing evangelist would be following in Tony’s and George’s mad and bloddy footsteps.

    It is comes to something when the Engleze Prime Minister is more gung-ho than his American counterpart.

    Still thats what the British people seem comfortable with.

  • cynic49

    Dec.

    They do a cracking roast beef and three veg in the Westminster canteen.

  • Reader

    It was Sammy: Still thats what the British people seem comfortable with.
    But if you believe what you said, then there seems to be little point in trying to wind us up over the matter.
    However, I think you are in a more consistent position on this matter than Fionn, who, I suspect, doesn’t mind a bit of violence along the road to somewhere.

  • Fionn

    Well reader we are way of topic and I put my hand up for my part in doing it. To answer a few things,

    I’ve no idea if Cameron voted in favour of that “illegal war” as the Deputy PM calls it.

    FARC and Taliban, unlikely the US funded the Taliban during their war with the USSR and until their own war with the Taliban were busy trying to do a deal for an oil pipeline thro the country.

    1500 is indeed the tally on the IRA side of the conflict, but no idea how you reach the conclusion that the IRA murdered more Irish than others, surely citizens/subjects in NI pre-GFA where all British and therefore all deaths were British, for example the 14 British subjects shot dead by British soldiers in a British city on Bloody Sunday, is that statement wrong in any way? But please lets not get into whataboutery its not my intention, as for example you can say that any volunteer in the IRA was also a British subject prior to the GFA (unless they had a passport saying different)

    Although all this Irish British mallarky also beggers the question that if Adams holds an Irish passport, has the Irish Govt. OKed the appointment which I believe is necessary under Irish law, if not then although the ‘vehicle’ may have arrived unfortunately Mr Adams wasn’t a passenger

  • Fionn

    fordprefect, hello me old mucker are you still lurking in this cesspit of ideologies, I was a huge fan of the famous five when I was a kid, not sure Adams and Co would like the comparison with such a jolly hockeysticks bunch, surely hurleys are the thing.

    But regarding HMGs foreign adventures, in conversation with fellow republicans there seems to be a general sense of pity for the poor squaddies which I think shows just how bad things are going for them, watching the last rememberance sunday parade on TV was a bit stomach churning seeing so many wheelchairs and missing limbs, poor buggers

  • Reader

    Fionn: 1500 is indeed the tally on the IRA side of the conflict, but no idea how you reach the conclusion that the IRA murdered more Irish than others, surely citizens/subjects in NI pre-GFA where all British and therefore all deaths were British, for example the 14 British subjects shot dead by British soldiers in a British city on Bloody Sunday, is that statement wrong in any way?
    I have always been happy to go along with the GFA prescription on the issue, long before it was voted upon – that us nordies can regards ourselves as British, or Irish, or both. For instance, I am both.
    As for the IRA killing Irish people, I started from the Sutton index, specifically:
    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html
    and selected “Organisation” by “Status Summary”, and noted the IRA’s dramatic contribution to the Civilian deaths column. Unless the IRA were spectacularly successful at accidentally/preferentially targeting non-Irish civilians while planting bombs in Ireland, then they do have an impressive total of Irish victims even in that one column. I expect that you and/or the IRA would disqualify victims in most of the other columns from Irishness, whatever their own opinion in the matter, but that is only a guess.

  • Fionn

    Reader, think your previous arguement fell apart when you claimed to be both Irish and British, guessing you claim to be British for political reasons however should the IRA kill you than you were actually Irish.

    In the Sutton index whats the ratio for military v civilian for the players *ahem* I already know the answer, so as a civilian (I presume) had you been killed by the security forces which were british (obviously) would you have been Irish or British when you hit the ground.

    BUT, you’ve just reminded me of something from long ago, and maybe others can enlighten me, some years ago did the ‘UK’ police force claim that all RUC were Irish to up their minority numbers, f*ck me Reader you might be right!!!!