It's beyond time for the Lords to be replaced. They are actively opposing a manifesto policy of the government in clear contravention of British constitutional custom. Theresa May should make 200 new peers.
In one of those “careful what you wish for” unintended consequences, anti-Brexit agitators may have unleashed constitutional reforms with a wider reach than dreary negotiations about the product labels and border control (how anyone gets worked up about leaving the EU is one of life’s big mysteries, for me).
So angry were (at least) 123,821 voters in response to the Lords’ vote to keep the UK in the Customs Union (that is: “stay in the EU in an even less satisfactory manner than now”) that they signed Robert McBride’s petition to “Give the electorate a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords”. Because the number of signatories exceeds 100,000, the Government is rules-bound to offer a debate in Parliament on the topic — and to offer a response.
Mr. Meeks, I agree that constitutional reform of a significant degree should be considered seriously and not implemented for narrow reasons. The long-term impact should be considered.
That said, the unelected seeking to overturn the decision of the electorate was bound to be met with a degree of bemusement (to be polite).
Mr. Meeks, I agree that constitutional reform of a significant degree should be considered seriously and not implemented for narrow reasons. The long-term impact should be considered.
That said, the unelected seeking to overturn the decision of the electorate was bound to be met with a degree of bemusement (to be polite).
The unelected are not seeking to overturn the decision of the electorate. They are adopting an interpretation of the electorate's decision that is disliked by some who with no particular justification claim to be keepers of the flame.
In one of those “careful what you wish for” unintended consequences, anti-Brexit agitators may have unleashed constitutional reforms with a wider reach than dreary negotiations about the product labels and border control (how anyone gets worked up about leaving the EU is one of life’s big mysteries, for me).
So angry were (at least) 123,821 voters in response to the Lords’ vote to keep the UK in the Customs Union (that is: “stay in the EU in an even less satisfactory manner than now”) that they signed Robert McBride’s petition to “Give the electorate a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords”. Because the number of signatories exceeds 100,000, the Government is rules-bound to offer a debate in Parliament on the topic — and to offer a response.
Constitutional arson proposed by maniacs unhappy that their highly tendentious view of what is required for Brexit is not shared by others.
Constitutional arson is the unelected Lords overruling a manifesto commitment of an elected government with the support of the majority of the commons. Remainers don't like democracy.
It's beyond time for the Lords to be replaced. They are actively opposing a manifesto policy of the government in clear contravention of British constitutional custom. Theresa May should make 200 new peers.
If it helps, I can give a categorical assurance to the Prime Minister, as I did to her predecessor, that should I be ennobled - and goodness, I’ve waited long enough - I shall vote with the Government on all matters concerning Brexit.
I heard Javid today and he was OK.As Home Secretary and in the absence of any sensible alternatives he must be odds on for next Tory leader and he'll be difficult for Labour to beat. Part of the collateral damage for Labour is that he'll show up the weakness of his shadow Diane Abbott who was pretty awful today
In one of those “careful what you wish for” unintended consequences, anti-Brexit agitators may have unleashed constitutional reforms with a wider reach than dreary negotiations about the product labels and border control (how anyone gets worked up about leaving the EU is one of life’s big mysteries, for me).
So angry were (at least) 123,821 voters in response to the Lords’ vote to keep the UK in the Customs Union (that is: “stay in the EU in an even less satisfactory manner than now”) that they signed Robert McBride’s petition to “Give the electorate a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords”. Because the number of signatories exceeds 100,000, the Government is rules-bound to offer a debate in Parliament on the topic — and to offer a response.
Constitutional arson proposed by maniacs unhappy that their highly tendentious view of what is required for Brexit is not shared by others.
Constitutional arson is the unelected Lords overruling a manifesto commitment of an elected government with the support of the majority of the commons. Remainers don't like democracy.
Erm, the fact that even you can't use the words "Salisbury convention" shows how threadbare your argument is.
The threat of stacking the Lords when they get ideas above their station is a tried and tested one in this country since William IV. They are a wealthy elite trying to overrule the public because they think the little people are racist and shouldn't have been consulted.
