Gaza vote: What happened in the Commons yesterday – and can the Speaker Lindsay Hoyle be sacked?

Published

1 year ago

February 22, 2024

admin

Raised voices, walk-outs, calls for resignations, even a few tears – it was a hairy day over in parliament on Wednesday and not the usual scenes expected from an opposition day debate.

So what rattled Westminster and its MPs? And how did the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, find himself at the centre of the furore?

Politics live: Tens of MPs sign no-confidence motion in Speaker after Commons chaos

We take a look at how the saga played out.

What was supposed to happen?

As the third largest party in the Commons, the SNP is entitled to three opposition days in parliament every session – letting them pick the topic to be debated on the floor of the chamber.

Wednesday was one of those days, and the party chose the Israel-Hamas war, laying down a motion calling for an “immediate ceasefire” in the Middle East.

This has been a long-held position of the SNP, so the proposal came as no surprise.

But it did lead to mounting pressure on the Labour Party to shift its position – which had, until this point, echoed the government’s calls for a “pause” – as the last time a ceasefire vote took place, there was a raft of resignations from their frontbench.

So, on Tuesday – and after days of speculation – shadow foreign secretary David Lammy announced Labour would be putting forward an amendment to the SNP motion, calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”.

There were still caveats in place, including ensuring both sides laid down their weapons and that all the Israeli hostages were released, but it was seen as a big shift for Labour.

Come Wednesday, the stage was set for the debate – but little did we know about the chaos that was coming.

Why is the Speaker in trouble?

At the start of a debate on a motion, it is down to the Speaker to decide if any amendments to it can be debated and voted on.

But parliamentary convention says that if the motion has been put forward by an opposition party, like the SNP, it cannot be amended by another opposition party, like Labour – only by the government.

Despite anger from his clerk, and feathers being spat by a number of MPs, Sir Lindsay decided both the government and Labour’s amendments to the SNP’s motion could and would be voted on, claiming he wanted to give the House as many options as possible when debating such an emotive topic.

Conservative MPs accused the Speaker – a Labour MP before taking on the role – of making an “overtly political decision” to help Sir Keir Starmer fend off a rebellion from his own MPs, who could back the SNP motion without a Labour alternative to support.

Then came a curve ball from the Tory Leader of the House, Penny Mordaunt, who decided to pull the government’s amendment from the floor.

She announced her party would “play no further part” in proceedings in protest at the actions of Sir Lindsay – something she claimed “undermined the confidence” of MPs in the House’s procedures.

And with that amendment gone – and Tories abstaining from any votes – Labour’s amendment was able to pass without a vote.

But that meant the original SNP motion had been changed to Labour’s form of words, and the Scottish MPs never got a chance to vote on their own proposal, leading to fury from their benches.

How has he responded?

MPs from the SNP and the Conservatives staged a walkout in protest to what had played out and demanded Sir Lindsay come to the Commons to explain himself.

And eventually, he did, apologising to all sides over what had happened.

The Speaker reiterated his earlier justifications for selecting the Labour amendment, saying he had been trying to ensure all options were on the table for MPs to vote on – as well as protecting MPs’ safety.

“I thought I was doing the right thing and the best thing, and I regret it, and I apologise for how it’s ended up,” he said.

“I do take responsibility for my actions.”

But Tory MPs were heard shouting “resign” throughout his apology, and SNP leader Stephen Flynn said he would “take significant convincing” that his position was “not now intolerable”.

Could Sir Lindsay be replaced?

After all the drama had come to a close in the chamber, there were more parliamentary shenanigans to be had.

A group of 33 MPs from both the Tories and the SNP signed up to a no-confidence motion in Sir Lindsay in the form of an early-day motion.

So-called EDMs are rarely debated, but they offer MPs a way of drawing attention to their views and stating them publicly.

So while it may highlight their unhappiness with the Speaker, it doesn’t push him out the door.

Yet there is a feeling in the air that Sir Lindsay is going to have to fight to keep his job now and win over his critics.

How would parliament choose a new speaker?

According to the Institute for Government, there’s no formal means of removing the Speaker from their role.

But MPs can hold a vote of no-confidence in him or her, making it extremely difficult for them to hold on – and perhaps pushing them towards resigning.

If Sir Lindsay did step down – either because of a vote or the threat of one coming his way – the chair would need to be filled.

Candidates would be put forward via written nominations, and if one secured more than 50% of the vote among MPs, a motion would be put to the Commons to confirm their appointment.

If the motion didn’t pass, selection and voting would start again.

If nobody secured 50% in the first place, the candidate with the lowest vote share would be removed from the ballot and the vote would be repeated until someone hit the threshold and a winner emerged.

Politics

Senate stablecoin vote splits Democrats amid concerns over corruption

Published

3 hours ago

May 20, 2025

admin

Senate stablecoin vote splits Democrats amid concerns over corruption

US Senate Democrats are getting flak after they helped move stablecoin legislation ahead for discussion on the Senate floor.

