I am pro Brexit but I am more pro embarrass the Tory government. Come on folks, support the Lords' ammendments...
I hope the pressure will be kept up to reform the Lords by the right wing press even after the bill is passed unamended through the upper chamber.
Agree. It's about time that Blair's Dirty Compromise House of Meh was put out of its misery.
Well I think we do need an upper chamber. Elected in thirds by multi member STV with 1 15 year term per lifetime would be my preffered option. But it is a nonsense as it is !
God, no. It'll be even worse at doing it's task than it is now. We need to look at its role as a revising chamber and make changes to allow it to perform that task better.
The main problem with the HoL isn't the numbers, or the hereditaries. It's the fact it's been stuffed to the gunnels with political has-beens and hanger-on with no real expertise who will follow their party whip and not appy any intelligence to their role. Shami being a classic recent example. Moving to an elected house will just make that situation worse. Better to get rid of it.
However I understand that my 'house of experts' idea hasn't got widespread acceptance.
Of course it hasn't .... because a House of hobby-horse fanatics and lobbyists would be the worst of all worlds. They'd just be demanding extra money and extra preference for their own pet topics. And we'd never agree who was an 'expert'. The current collapse of the AGW alleged "consensus" being a prime example.
I am pro Brexit but I am more pro embarrass the Tory government. Come on folks, support the Lords' ammendments...
I hope the pressure will be kept up to reform the Lords by the right wing press even after the bill is passed unamended through the upper chamber.
Agree. It's about time that Blair's Dirty Compromise House of Meh was put out of its misery.
Well I think we do need an upper chamber. Elected in thirds by multi member STV with 1 15 year term per lifetime would be my preffered option. But it is a nonsense as it is !
God, no. It'll be even worse at doing it's task than it is now. We need to look at its role as a revising chamber and make changes to allow it to perform that task better.
The main problem with the HoL isn't the numbers, or the hereditaries. It's the fact it's been stuffed to the gunnels with political has-beens and hanger-on with no real expertise who will follow their party whip and not appy any intelligence to their role. Shami being a classic recent example. Moving to an elected house will just make that situation worse. Better to get rid of it.
However I understand that my 'house of experts' idea hasn't got widespread acceptance.
Of course it hasn't .... because a House of hobby-horse fanatics and lobbyists would be the worst of all worlds. They'd just be demanding extra money and extra preference for their own pet topics. And we'd never agree who was an 'expert'. The current collapse of the AGW alleged "consensus" being a prime example.
I look forward to PB very much in the future as the place to be for #indref2.I found indyref1 very enjoyable and somewhat profitable.The debate was always of the highest quality and based on evidence.I hope Malcolm G is well,in training and readying for peak fitness and form when he is asked to perform his duty.
What price a greater degree of sympathy from the English?
I can only go with the conversations I have had today (anecdote alert!) but people in London seem much more sympathetic to the idea of Scots Indy than in 2014, because of Brexit.
Does that count for much, in a campaign? (I am not suggesting it does, merely courting opinion)
What may be much more influential is that there'd be no agreement on how to fight a referendum, unlike in 2014. If Corbyn still leads Labour he'll make the Nats arguments for them, a turbocharged version of his dire Brexit performance. This time he'll not just refuse to stand on a platform with May but directly go on about how awful she is while it's plainly apparent that he's about as useful to anyone looking to get rid of her as a eunuch in a sperm bank. The best thing the In side could do is lock him in his allotment shed. May will have to fight it as a chance to remain in a newly confident, liberated Britain, but short of a miracle Brexit deal or a climbdown on a harder Brexit that's not an argument even some of her own cabinet's hearts will be in. Both Scottish Lab and the Scottish Tories have leaders at odds with their rUK equivalents, with the former being in an absolute state, and a lack of consensus as to how to fight a referendum after the failure of Stronger In Europe and you've got a recipe for chaos.
Plus, you're right among rUK remainers on left and right there is some sympathy with motive if not practicality - that the country Scots were asked to remain in no longer exists anyway. Combined with referendum fatigue, the sense that it's Brexiteers' mess, they can be the ones to try and campaign their way out of it, and you've got a sense of apathy.
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
If the amendment wasn't from the Lords but was the government's own idea then it may have set down a standard in the negotiations. But if the government was defeated on this having set their nose against it then it would have set a standard that Parliament was divided from the government. That we had a weak government with backseat drivers who could overrule our negotiators.
That would have weakened our negotiations more than the issue at hand.