In one of those “careful what you wish for” unintended consequences, anti-Brexit agitators may have unleashed constitutional reforms with a wider reach than dreary negotiations about the product labels and border control (how anyone gets worked up about leaving the EU is one of life’s big mysteries, for me).
So angry were (at least) 123,821 voters in response to the Lords’ vote to keep the UK in the Customs Union (that is: “stay in the EU in an even less satisfactory manner than now”) that they signed Robert McBride’s petition to “Give the electorate a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords”. Because the number of signatories exceeds 100,000, the Government is rules-bound to offer a debate in Parliament on the topic — and to offer a response.
Constitutional arson proposed by maniacs unhappy that their highly tendentious view of what is required for Brexit is not shared by others.
Constitutional arson is the unelected Lords overruling a manifesto commitment of an elected government with the support of the majority of the commons. Remainers don't like democracy.
Erm, the fact that even you can't use the words "Salisbury convention" shows how threadbare your argument is.
"Salisbury convention" - is that used like saying "Mornington Crescent" ?
So, will there actually be another Italian election? Made a small sum last time backing Five Star for most seats.
It's looking like election or technocrats. In the current round of talks between M5S and the left, a decent enough section of PD are sympathetic, but the numbers mean they need to carry the whole party and with the Renzi faction implacably opposed it isn't going to happen. M5S might be inclined to hold out for a bit too see what leadership emerges within PD.
My gut feeling, based on nothing in particular, is that technocracy is more an option after a second failed election.
The polls are saying that a second election could strengthen Lega further as they consolidate their leadership of the centre right, but that could be at the expense of their FI partners leaving the bloc no further ahead. M5S are also edging up.
That said a recent contest in Molise in the south led to a strong centre right victory where the GE might have suggested M5S - local contest caveats apply. and I'm not sure who the right's candidate was or any campaign details.
It could be a sign that Salvini / Lega / right might be able to eat into the M5S base in the South and that southern voters could be prepared to hold their noses. On balance, and the polls are by no means clear on this, my hunch is that the second election might mprove Lega's overall position rather than M5S's
I heard Javid today and he was OK.As Home Secretary and in the absence of any sensible alternatives he must be odds on for next Tory leader and he'll be difficult for Labour to beat. Part of the collateral damage for Labour is that he'll show up the weakness of his shadow Diane Abbott who was pretty awful today
Not very often we agree Roger but Javid poses a real problem for labour - the first BME Home Secretary is a conservative and has a real understanding of the hurt felt by the Windrush generation
In one of those “careful what you wish for” unintended consequences, anti-Brexit agitators may have unleashed constitutional reforms with a wider reach than dreary negotiations about the product labels and border control (how anyone gets worked up about leaving the EU is one of life’s big mysteries, for me).
So angry were (at least) 123,821 voters in response to the Lords’ vote to keep the UK in the Customs Union (that is: “stay in the EU in an even less satisfactory manner than now”) that they signed Robert McBride’s petition to “Give the electorate a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords”. Because the number of signatories exceeds 100,000, the Government is rules-bound to offer a debate in Parliament on the topic — and to offer a response.
Constitutional arson proposed by maniacs unhappy that their highly tendentious view of what is required for Brexit is not shared by others.
Constitutional arson is the unelected Lords overruling a manifesto commitment of an elected government with the support of the majority of the commons. Remainers don't like democracy.
Erm, the fact that even you can't use the words "Salisbury convention" shows how threadbare your argument is.
"Salisbury convention" - is that used like saying "Mornington Crescent" ?
No, that's used like saying "the House of Lords shouldn't intervene".
Since the government didn't win a majority last year, it doesn't have a mandate for claiming it applies. Unfortunate for the more absurd Brexiters, who are reduced to arguing that the House of Lords really shouldn't intervene on policies that they're really really keen the House of Lords shouldn't intervene on.
Just had the very slightly bright idea of comparing the latest opinion polls with those just before the 2014 local elections :...
Very interesting, thanks.
Those changes don't really match up with what we've been told to expect at the local elections elections, where the Tories are expected to do badly.
