Speaker Betty Boothroyd Casting vote 1993

Video from C-SPAN. Speaker of the UK House of Commons, Betty Boothroyd, is forced to use her casting vote on the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty on 22 July 1993.
She cast her vote with the 'Noes' (the Government's position), following the constitutional convention known as "Speaker Denison's rule", named after John Evelyn Denison, Speaker of the House of Commons from 1857 to 1872, who established the precedent.
Speaker Boothroyd articulated this, saying "It is not the function of the Chair to create a majority on a policy issue where no majority exists amongst the rest of the House."
It was later discovered that the use of the casting vote was unnecessary as there had been a miscount of those supporting the motion and one more 'Aye' vote had been counted than had actually voted. So the actual vote was Ayes 316 - Noes 317.
Hansard record:
bit.ly/2B4z91r
Full video of debate on C-SPAN:
www.c-span.org/video/?46141-1...

[@BRadfrommalibu74]

It was later found out that the casting vote was not even needed, as there was a miscount in the totals.

[@thePand251]

wow c-span also covers the UK?

[@Iggykoop]

always has.

[@thePand251]

@@Iggykoop oh.

[@thesmithersy]

RIP Betty.

[@cjames4044]

Why the right side is cheering when it’s equal at beginning when they know speaker is going to vote no

[@Darmix]

Because the Speaker is required by precidnet to cast their vote as "no"

[@cjames4044]

@@Darmix so it doesn’t matter with party it’s just a non written rule that speaker have to vote no

[@BugattiBoy01]

@@cjames4044 Yes because its seen as if 51% (effectively) of people cant agree on the change. THen it should change. Aka a no vote is seen as the most proper and fair vote to cast

[@TheMisterToasty]

I think it doesn’t have to be no. If I understand correctly the speaker has a duty to vote for the option that encourages further debate if the votes are tied.

[@Darmix]

@@cjames4044 yeah it's just convention. not a rule.

[@wightmand]

The good old days when the Speaker understood the importance of impartiality and precedence.

[@antoniosilvestro9045]

RIP BETTY 🙏

[@TheEvilCheesecake]

To be impartial is to vote for a continuation of tyranny.

[@Randoman590]

If that's intended as a jab at John Bercow, he did the exact same thing.

[@Reeves160394]

Bercow was a biased aggregator. Serving his own interests above and beyond impartiality

[@timmtammss8136]

@@Reeves160394brother I got a casting vote story for you

[@craigharding4017]

Say hello to the queen of dublin town....

[@virtecekcz8761]

on what was voting on

[@MS-19]

The European Communities Amendment Bill successfully passed through its Parliamentary stages and received Royal Assent on 20 July 1993, with new clause 74 having become section 7 of the Act. The Government then scheduled a debate in the House of Commons on 22 July on a motion under section 7; at Prime Minister's Question Time on 20 July, Major gave the impression that he would ratify the treaty even if the Government lost the vote, because Parliament had approved the treaty he signed.
The motion debated on 22 July declared:
That this House, in compliance with the requirements of section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, notes the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy.
The Labour front bench moved an amendment to change the motion to:
That, in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Government should not deposit the Articles of Ratification of the Treaty of European Union with the government of the Italian Republic until such time as it has given notification to the European Community that it intends to adopt the agreement attached to protocol on social policy.
After a long and at times acrimonious debate, the Labour amendment was voted on first; and the result was dramatically announced as a tie with 317 MPs voting in favour and 317 MPs voting against. The Speaker, Betty Boothroyd gave her casting vote against the amendment. (It was later discovered that there had been a miscount of those supporting the motion, and that one more had been counted in its support than had actually voted, so that the amendment had actually been defeated by one vote.) After the amendment was voted down, the Government motion was put to the vote and lost by eight votes, 316 in favour and 324 against.

[@virtecekcz8761]

@@MS-19 Wow thank you so much

[@kyleongesii2601]

Hahahahaha orda orda orda. Funny circus clowns

[@Farlomous]

@Blue and don't you forget it Right Honourable Gentleperson ;-)