I am pro Brexit but I am more pro embarrass the Tory government. Come on folks, support the Lords' ammendments...
I hope the pressure will be kept up to reform the Lords by the right wing press even after the bill is passed unamended through the upper chamber.
Agree. It's about time that Blair's Dirty Compromise House of Meh was put out of its misery.
Well I think we do need an upper chamber. Elected in thirds by multi member STV with 1 15 year term per lifetime would be my preffered option. But it is a nonsense as it is !
God, no. It'll be even worse at doing it's task than it is now. We need to look at its role as a revising chamber and make changes to allow it to perform that task better.
The main problem with the HoL isn't the numbers, or the hereditaries. It's the fact it's been stuffed to the gunnels with political has-beens and hanger-on with no real expertise who will follow their party whip and not appy any intelligence to their role. Shami being a classic recent example. Moving to an elected house will just make that situation worse. Better to get rid of it.
However I understand that my 'house of experts' idea hasn't got widespread acceptance.
A good start would be to preclude anyone who had served in the HoC.
How does virtually every democracy manage to do it ? Even countries which do not elect the second chamber directly, do it by election indirectly. Like , for example, making an electoral college of say, MPs, elected Councillors, Assembly members etc.
This bullshit about experienced people should stop. Why should MPs who lost be kicked upstairs ? Why should senior bureaucrats get the gong . If you really think they make a contribution then put them there but don't give them a vote.
This EU debate shows how farcical this nonsense is. We call it the "revising chamber". They vote by a majority of about 100 in one of the highest turnouts in its entire history.
It is ignored. So the HoL today stands for Fuck All.
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
Totally agree.
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
I look forward to PB very much in the future as the place to be for #indref2.I found indyref1 very enjoyable and somewhat profitable.The debate was always of the highest quality and based on evidence.I hope Malcolm G is well,in training and readying for peak fitness and form when he is asked to perform his duty.
Well I found it agony and the idea of it happening again only 4 years later is deeply depressing. But I am up for the fight. £50 to Ruth this afternoon. She promises every penny will go to protecting the Union.
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
If the amendment wasn't from the Lords but was the government's own idea then it may have set down a standard in the negotiations. But if the government was defeated on this having set their nose against it then it would have set a standard that Parliament was divided from the government. That we had a weak government with backseat drivers who could overrule our negotiators.
That would have weakened our negotiations more than the issue at hand.
Really? Saying there is no way I could get this through Parliament looks like a pretty powerful argument to me.
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
Totally agree.
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
Totally agree.
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
Yep - I had hoped we were a bigger and better country than that.
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
Don't be silly. For a start, no-one is threatening anyone with deportation. This is not about who can stay in the UK - there's not a single signficant figure anywhere in the debate saying that EU citizens who are resident here won't be able to stay, not even Nigel Farage as you point out. What this is about is negotiating the terms under which they can stay - in particular, who pays for things like their healthcare., and who pays for the healthcare of Brits living in the EU27. It would be beyond barmy for the UK to give the EU27 a blank cheque on that.
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
Totally agree.
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
They're not threatening anyone with deportation.
They're making a statement that they could if they wanted to. It's meant to unsettle and destabilise.
Mr. Song, scientists were also resistant to the idea that Newton was wrong about the properties of light
On the Subject of Newton - Following the 1707 union of the crowns, Scottish silver coinage was replaced with new silver coins, with the aim of creating a common currency for the new Kingdom of Great Britain, Isaac Newton, who had overseen something similar in England a few years earlier, was appointed to the task.
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
If the amendment wasn't from the Lords but was the government's own idea then it may have set down a standard in the negotiations. But if the government was defeated on this having set their nose against it then it would have set a standard that Parliament was divided from the government. That we had a weak government with backseat drivers who could overrule our negotiators.
That would have weakened our negotiations more than the issue at hand.
Really? Saying there is no way I could get this through Parliament looks like a pretty powerful argument to me.
Only if those you are dealing with need the deal as much as you do and don't think , well that's your problem.
I look forward to PB very much in the future as the place to be for #indref2.I found indyref1 very enjoyable and somewhat profitable.The debate was always of the highest quality and based on evidence.I hope Malcolm G is well,in training and readying for peak fitness and form when he is asked to perform his duty.
Well I found it agony and the idea of it happening again only 4 years later is deeply depressing. But I am up for the fight. £50 to Ruth this afternoon. She promises every penny will go to protecting the Union.
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
Totally agree.
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
They're being threatened with reciprocity. Their fate rests with their own governments - "our friends in Europe", in Lord Heseltine's ringing phrase.