Well, the general feeling seems to be that they'll do very badly in London, but will make net gains elsewhere. Your figures are consistent with that, but a useful reminder nonetheless that the 2014 comparison was quite good for Labour.
I'm wondering whether the squeeze on parties other than the big two might lead to some rather unexpected effects - for example, will the various Residents' Associations find themselves squeezed?
The lack of consumer choice in the UK compared to the US is one of the things my American wife, who hates having to chose things, liked about living in the UK.
I wouldn't say there is huge consumer choice for US customers in the grocer sector when you get outside the suburbs of large cities. It is Walmart, Walmart, Walmart, perhaps one of out of a Safeway / Albertsons / PigglyWiggly and if you live in a really bad neighborhood DollarGeneral.
Obviously in the burbs is where you get the big competition with the likes of WholeFoods, Publix, etc
Travelling extensively across the states, when you get to some less fashionable states the small towns can be just Walmart and only with a tiny fresh food section.
Indeed. Whole Foods is the exception. Most of the food in US supermarkets is uninventive processed garbage. It gets worse in states like Colorado with daft booze laws - you can’t even console yourself by buying wine.
Just had the very slightly bright idea of comparing the latest opinion polls with those just before the 2014 local elections :...
Very interesting, thanks.
Those changes don't really match up with what we've been told to expect at the local elections elections, where the Tories are expected to do badly.
Yes, it’s clear that the recent polls indicate a swing to the Conservatives since 2014, so it’s possible - nay probable - that the blue team will see gains on the night even if London swings the other way.
In one of those “careful what you wish for” unintended consequences, anti-Brexit agitators may have unleashed constitutional reforms with a wider reach than dreary negotiations about the product labels and border control (how anyone gets worked up about leaving the EU is one of life’s big mysteries, for me).
So angry were (at least) 123,821 voters in response to the Lords’ vote to keep the UK in the Customs Union (that is: “stay in the EU in an even less satisfactory manner than now”) that they signed Robert McBride’s petition to “Give the electorate a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords”. Because the number of signatories exceeds 100,000, the Government is rules-bound to offer a debate in Parliament on the topic — and to offer a response.
Constitutional arson proposed by maniacs unhappy that their highly tendentious view of what is required for Brexit is not shared by others.
Constitutional arson is the unelected Lords overruling a manifesto commitment of an elected government with the support of the majority of the commons. Remainers don't like democracy.
Erm, the fact that even you can't use the words "Salisbury convention" shows how threadbare your argument is.
"Salisbury convention" - is that used like saying "Mornington Crescent" ?
It’s a convenient excuse used by the ultra Remainers for any wrecking amendment the HoL passes.
A majority of MPs were elected at the last election on a platform of supporting the Government’s Brexit programme. Even if it were true, the Conservatives falling just short of an overall majority (as they did) doesn’t justify the Lords doing whatever they can to stop Brexit, or render it meaningless, just for the sake of 10 MPs.
It's beyond time for the Lords to be replaced. They are actively opposing a manifesto policy of the government in clear contravention of British constitutional custom. Theresa May should make 200 new peers.
If it helps, I can give a categorical assurance to the Prime Minister, as I did to her predecessor, that should I be ennobled - and goodness, I’ve waited long enough - I shall vote with the Government on all matters concerning Brexit.
In one of those “careful what you wish for” unintended consequences, anti-Brexit agitators may have unleashed constitutional reforms with a wider reach than dreary negotiations about the product labels and border control (how anyone gets worked up about leaving the EU is one of life’s big mysteries, for me).
So angry were (at least) 123,821 voters in response to the Lords’ vote to keep the UK in the Customs Union (that is: “stay in the EU in an even less satisfactory manner than now”) that they signed Robert McBride’s petition to “Give the electorate a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords”. Because the number of signatories exceeds 100,000, the Government is rules-bound to offer a debate in Parliament on the topic — and to offer a response.
Constitutional arson proposed by maniacs unhappy that their highly tendentious view of what is required for Brexit is not shared by others.
Constitutional arson is the unelected Lords overruling a manifesto commitment of an elected government with the support of the majority of the commons. Remainers don't like democracy.