On May 19, 16 Democratic senators broke from the party line to pass a motion to invoke cloture, which will now set the bill up for debate on the Senate floor. Some of the same Democrats had held up the bill in early May when they withdrew support, citing corruption concerns over President Donald Trump’s cryptocurrency dealings.

The bill’s opponents hailed lawmakers’ refusal to support it but were soon taken aback when the senators reversed their position. The lightly amended legislation contained no provisions regarding World Liberty Financial, the Trump family’s crypto venture.

Some activists have said that the Democrats supporting the bill should be ousted in the upcoming Democratic primaries in 2026, reflecting a growing rift in the Democratic Party over cryptocurrencies.

Law, Politics, Congress, United States, Stablecoin, Features — *The Senate voted 66-32 to move the bill ahead. Source:* *Stand With Crypto*

Democratic lawmakers’ approach to crypto shows split in party

On May 19, moderate Democratic Senator Mark Warner announced he would support the bill, stating that it was “not perfect, but it’s far better than the status quo.”

Warner set corruption concerns aside, stating, “Many senators, myself included, have very real concerns about the Trump family’s use of crypto technologies to evade oversight […] But we cannot allow that corruption to blind us to the broader reality: blockchain technology is here to stay.”

Warner concluded it would be better for the US to move forward on imperfect stablecoin legislation than to fall behind other jurisdictions.

Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, one of the bill’s sponsors, also pushed aside Trump corruption concerns, saying they should be addressed separately.

“A lot of what President Trump is engaged in is already illegal,” she said, adding that she didn’t want the president’s scandals to “distract us from the important goal of having a clear regulatory structure in the United States that can onshore this industry.”

During the vote, progressive Democrats disagreed. Senator Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee and a vocal critic of the crypto industry, reportedly got into a heated argument with Gillibrand on the Senate floor.

Warren argued on the Senate floor ahead of the vote, “A bill that turbocharges the stablecoin market, while facilitating the President’s corruption and undermining national security, financial stability, and consumer protection is worse than no bill at all.”

Democrats opposing the bill aren’t giving up either. Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, who voted against the GENIUS Act, immediately introduced another bill, jokingly named “the STABLE GENIUS Act,” combining the names of the bills in the Senate and House of Representatives.

The bill would prevent the president, vice-president and members of Congress from “issuing or endorsing digital assets” and require them to place any assets they hold in a blind trust while in office.

While the bill has little chance of passing — numerous acts that would limit members’ of Congress financial activities have fizzled out — it shows the Democrats are split on how they should provide opposition.

Democratic activists lambast Democratic GENIUS supporters

The progressive and activist wings of the Democratic party have roundly criticized Congressional leadership for compromising with Republicans on measures that, they claim, should be deal breakers.

In March, activists were enraged when Senator Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York and minority leader in the Senate, voted with the Republicans on a continuing resolution for government funding. One progressive observer accused him of giving up leverage and weakening the Democratic position.

Then, in April, disagreements over how Democrats should fight Trump’s mass deportations further deepened the rift.

Now, crypto has become another wedge between the activist wing, which provides crucial voter activation during elections, and centrists in Congress.

Ezra Levin, co-founder and co-executive director of progressive activist organization Indivisible, wrote on BlueSky:

Communications strategist Murshed Zaheed, who formally worked for the offices of Senator Harry Reid and Representative Louise Slaughter, urged people to call their senators to come out against the bill.

“Any Democrat who votes for this today — should never be taken seriously again if they send out emails, text and do videos […] talking a big game about Trump’s corruption,” he said.

Chris Kluwe, a former American football player who has since become a prominent activist within Democratic politics, said on May 20 he was “excited to get a chance to speak at the CA state Dem convention on May 31st, I’m sure [the bill] won’t come up at all in the 4 minutes I’ve been allotted.”

On BlueSky, labor researcher and media law historian Peter Labuza posted “Primary List” in reply to a post of the 16 Democratic senators who helped support the bill.

The subject of primary elections, the intra-party elections to decide who will represent the party in a given district, has also grown contentious.

On May 12, the Democratic National Convention (DNC) voted to void the results of an internal party vote nominating David Hogg as a vice chair. The decision essentially strips Hogg of his title at the DNC and, with it, the ability to promote his controversial policy of sponsoring progressive challengers in Democratic primary elections.

Hogg had planned to spend $20 million to support progressive and young candidates in Democratic Party primaries as part of the “Leaders We Deserve” campaign — an activist group that aims to elevate younger leaders with a more combative tone against the Trump administration.

With the stablecoin bills in the House and Senate poised to move ahead, the Democrats seem ill-suited to mount an effective opposition to the bills. Internal struggles and interests within Congress have disunited lawmakers, while activists want a new crop of congresspeople to represent them next term.

In the Democratic Party’s internal battle between the anti-crypto progressive wing and the pro-crypto pragmatists, the latter is winning out, so far.

Magazine: Father-son team lists Africa’s XRP Healthcare on Canadian stock exchange

Politics

Robinhood proposes SEC rules for tokenized real-world assets

Published

3 hours ago

May 20, 2025

admin

Robinhood proposes SEC rules for tokenized real-world assets

Robinhood submitted a 42-page proposal to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), calling for a national framework to regulate tokenized real-world assets (RWAs).