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
Totally agree.
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
Theresa May is a bloody awful presenter. She is just Mrs Autocue on C4 News. I cannot see her doing well in a Scottish referendum campaign.
She actually has better poll ratings in Scotland than Cameron did, Scots prefer dull to flashy, after all Darling beat Salmond in the last indyref and Brown did better in Scotland in 2010 than Blair did in 2005. Though I expect Davidson will front the No campaign this time
Mr. StClare, I did know he worked at the Bank of England, but was unaware it was at that particular time.
Very clever chap, but also vindictive, and his views in certain areas (notably light) were held up as infallible which retarded progress needlessly. Theories and individuals ought not be put on pedestals in science.
I am pro Brexit but I am more pro embarrass the Tory government. Come on folks, support the Lords' ammendments...
I hope the pressure will be kept up to reform the Lords by the right wing press even after the bill is passed unamended through the upper chamber.
Agree. It's about time that Blair's Dirty Compromise House of Meh was put out of its misery.
Well I think we do need an upper chamber. Elected in thirds by multi member STV with 1 15 year term per lifetime would be my preffered option. But it is a nonsense as it is !
God, no. It'll be even worse at doing it's task than it is now. We need to look at its role as a revising chamber and make changes to allow it to perform that task better.
The main problem with the HoL isn't the numbers, or the hereditaries. It's the fact it's been stuffed to the gunnels with political has-beens and hanger-on with no real expertise who will follow their party whip and not appy any intelligence to their role. Shami being a classic recent example. Moving to an elected house will just make that situation worse. Better to get rid of it.
However I understand that my 'house of experts' idea hasn't got widespread acceptance.
Of course it hasn't .... because a House of hobby-horse fanatics and lobbyists would be the worst of all worlds. They'd just be demanding extra money and extra preference for their own pet topics. And we'd never agree who was an 'expert'. The current collapse of the AGW alleged "consensus" being a prime example.
That's perhaps because you don't know, or have forgotten, the proposal.
As for 'hobby-horse fanatics': nope. You can have experts without fanaticism.
BTW, what 'collapse' of the AGW alleged "consensus" ?
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
If the amendment wasn't from the Lords but was the government's own idea then it may have set down a standard in the negotiations. But if the government was defeated on this having set their nose against it then it would have set a standard that Parliament was divided from the government. That we had a weak government with backseat drivers who could overrule our negotiators.
That would have weakened our negotiations more than the issue at hand.
Really? Saying there is no way I could get this through Parliament looks like a pretty powerful argument to me.
If Parliament were more Hardcore than the government them yes. That is how it works in America the Senators play "bad cop". Reality is the opposite. Instead it would be a case here of the EU making an outrageous demand, our negotiators say we don't accept that and their negotiators say "your Parliament will though".
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
Don't be silly. For a start, no-one is threatening anyone with deportation. This is not about who can stay in the UK - there's not a single signficant figure anywhere in the debate saying that EU citizens who are resident here won't be able to stay, not even Nigel Farage as you point out. What this is about is negotiating the terms under which they can stay - in particular, who pays for things like their healthcare., and who pays for the healthcare of Brits living in the EU27. It would be beyond barmy for the UK to give the EU27 a blank cheque on that.
Then the government is guaranteeing their rights to remain as permanent residents? Good news. But, if so, why not say so?
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
Don't be silly. For a start, no-one is threatening anyone with deportation. This is not about who can stay in the UK - there's not a single signficant figure anywhere in the debate saying that EU citizens who are resident here won't be able to stay, not even Nigel Farage as you point out. What this is about is negotiating the terms under which they can stay - in particular, who pays for things like their healthcare., and who pays for the healthcare of Brits living in the EU27. It would be beyond barmy for the UK to give the EU27 a blank cheque on that.
How can it be about agreeing terms if you are prepared to let people stay no matter what? And if you are prepared to let them stay no matter what, agree to the amendment.
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
If the amendment wasn't from the Lords but was the government's own idea then it may have set down a standard in the negotiations. But if the government was defeated on this having set their nose against it then it would have set a standard that Parliament was divided from the government. That we had a weak government with backseat drivers who could overrule our negotiators.
That would have weakened our negotiations more than the issue at hand.
Really? Saying there is no way I could get this through Parliament looks like a pretty powerful argument to me.
Only if those you are dealing with need the deal as much as you do and don't think , well that's your problem.
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
Totally agree.
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
Yep - I had hoped we were a bigger and better country than that.