Erm, the fact that even you can't use the words "Salisbury convention" shows how threadbare your argument is.
"Salisbury convention" - is that used like saying "Mornington Crescent" ?
It’s a convenient excuse used by the ultra Remainers for any wrecking amendment the HoL passes.
A majority of MPs were elected at the last election on a platform of supporting the Government’s Brexit programme. Even if it were true, the Conservatives falling just short of an overall majority (as they did) doesn’t justify the Lords doing whatever they can to stop Brexit, or render it meaningless, just for the sake of 10 MPs.
Another example of a Leaver seeking to rewrite the constitution on the fly because he doesn't like the way it works currently. Brexit isn't some magic word that allows those who claim to speak on its behalf first to define it and then to use their preferred definition to override every other constitutional check.
The threat of stacking the Lords when they get ideas above their station is a tried and tested one in this country since William IV. They are a wealthy elite trying to overrule the public because they think the little people are racist and shouldn't have been consulted.
I think the Remainers ‘cleverly’ throwing “take back control” back in the faces of Leavers for the umpteenth time is supposed to trump that argument.
In one of those “careful what you wish for” unintended consequences, anti-Brexit agitators may have unleashed constitutional reforms with a wider reach than dreary negotiations about the product labels and border control (how anyone gets worked up about leaving the EU is one of life’s big mysteries, for me).
So angry were (at least) 123,821 voters in response to the Lords’ vote to keep the UK in the Customs Union (that is: “stay in the EU in an even less satisfactory manner than now”) that they signed Robert McBride’s petition to “Give the electorate a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords”. Because the number of signatories exceeds 100,000, the Government is rules-bound to offer a debate in Parliament on the topic — and to offer a response.
Constitutional arson proposed by maniacs unhappy that their highly tendentious view of what is required for Brexit is not shared by others.
Constitutional arson is the unelected Lords overruling a manifesto commitment of an elected government with the support of the majority of the commons. Remainers don't like democracy.
Erm, the fact that even you can't use the words "Salisbury convention" shows how threadbare your argument is.
"Salisbury convention" - is that used like saying "Mornington Crescent" ?
It’s a convenient excuse used by the ultra Remainers for any wrecking amendment the HoL passes.
A majority of MPs were elected at the last election on a platform of supporting the Government’s Brexit programme. Even if it were true, the Conservatives falling just short of an overall majority (as they did) doesn’t justify the Lords doing whatever they can to stop Brexit, or render it meaningless, just for the sake of 10 MPs.
Another example of a Leaver seeking to rewrite the constitution on the fly because he doesn't like the way it works currently. Brexit isn't some magic word that allows those who claim to speak on its behalf first to define it and then to use their preferred definition to override every other constitutional check.
The same constitutional check of the elites vs the people that was overruled when they tried to stop the middle class getting the vote or the working class getting a welfare state.
The same constitutional check of the elites vs the people that was overruled when they tried to stop the middle class getting the vote or the working class getting a welfare state.
You appear to think that the House of Lords should not take action on any subject at all.
As it happens, I'm a firm believer in reform of the House of Lords. But while it's there, it should do its job. That includes scrutinising Brexit.
Just had the very slightly bright idea of comparing the latest opinion polls with those just before the 2014 local elections :...
Very interesting, thanks.
Those changes don't really match up with what we've been told to expect at the local elections elections, where the Tories are expected to do badly.
Yes, it’s clear that the recent polls indicate a swing to the Conservatives since 2014, so it’s possible - nay probable - that the blue team will see gains on the night even if London swings the other way.
Just had the very slightly bright idea of comparing the latest opinion polls with those just before the 2014 local elections :...
Very interesting, thanks.
Those changes don't really match up with what we've been told to expect at the local elections elections, where the Tories are expected to do badly.
Yes, it’s clear that the recent polls indicate a swing to the Conservatives since 2014, so it’s possible - nay probable - that the blue team will see gains on the night even if London swings the other way.
*Cough*
I've been saying that for some time.
Agreed, but it doesn't matter.
If the Tories do badly in London and the urban north, losing Councils (Hendon, Trafford, etc.), that will dominate the narrative. Even if they do relatively well elsewhere.