The brokerage is seeking to modernize financial infrastructure by making tokenized assets legally equivalent to their traditional counterparts and enabling compliant onchain settlement, Forbes reported on May 20.

In the proposal, Robinhood also revealed plans for creating the Real World Asset Exchange (RRE), a trading platform offering offchain trade matching and onchain settlement for efficiency and transparency.

Robinhood is advocating for uniform federal standards to replace the patchwork of state-level securities regulations that currently apply. The platform would also integrate Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) tools through partners like Jumio and Chainalysis to meet global compliance expectations.

Robinhood asks for token-asset equivalence

A key feature of the proposal is the push for token-asset equivalence. Under Robinhood’s plan, a token representing a US Treasury bond, for instance, would be treated as the bond itself, not a derivative or synthetic product.

That would allow institutions and broker-dealers to handle tokenized RWAs within the existing regulatory system, potentially streamlining custody, trading and settlement processes.

Technically, RRE would be built on a dual-chain architecture utilizing Solana and Base, according to an overview of the proposal by Franklin Elevator. The system is designed to combine high-frequency offchain trade matching with onchain settlement.

Franklin Elevator said Robinhood projects the platform will achieve sub-10 microsecond matching latency and throughput of up to 30,000 transactions per second.

This could compress the US capital markets’ standard settlement time from T+2 to T+0, cutting trading costs by an estimated 30% annually.

“RWA tokenization represents a new paradigm for institutional asset allocation. Robinhood is committed to leading this trend under a compliant framework,” Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev said.

Cointelegraph reached out to Robinhood for comment, but they hadn’t responded by publication time.

Tokenization gains momentum

Robinhood’s proposal comes amid a renewed wave of interest in RWA tokenization, with major players from both traditional finance and crypto making headlines last week.

On April 30, BlackRock filed to create a blockchain-based share class for its $150 billion Treasury Trust Fund, allowing a digital ledger to mirror investor ownership. On the same day, Libre revealed plans to tokenize $500 million in Telegram debt via its new Telegram Bond Fund.

On May 1, MultiBank Group inked a $3 billion tokenization deal with UAE real estate firm MAG and blockchain provider Mavryk.

“The recent surge isn’t arbitrary. It’s happening because everything’s lining up,” Eric Piscini, CEO of Hashgraph, told Cointelegraph. “Rules are getting clearer in major markets. The tech is stronger, faster, and ready to scale. And big players are actually doing it,” he added.

Magazine: Father-son team lists Africa’s XRP Healthcare on Canadian stock exchange

Politics

Kraken expands in Europe with regulated crypto derivatives

Published

3 hours ago

May 20, 2025

admin

Kraken expands in Europe with regulated crypto derivatives

Cryptocurrency exchange Kraken announced the launch of regulated derivatives trading on its platform under the European Union’s Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II).

According to a May 20 announcement, Kraken’s perpetual and fixed maturity crypto futures contracts will be available for trading by retail and institutional customers in the European Economic Area (EEA). The announcement follows the exchange acquiring an MiFID license in early February through the acquisition of a Cypriot investment firm, approved by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission.

Kraken’s head of exchange, Shannon Kurtas, said, “Europe is one of the fastest-growing regions for digital asset trading and investment, with some of the most sophisticated and demanding clients and institutions.”

He added, “Clients and partners increasingly seek comprehensive offerings within a regulated framework.”

Kraken, Europe, Cryptocurrency Exchange, Derivatives, European Union, Financial Derivatives — *Source:* *Kraken Pro*

Kraken had not responded to Cointelegraph’s request for comment by publication.

Release the Kraken

Kurtas said that following the deployment of the new derivatives products, “they [users] can seamlessly trade futures as part of a full suite of products” on the platform.

Derivatives, he said, will improve “capital efficiency, access to liquidity, reliability and enable sophisticated strategies and position management.” Kraken’s derivatives will be offered through a Cyprus-based MiFID II-regulated entity, Payward Europe Digital Solutions.

The launch follows Kraken completing its acquisition of the futures trading platform NinjaTrader earlier this month, as its first quarter revenue jumped 19% year-on-year to $471.7 million.

Crypto derivatives see lots of activity

Recently, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said his firm will continue to look for merger and acquisition opportunities, after acquiring crypto derivatives platform Deribit. The comments came after the publicly listed US crypto exchange earlier this month agreed to acquire Deribit, one of the world’s biggest crypto derivatives trading platforms.

Major crypto exchange Gemini has also recently received regulatory approval to expand crypto derivatives trading across Europe. Gemini’s head of Europe, Mark Jennings, said in a May 9 statement:

“Once we commence business activities, we will be able to offer regulated derivatives throughout the EU and EEA [European Economic Area] under MiFID II.”

Decentralized finance platform Synthetix also plans to venture further into crypto derivatives with plans to re-acquire the crypto options platform Derive. The transaction is subject to approval from both the Synthetix and Derive communities.

Magazine: How crypto laws are changing across the world in 2025