That's not quite true is it? MPs have simply voted on if it should be part of the bill or not. It's got nothing to do with what they think we should do with the 3m EU citizens here.
It was noticeable just now that after the division on the meaningful vote amendment was announced, there was a row of Tory MPs who didn't get up. I'm pretty sure Nicky Morgan was one; maybe the whips have persuaded them to abstain rather than oppose?
Would that be the Nicky Morgan who thought she might be in the running for the leadership last year?
I look forward to PB very much in the future as the place to be for #indref2.I found indyref1 very enjoyable and somewhat profitable.The debate was always of the highest quality and based on evidence.I hope Malcolm G is well,in training and readying for peak fitness and form when he is asked to perform his duty.
Well I found it agony and the idea of it happening again only 4 years later is deeply depressing. But I am up for the fight. £50 to Ruth this afternoon. She promises every penny will go to protecting the Union.
Going towards batch order of SLab badges for campaigning in Scotland's rougher estates, or has that ship long sailed?
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
If the amendment wasn't from the Lords but was the government's own idea then it may have set down a standard in the negotiations. But if the government was defeated on this having set their nose against it then it would have set a standard that Parliament was divided from the government. That we had a weak government with backseat drivers who could overrule our negotiators.
That would have weakened our negotiations more than the issue at hand.
Really? Saying there is no way I could get this through Parliament looks like a pretty powerful argument to me.
Only if those you are dealing with need the deal as much as you do and don't think , well that's your problem.
I've got a feeling everyone in Scotland who voted 'Yes' last time will still vote 'Yes', however some who voted 'No' due to economic fears will now vote 'Yes'. I can see 'Yes' winning because of this...
The truth is that hardly anyone is coming to this question fresh. We had a two year campaign last time so there will be relatively few people changing their minds. I think there will be some Yes voters who will switch to No just as there are some going the other way. Most Scots are nationalist with a small 'n' but they are not necessarily SNP nationalists and some are very pro-Union, but from the perspective of Scotland's place in the world. The SNP have done a good job of claiming nationalism for itself, but it may not hold out for the next referendum. Some advice for Theresa May, assuming she wants to preserve the Union: don't try to divide and rule in Scotland. Long term it never works.
The fact that the economics are even worse than last time won't change many minds I suspect. The key motivations will be whether Scots collectively think they need to get on with it or put an end to it.
The repetition of this argument is depressing down here in London, God knows how it must feel in Scotland. I wonder if Sturgeon could lose simply because people can't bear the endless constitutional turmoil and horrible, divisive arguing.
Because if she wins the divorce with England will take ten years of bickering. Again, making Brexit look like a walk in Regent's Park.
Just think, after 3 or 4 years of Brexit non-stop until a deal is done or not in 2019, after a Yes vote soon after we could then move straight on to have 3 or 4 years of Scexit non-stop until a deal is done or not, what fun!
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
Totally agree.
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
They're being threatened with reciprocity. Their fate rests with their own governments - "our friends in Europe", in Lord Heseltine's ringing phrase.
No, their fate rests with us. The fact that other countries may decide to treat British nationals appallingly does not oblige us to do the same. We should aspire to be bigger and better than that. Sadly, it seems that we do not.
I look forward to PB very much in the future as the place to be for #indref2.I found indyref1 very enjoyable and somewhat profitable.The debate was always of the highest quality and based on evidence.I hope Malcolm G is well,in training and readying for peak fitness and form when he is asked to perform his duty.
Well I found it agony and the idea of it happening again only 4 years later is deeply depressing. But I am up for the fight. £50 to Ruth this afternoon. She promises every penny will go to protecting the Union.
Going towards batch order of SLab badges for campaigning in Scotland's rougher estates, or has that ship long sailed?
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
If the amendment wasn't from the Lords but was the government's own idea then it may have set down a standard in the negotiations. But if the government was defeated on this having set their nose against it then it would have set a standard that Parliament was divided from the government. That we had a weak government with backseat drivers who could overrule our negotiators.
That would have weakened our negotiations more than the issue at hand.
The Government could easily have done what it has done with many other amendments over the years which would be to amend it itself so as to keep the effect but make it more suited to their needs. There was absolutely no reason to reject it out of hand.
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
Totally agree.
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
They're being threatened with reciprocity. Their fate rests with their own governments - "our friends in Europe", in Lord Heseltine's ringing phrase.
No, their fate rests with us. The fact that other countries may decide to treat British nationals appallingly does not oblige us to do the same. We should aspire to be bigger and better than that. Sadly, it seems that we do not.