I think the Remainers ‘cleverly’ throwing “take back control” back in the faces of Leavers for the umpteenth time is supposed to trump that argument.
Parliament has taken back control.
You won!
Suck it up.
Actually an unelected chamber is trying to frustrate the will of elected representatives, and through them, the electorate.
I didn't vote for Brexit for the House of Lords to prevent the Government from taking back control.
Like Mr O, I also stand ready to don the ermine, if called. I'd even vote to reform the house, if that helps.
It can do what it’s doing because it has an opposition majority that is opposed to Brexit. It has that majority because it was stuffed full of Lib Dem peers during the coalition years to aide the passing of the coalition’s legislation.
Just had the very slightly bright idea of comparing the latest opinion polls with those just before the 2014 local elections :...
Very interesting, thanks.
Those changes don't really match up with what we've been told to expect at the local elections elections, where the Tories are expected to do badly.
Yes, it’s clear that the recent polls indicate a swing to the Conservatives since 2014, so it’s possible - nay probable - that the blue team will see gains on the night even if London swings the other way.
Actually an unelected chamber is trying to frustrate the will of elected representatives, and through them, the electorate.
I didn't vote for Brexit for the House of Lords to prevent the Government from taking back control.
They voted to give control to Parliament.
That's what you said you wanted
Parliament doesn't currently have any more power than it did before the vote.
It will when when we fully leave the EU.
At the moment, an unelected chamber is trying to ride roughshod over the government and prevent the full repatriation of powers. Parliament is trying to give away the control that the people want. The government is on their side. Whose side are the Lords on?
Actually an unelected chamber is trying to frustrate the will of elected representatives, and through them, the electorate.
I didn't vote for Brexit for the House of Lords to prevent the Government from taking back control.
They voted to give control to Parliament.
That's what you said you wanted
They voted to take control back from the EU to the British Parliament so the British people could hold them directly accountable for decisions made in their name, and hire and fire them accordingly. They did not vote for it to frustrate that goal before its achieved and to “ironically” justify that by abusing their campaign slogan, accompanied with a raucous laugh.
Your 5th form level “suck it up” debating arguments are as empty as they are childish.
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
Actually an unelected chamber is trying to frustrate the will of elected representatives, and through them, the electorate.
I didn't vote for Brexit for the House of Lords to prevent the Government from taking back control.
They voted to give control to Parliament.
That's what you said you wanted
They voted to take control back from the EU to the British Parliament so the British people could hold them directly accountable for decisions made in their name, and hire and fire them accordingly. They did not vote for it to frustrate that goal before its achieved and to “ironically” justify that by abusing their campaign slogan, accompanied with a raucous laugh.
Your 5th form level “suck it up” debating arguments are as empty as they are childish.
It's a shame Scott can't take his own advice and suck up the loss.
An hour or so ago he was taking about revoking Article 50.
Actually an unelected chamber is trying to frustrate the will of elected representatives, and through them, the electorate.
I didn't vote for Brexit for the House of Lords to prevent the Government from taking back control.
They voted to give control to Parliament.
That's what you said you wanted
They voted to take control back from the EU to the British Parliament so the British people could hold them directly accountable for decisions made in their name, and hire and fire them accordingly. They did not vote for it to frustrate that goal before its achieved and to “ironically” justify that by abusing their campaign slogan, accompanied with a raucous laugh.
Your 5th form level “suck it up” debating arguments are as empty as they are childish.
It's a shame Scott can't take his own advice and suck up the loss.
An hour or so ago he was taking about revoking Article 50.
Oh, he knows perfectly well. He’s doing it to get a rise out of Leavers.
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
Remember the golden rule of Brexit; everything that cheers Remainers ends up working against their cause.
Amber Rudd going might be the latest example of that. Instead of putting another Remainer on the back benches to vote against the Govt (which I don't think she'll do anyway), it has likely tipped the Brexit sub committee against a customs union.
I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?
I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
Why on earth would you be content with BINO?
It would satisfy neither Leavers nor Remainers, and wouldn’t last.