I have reluctantly concluded this must be right. Whilst I understand the negotiation point we are simply better than this.
How can it be about agreeing terms if you are prepared to let people stay no matter what? And if you are prepared to let them stay no matter what, agree to the amendment.
Well, if you mean that the government could have agreed the amendment but sneaked in a proviso in the actual terms whereby EU citizens would have to pay £50K a year to cover healthcare, then, yes, I suppose you are right. That would meet the terms of the amendment, but somehow I don't think EU citizens living here would be very happy with it.
This is a negotiation. The devil is, as always, in the detail. You can't negotiate by parliamentary resolution.
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
Don't be silly. For a start, no-one is threatening anyone with deportation. This is not about who can stay in the UK - there's not a single signficant figure anywhere in the debate saying that EU citizens who are resident here won't be able to stay, not even Nigel Farage as you point out. What this is about is negotiating the terms under which they can stay - in particular, who pays for things like their healthcare., and who pays for the healthcare of Brits living in the EU27. It would be beyond barmy for the UK to give the EU27 a blank cheque on that.
Then the government is guaranteeing their rights to remain as permanent residents? Good news. But, if so, why not say so?
because their governments wont reciprocate for our citizens or cant you quite understand that ?
Mr. StClare, I did know he worked at the Bank of England, but was unaware it was at that particular time.
Very clever chap, but also vindictive, and his views in certain areas (notably light) were held up as infallible which retarded progress needlessly. Theories and individuals ought not be put on pedestals in science.
I'm currently re-reading Stephen Inwood's excellent book: "The man who knew too much", a biography of Robert Hooke. Newton doesn't come out to well in it.
IMO some theories should be put on pedestals: however we should be all too read to put a jackhammer to the pedestal if required.
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
Totally agree.
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
They're being threatened with reciprocity. Their fate rests with their own governments - "our friends in Europe", in Lord Heseltine's ringing phrase.
No, their fate rests with us. The fact that other countries may decide to treat British nationals appallingly does not oblige us to do the same. We should aspire to be bigger and better than that. Sadly, it seems that we do not.
I have reluctantly concluded this must be right. Whilst I understand the negotiation point we are simply better than this.
Richard Nabavi raised this very same point before the vote..........
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
Totally agree.
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
They're not threatening anyone with deportation.
In that case why not support the amendment?
The amendment was not just about residency it guaranteed all "rights". So EU citizens in the UK couldn't just reside here but have guaranteed rights to the NHS, the welfare state etc while UK citizens would have no reciprocal rights.
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
Totally agree.
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
They're not threatening anyone with deportation.
In that case why not support the amendment?
One of the reasons.
One of the tory MP's said if the amendment was voted through ,the EU nationals who shouldn't be given the right to stay like EU nationals in brit prisons wouldn't have been able to be sent home.
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
Totally agree.
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
They're being threatened with reciprocity. Their fate rests with their own governments - "our friends in Europe", in Lord Heseltine's ringing phrase.
No, their fate rests with us. The fact that other countries may decide to treat British nationals appallingly does not oblige us to do the same. We should aspire to be bigger and better than that. Sadly, it seems that we do not.
I agree. What annoys me is when the likes of Nick Clegg won't acknowledge that the expulsion of Brits from the EU would be appalling behaviour. His words in the Commons tonight were "they didn't pick the fight."
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
Totally agree.
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
They're being threatened with reciprocity. Their fate rests with their own governments - "our friends in Europe", in Lord Heseltine's ringing phrase.
No, their fate rests with us. The fact that other countries may decide to treat British nationals appallingly does not oblige us to do the same. We should aspire to be bigger and better than that. Sadly, it seems that we do not.
so by extension our European partners are total cnts
I've got a feeling everyone in Scotland who voted 'Yes' last time will still vote 'Yes', however some who voted 'No' due to economic fears will now vote 'Yes'. I can see 'Yes' winning because of this...
The truth
The fact that the economics are even worse than last time won't change many minds I suspect. The key motivations will be whether Scots collectively think they need to get on with it or put an end to it.
The repetition of this argument is depressing down here in London, God knows how it must feel in Scotland. I wonder if Sturgeon could lose simply because people can't bear the endless constitutional turmoil and horrible, divisive arguing.
Because if she wins the divorce with England will take ten years of bickering. Again, making Brexit look like a walk in Regent's Park.
Just think, after 3 or 4 years of Brexit non-stop until a deal is done or not in 2019, after a Yes vote soon after we could then move straight on to have 3 or 4 years of Scexit non-stop until a deal is done or not, what fun!
Yeah, but everything will surely be sorted by about 2029, so cheer up.
I've actually just realised that by the time all this is done and dusted, my 10 year old daughters could be in their early 20s.
Indescribably depressing. It is the worst of all possible Brexits, but we were given no choice. Hopefully there will be a war which will speed things up or cancel all politics.
Yes, this could well dominate the next decade, though I am not quite sure I would go so far as to back WW3 to stop it
I am pro Brexit but I am more pro embarrass the Tory government. Come on folks, support the Lords' ammendments...
I hope the pressure will be kept up to reform the Lords by the right wing press even after the bill is passed unamended through the upper chamber.
Agree. It's about time that Blair's Dirty Compromise House of Meh was put out of its misery.
Well I think we do need an upper chamber. Elected in thirds by multi member STV with 1 15 year term per lifetime would be my preffered option. But it is a nonsense as it is !
God, no. It'll be even worse at doing it's task than it is now. We need to look at its role as a revising chamber and make changes to allow it to perform that task better.
The main problem with the HoL isn't the numbers, or the hereditaries. It's the fact it's been stuffed to the gunnels with political has-beens and hanger-on with no real expertise who will follow their party whip and not appy any intelligence to their role. Shami being a classic recent example. Moving to an elected house will just make that situation worse. Better to get rid of it.
However I understand that my 'house of experts' idea hasn't got widespread acceptance.
Of course it hasn't .... because a House of hobby-horse fanatics and lobbyists would be the worst of all worlds. They'd just be demanding extra money and extra preference for their own pet topics. And we'd never agree who was an 'expert'. The current collapse of the AGW alleged "consensus" being a prime example.
That's perhaps because you don't know, or have forgotten, the proposal.
As for 'hobby-horse fanatics': nope. You can have experts without fanaticism.
BTW, what 'collapse' of the AGW alleged "consensus" ?
If you give someone a seat on a committee or a board or in a House on the basis that they are the Weather Forecasting bloke or the Biscuit Industry guy or the IT geek then they'd be pretty much monoglot to the point of tedium on their subject.
And certainly not to the extent of telling the world that their subject wasn't actually very interesting and it didn't really deserve any special funding, and certainly not its own dedicated Govt Dept with a big flag outside.
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
If the amendment wasn't from the Lords but was the government's own idea then it may have set down a standard in the negotiations. But if the government was defeated on this having set their nose against it then it would have set a standard that Parliament was divided from the government. That we had a weak government with backseat drivers who could overrule our negotiators.
That would have weakened our negotiations more than the issue at hand.
The Government could easily have done what it has done with many other amendments over the years which would be to amend it itself so as to keep the effect but make it more suited to their needs. There was absolutely no reason to reject it out of hand.
But once they had rejected it, it was critical the Commons respected that.
Mr. StClare, I did know he worked at the Bank of England, but was unaware it was at that particular time.
Very clever chap, but also vindictive, and his views in certain areas (notably light) were held up as infallible which retarded progress needlessly. Theories and individuals ought not be put on pedestals in science.
I'm currently re-reading Stephen Inwood's excellent book: "The man who knew too much", a biography of Robert Hooke. Newton doesn't come out to well in it.
IMO some theories should be put on pedestals: however we should be all too read to put a jackhammer to the pedestal if required.
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
Don't be silly. For a start, no-one is threatening anyone with deportation. This is not about who can stay in the UK - there's not a single signficant figure anywhere in the debate saying that EU citizens who are resident here won't be able to stay, not even Nigel Farage as you point out. What this is about is negotiating the terms under which they can stay - in particular, who pays for things like their healthcare., and who pays for the healthcare of Brits living in the EU27. It would be beyond barmy for the UK to give the EU27 a blank cheque on that.
Then the government is guaranteeing their rights to remain as permanent residents? Good news. But, if so, why not say so?
because their governments wont reciprocate for our citizens or cant you quite understand that ?
No I understand it fully. Two wrongs don't make a right – it's pretty disgusting behaviour by both sides, I'm afraid. Human beings are not bargaining chips.
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
Don't be silly. For a start, no-one is threatening anyone with deportation. This is not about who can stay in the UK - there's not a single signficant figure anywhere in the debate saying that EU citizens who are resident here won't be able to stay, not even Nigel Farage as you point out. What this is about is negotiating the terms under which they can stay - in particular, who pays for things like their healthcare., and who pays for the healthcare of Brits living in the EU27. It would be beyond barmy for the UK to give the EU27 a blank cheque on that.