I know Remainers think it’ll ultimately allow them to spike Brexit and take the UK back in within 10 years, and sock it to the Brexiteers, but that wouldn’t work for the same reason ultra hard Brexit wouldn’t either.
The U.K. is fundamentally a eurosceptic country and relying on da yoof to alter the electorate to their benefit over time contains some heroic assumptions.
I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
Respect goes both ways
What has the government done to earn respect on this subject?
Why the BBC have chosen to use an out take to embarrass the MD of Sainsbury I can't imagine. Too cheap for the BBC. They're letting their standards slip
I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.
I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
Remember the golden rule of Brexit; everything that cheers Remainers ends up working against their cause.
Amber Rudd going might be the latest example of that. Instead of putting another Remainer on the back benches to vote against the Govt (which I don't think she'll do anyway), it has likely tipped the Brexit sub committee against a customs union.
No, that is your Golden Rule, and applies only inside the warped land of pure fantasy that is your Brexit-addled mind. There is no such rule in the real world.
Ooh, is that: 1. A genuine complaint? 2. The party getting their retaliation in first? 3. A defamation suit in waiting? 4. The start of the purge? 5. An MP about to cross the floor?
I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.
No. I'm saying that the Lords are giving every indication that they don't respect the lower chamber.
Of course it is allowed. It is incredibly foolish, but it is allowed. It should expect the objection of the people, and it's amendments to be overturned. If it tries it again it should expect to be flooded with Brexit peers.
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
Why on earth would you be content with BINO?
It would satisfy neither Leavers nor Remainers, and wouldn’t last.
I know Remainers think it’ll ultimately allow them to spike Brexit and take the UK back in within 10 years, and sock it to the Brexiteers, but that wouldn’t work for the same reason ultra hard Brexit wouldn’t either.
The U.K. is fundamentally a eurosceptic country and relying on da yoof to alter the electorate to their benefit over time contains some heroic assumptions.
These are wrecking amendments, and intended to be such. I expect the government will get them reversed in the Commons. At that points, it's up to the Lords to decide whether or not to defy the Commons.
I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.
The House of Lords reflects the politics of years ago, and only changes very, very slowly. In this case, it’s the 1999 Act + Blair’s life’s peers + Clegg’s LD undead + a few Cameron appointments. It’s centre of gravity is probably about 2005.
And, let’s face it, on current rules it will stay that way until the peers in question “pass on”.
Ooh, is that: 1. A genuine complaint? 2. The party getting their retaliation in first? 3. A defamation suit in waiting? 4. The start of the purge? 5. An MP about to cross the floor?
Dunno, maybe he will have to stand down. A Barrow by-election would be a great betting heat
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
Why on earth would you be content with BINO?
It would satisfy neither Leavers nor Remainers, and wouldn’t last.
I know Remainers think it’ll ultimately allow them to spike Brexit and take the UK back in within 10 years, and sock it to the Brexiteers, but that wouldn’t work for the same reason ultra hard Brexit wouldn’t either.
The U.K. is fundamentally a eurosceptic country and relying on da yoof to alter the electorate to their benefit over time contains some heroic assumptions.
These are wrecking amendments, and intended to be such. I expect the government will get them reversed in the Commons. At that points, it's up to the Lords to decide whether or not to defy the Commons.
I think they might well do so. It’s only the crossbenchers I’d trust to be (largely) sensible if it came to that.
Does this vindicate Trump's pre election stance and rather damn the Democrats ?
If it's true the Iranians had clearly not come clean about their programme*. That's a substantial breach, and more than enough for Trump to forgo renewing the treaty next month.
* Iran has been caught before, but this sounds like the biggest ommission yet.
Ooh, is that: 1. A genuine complaint? 2. The party getting their retaliation in first? 3. A defamation suit in waiting? 4. The start of the purge? 5. An MP about to cross the floor?
It’s Jeremy Corbyn’s version of Putin throwing opponents out of 12th floor windows.
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
Why on earth would you be content with BINO?
It would satisfy neither Leavers nor Remainers, and wouldn’t last.
I know Remainers think it’ll ultimately allow them to spike Brexit and take the UK back in within 10 years, and sock it to the Brexiteers, but that wouldn’t work for the same reason ultra hard Brexit wouldn’t either.
The U.K. is fundamentally a eurosceptic country and relying on da yoof to alter the electorate to their benefit over time contains some heroic assumptions.
Our relationship with the EU will change and evolve over many decades. This is not us being a member of a club with fixed rules. We will almost certainly wish to change things down the line, and so will they.
Ooh, is that: 1. A genuine complaint? 2. The party getting their retaliation in first? 3. A defamation suit in waiting? 4. The start of the purge? 5. An MP about to cross the floor?
Dunno, maybe he will have to stand down. A Barrow by-election would be a great betting heat
When was the last time the government took a seat from the Opposition in a by- election?
Ah, just remembered it was next door in Copeland a couple of years ago.
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
Why on earth would you be content with BINO?
It would satisfy neither Leavers nor Remainers, and wouldn’t last.
I know Remainers think it’ll ultimately allow them to spike Brexit and take the UK back in within 10 years, and sock it to the Brexiteers, but that wouldn’t work for the same reason ultra hard Brexit wouldn’t either.
The U.K. is fundamentally a eurosceptic country and relying on da yoof to alter the electorate to their benefit over time contains some heroic assumptions.
I am accepting the inevitable due to my pragmatic nature.
It is a vassal state and to be honest if that is the best we can achieve I would rather stay and be a very difficult member
Who knows where we will be at the end of March 2019.
Sajid Javid cheered me up today and if goes on as he has started he must be in with a chance of the leadership
They voted to take control back from the EU to the British Parliament so the British people could hold them directly accountable for decisions made in their name, and hire and fire them accordingly.
And the HoL today voted to ensure the British Parliament makes the decision.
At the moment, an unelected chamber is trying to ride roughshod over the government and prevent the full repatriation of powers.
They voted to give control to Parliament.
Which part of that don't you understand?
actually Scott we voted to leave the EU. Nothing on the ballot mentioned taking back control. Taking back control is a consequence of us being out of the EU and all it’s institutions ie single market and customs union .
Remember the golden rule of Brexit; everything that cheers Remainers ends up working against their cause.
The premise of this rule being that everything is going the Brexiteers' way?
The country has moved on and accepted the result. A few Pacific Island Remainers on a message board, twitter and the Lords thinking that anything they do can prevent it doesn't change the fundamentals of Brexit. Nor the experience of the last 20 months.
They voted to take control back from the EU to the British Parliament so the British people could hold them directly accountable for decisions made in their name, and hire and fire them accordingly.
And the HoL today voted to ensure the British Parliament makes the decision.
They directly enabled exactly what you want.
And you hate them for it...
No, it’s designed to wreck Brexit and prevent it from ever meaningfully happening in the first place.
Comments
Mr. Meeks, I agree that constitutional reform of a significant degree should be considered seriously and not implemented for narrow reasons. The long-term impact should be considered.
That said, the unelected seeking to overturn the decision of the electorate was bound to be met with a degree of bemusement (to be polite).
"I agreed to buy you milk. I didn't say anything about whether or not I would pour it down the sink."
"Salisbury convention" - is that used like saying "Mornington Crescent" ?
My gut feeling, based on nothing in particular, is that technocracy is more an option after a second failed election.
The polls are saying that a second election could strengthen Lega further as they consolidate their leadership of the centre right, but that could be at the expense of their FI partners leaving the bloc no further ahead. M5S are also edging up.
That said a recent contest in Molise in the south led to a strong centre right victory where the GE might have suggested M5S - local contest caveats apply. and I'm not sure who the right's candidate was or any campaign details.
It could be a sign that Salvini / Lega / right might be able to eat into the M5S base in the South and that southern voters could be prepared to hold their noses. On balance, and the polls are by no means clear on this, my hunch is that the second election might mprove Lega's overall position rather than M5S's
Since the government didn't win a majority last year, it doesn't have a mandate for claiming it applies. Unfortunate for the more absurd Brexiters, who are reduced to arguing that the House of Lords really shouldn't intervene on policies that they're really really keen the House of Lords shouldn't intervene on.