Then the government is guaranteeing their rights to remain as permanent residents? Good news. But, if so, why not say so?
because their governments wont reciprocate for our citizens or cant you quite understand that ?
No I understand it fully. Two wrongs don't make a right – it's pretty disgusting behaviour by both sides, I'm afraid. Human beings are not bargaining chips.
Yes they are. Especially when you're talking about a black cheque on all "rights"
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
Don't be silly. For a start, no-one is threatening anyone with deportation. This is not about who can stay in the UK - there's not a single signficant figure anywhere in the debate saying that EU citizens who are resident here won't be able to stay, not even Nigel Farage as you point out. What this is about is negotiating the terms under which they can stay - in particular, who pays for things like their healthcare., and who pays for the healthcare of Brits living in the EU27. It would be beyond barmy for the UK to give the EU27 a blank cheque on that.
Then the government is guaranteeing their rights to remain as permanent residents? Good news. But, if so, why not say so?
because their governments wont reciprocate for our citizens or cant you quite understand that ?
No I understand it fully. Two wrongs don't make a right – it's pretty disgusting behaviour by both sides, I'm afraid. Human beings are not bargaining chips.
I've got a feeling everyone in Scotland who voted 'Yes' last time will still vote 'Yes', however some who voted 'No' due to economic fears will now vote 'Yes'. I can see 'Yes' winning because of this...
The truth
The fact that the economics are even worse than last time won't change many minds I suspect. The key motivations will be whether Scots collectively think they need to get on with it or put an end to it.
The repetition of this argument is depressing down here in London, God knows how it must feel in Scotland. I wonder if Sturgeon could lose simply because people can't bear the endless constitutional turmoil and horrible, divisive arguing.
Because if she wins the divorce with England will take ten years of bickering. Again, making Brexit look like a walk in Regent's Park.
Just think, after 3 or 4 years of Brexit non-stop until a deal is done or not in 2019, after a Yes vote soon after we could then move straight on to have 3 or 4 years of Scexit non-stop until a deal is done or not, what fun!
Yeah, but everything will surely be sorted by about 2029, so cheer up.
I've actually just realised that by the time all this is done and dusted, my 10 year old daughters could be in their early 20s.
Indescribably depressing. It is the worst of all possible Brexits, but we were given no choice. Hopefully there will be a war which will speed things up or cancel all politics.
'We were given no choice.'
Sadly we were, and we chose very very badly indeed.
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
Totally agree.
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
They're not threatening anyone with deportation.
In that case why not support the amendment?
One of the reasons.
One of the tory MP's said if the amendment was voted through ,the EU nationals who shouldn't be given the right to stay like EU nationals in brit prisons wouldn't have been able to be sent home.
4000 apparently in brit prisons.
Three million EU citizens here – most of them making important contributions to our companies, schools and civic life. You are supporting a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage.
The House of Commons has just voted to deny the British people any further say over Brexit.
I'm genuinely and literally unsure I have the energy for this any more. Brexit. Joxit. Fuxit. Indyref. TRUMP.
There's just been too much politics. I'm tired of arguing. It's gonna be the same Brexit arguments for the next two years, and exactly the same indyref arguments for the next three/four years.
As FF43 says, will anyone change their minds? In Scotland? In the UK?
If there is one thing that would make me regret my Brexit vote it is the arse-aching, scrotum-numbing tedium of it all. And the waste of time and energy.
I am close to taking a vow of silence. I have books to write, daughters to raise, money to make, women to chase, fruitlessly or otherwise. I may retreat to the personal. Enuff.
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
Totally agree.
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
They're not threatening anyone with deportation.
In that case why not support the amendment?
One of the reasons.
One of the tory MP's said if the amendment was voted through ,the EU nationals who shouldn't be given the right to stay like EU nationals in brit prisons wouldn't have been able to be sent home.
4000 apparently in brit prisons.
Three million EU citizens here – most of them making important contributions to our companies, schools and civic life. You are supporting a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage.
How ?
HMG has aready said it is prepared to respect the rights of resident EU citizens only EU intransigence is stopping this being put to bed
I am genuinely sorry that the amendment on EU citizens was defeated. It was a great chance to take the moral highground and set down a standard for the way we were going to behave in the negotiations. I know many people think this weakens our negotiating stance but I think in the long run it would make the whole process of Brexit far better.
Totally agree.
It is pretty shameful that 300+ MPs think effectively threatening 3m with deportation – a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage – is an any way acceptable.
They're not threatening anyone with deportation.
In that case why not support the amendment?
One of the reasons.
One of the tory MP's said if the amendment was voted through ,the EU nationals who shouldn't be given the right to stay like EU nationals in brit prisons wouldn't have been able to be sent home.
4000 apparently in brit prisons.
Three million EU citizens here – most of them making important contributions to our companies, schools and civic life. You are supporting a position that was too extreme for Nigel Farage.
The House of Commons has just voted to deny the British people any further say over Brexit.
They British public next get their say in May 2020.
Not on Brexit. That will be done by then. The people are no longer part of the equation. The Tories have voted to remove them from the process.
So what? We live in a Parliamentary democracy. When did the British people any say, let alone any further say, on whether to invade Iraq? How were the people in the process then?
I look forward to PB very much in the future as the place to be for #indref2.I found indyref1 very enjoyable and somewhat profitable.The debate was always of the highest quality and based on evidence.I hope Malcolm G is well,in training and readying for peak fitness and form when he is asked to perform his duty.
Well I found it agony and the idea of it happening again only 4 years later is deeply depressing. But I am up for the fight. £50 to Ruth this afternoon. She promises every penny will go to protecting the Union.
Going towards batch order of SLab badges for campaigning in Scotland's rougher estates, or has that ship long sailed?
Probably but I will do all I can for my country.
Traipsing through the mean streets of Lochee, Fintry, Kirkton and Douglas for the Union. What a trooper. More people like your good self we'd still have an Empire.
If Indyref 2 happens, and Scotland votes for independence, I'll be devastated, but not to the extent of regretting Brexit. Better by far a free England than a subject Britain.
That said, I think this is a mistake by Sturgeon, albeit one she had little choice but to make. The message has to be that Scotland has to vote heavily against this just to send a message that the SNP can't keep doing this to the country every time the wind changes.
Comments
Plus, you're right among rUK remainers on left and right there is some sympathy with motive if not practicality - that the country Scots were asked to remain in no longer exists anyway. Combined with referendum fatigue, the sense that it's Brexiteers' mess, they can be the ones to try and campaign their way out of it, and you've got a sense of apathy.
That would have weakened our negotiations more than the issue at hand.
This bullshit about experienced people should stop. Why should MPs who lost be kicked upstairs ? Why should senior bureaucrats get the gong . If you really think they make a contribution then put them there but don't give them a vote.
This EU debate shows how farcical this nonsense is. We call it the "revising chamber". They vote by a majority of about 100 in one of the highest turnouts in its entire history.
It is ignored. So the HoL today stands for Fuck All.
Best of luck to you in the campaign ahead.
Very clever chap, but also vindictive, and his views in certain areas (notably light) were held up as infallible which retarded progress needlessly. Theories and individuals ought not be put on pedestals in science.
As for 'hobby-horse fanatics': nope. You can have experts without fanaticism.
BTW, what 'collapse' of the AGW alleged "consensus" ?
If it happens again I'll make it 3 weeks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsaaYp7cGiY
This is a negotiation. The devil is, as always, in the detail. You can't negotiate by parliamentary resolution.
IMO some theories should be put on pedestals: however we should be all too read to put a jackhammer to the pedestal if required.
Hooke's 'Micrographia' is a masterpiece:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrographia
http://lhldigital.lindahall.org/cdm/ref/collection/nat_hist/id/0
Except it seems for the so - called Liberal Democrats.
One of the tory MP's said if the amendment was voted through ,the EU nationals who shouldn't be given the right to stay like EU nationals in brit prisons wouldn't have been able to be sent home.
4000 apparently in brit prisons.
And certainly not to the extent of telling the world that their subject wasn't actually very interesting and it didn't really deserve any special funding, and certainly not its own dedicated Govt Dept with a big flag outside.
Mind you since I hated calculus with a vengeance that is not necessarily a good thing.
hardly a surprise
Sadly we were, and we chose very very badly indeed.
Anyway, I'm afraid I must be off.
Voting on HoL originated amendments, innit.
HMG has aready said it is prepared to respect the rights of resident EU citizens only EU intransigence is stopping this being put to bed
What a trooper. More people like your good self we'd still have an Empire.
It will be a dynamic negotiation between two independent actors. If you don't like what results, don't vote Tory.
and - last!
That said, I think this is a mistake by Sturgeon, albeit one she had little choice but to make. The message has to be that Scotland has to vote heavily against this just to send a message that the SNP can't keep doing this to the country every time the wind changes.