I'm wondering whether the squeeze on parties other than the big two might lead to some rather unexpected effects - for example, will the various Residents' Associations find themselves squeezed?
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/04/15/local-difficulties-alastair-meeks-looks-ahead-to-next-months-local-elections/
It doesn't say "cancel Brexit"
It says "Parliament must decide", which is what they claim they wanted all along...
And on that happy note, I must be off.
A majority of MPs were elected at the last election on a platform of supporting the Government’s Brexit programme. Even if it were true, the Conservatives falling just short of an overall majority (as they did) doesn’t justify the Lords doing whatever they can to stop Brexit, or render it meaningless, just for the sake of 10 MPs.
The Lords are signing their own death warrant.
The MoE on that tiny number will be huge.
That's what you wanted. That's what you campaigned for...
Or something.
You won!
Suck it up.
As it happens, I'm a firm believer in reform of the House of Lords. But while it's there, it should do its job. That includes scrutinising Brexit.
(Iran's nuclear programme is one of the few popular 'anti-West' efforts in an otherwise pro-West populace)
I've been saying that for some time.
I didn't vote for Brexit for the House of Lords to prevent the Government from taking back control.
Like Mr O, I also stand ready to don the ermine, if called. I'd even vote to reform the house, if that helps.
If the Tories do badly in London and the urban north, losing Councils (Hendon, Trafford, etc.), that will dominate the narrative. Even if they do relatively well elsewhere.
That's what you said you wanted
It is now full of Lib Dem undead.
Great result. Rejoice!!!
(Followed you on Twitter BTW)
It will when when we fully leave the EU.
At the moment, an unelected chamber is trying to ride roughshod over the government and prevent the full repatriation of powers. Parliament is trying to give away the control that the people want. The government is on their side. Whose side are the Lords on?
Which part of that don't you understand?
Your 5th form level “suck it up” debating arguments are as empty as they are childish.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
An hour or so ago he was taking about revoking Article 50.
Something I’ve just given him.
"There were, he said, 55,000 pages of evidence and a further 55,000 files on 183 CDs.
"Here's what the files included: incriminating documents, incriminating charts, incriminating presentations, incriminating blueprints, incriminating photos, incriminating videos and more," he said.
"These files conclusively prove that Iran was brazenly lying when it said it never had a nuclear weapons programme," he added."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43952196
Amber Rudd going might be the latest example of that. Instead of putting another Remainer on the back benches to vote against the Govt (which I don't think she'll do anyway), it has likely tipped the Brexit sub committee against a customs union.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
https://twitter.com/HuffPostUK/status/991014797419347968
It would satisfy neither Leavers nor Remainers, and wouldn’t last.
I know Remainers think it’ll ultimately allow them to spike Brexit and take the UK back in within 10 years, and sock it to the Brexiteers, but that wouldn’t work for the same reason ultra hard Brexit wouldn’t either.
The U.K. is fundamentally a eurosceptic country and relying on da yoof to alter the electorate to their benefit over time contains some heroic assumptions.
* don't stop.
There is something deeply rotten at the heart of the Labour party.
1. A genuine complaint?
2. The party getting their retaliation in first?
3. A defamation suit in waiting?
4. The start of the purge?
5. An MP about to cross the floor?
Of course it is allowed. It is incredibly foolish, but it is allowed. It should expect the objection of the people, and it's amendments to be overturned. If it tries it again it should expect to be flooded with Brexit peers.
And, let’s face it, on current rules it will stay that way until the peers in question “pass on”.
(And yes, I know no-one seriously archives stuff on CDs or DVDs any more. The Iranians should just have used AWS ...)
* Iran has been caught before, but this sounds like the biggest ommission yet.
Don't let great be the enemy of good.
Ah, just remembered it was next door in Copeland a couple of years ago.
It is a vassal state and to be honest if that is the best we can achieve I would rather stay and be a very difficult member
Who knows where we will be at the end of March 2019.
Sajid Javid cheered me up today and if goes on as he has started he must be in with a chance of the leadership
They directly enabled exactly what you want.
And you hate them for it...
They respect them much more than the Government.
This is what you voted for...
And well you know it.