Lords revolting about Brexit

It was a very interesting debate, if you take out the party politics.

Persuasive arguments for and against but most interesting for me was the technical detail of the possible scenarios the Amendments could cause.

Perhaps the debate was listened to , debated and voted for understanding the finer details that have not had an airing or given any attention to.

Sorry, only two Tories with any gumption to vote for EU nationals being given rights.

Dispatches is going to be even more meaningful now - the impact of Brexit on the wards.

I find it very weird that not a single Tory voted for the amendment for a meaningful vote. 3 of them voted for EU nationals.
Are they scared of being held to account?
Perhaps they just want Boris and pals to get the blame.

Shameful

MPs not doing their job and voting for what they actualy believe is in the interests of the British people because they are afraid of the inevitabl;e backlash from their party whips/ the Daily Mail/ Express/ Sun/ Telegraph.

Only the Liberal Democrats, who have never been supported by the right wing press, have the gumption to stand up for what they and at least 48% of the British people believe.

Well both the 1st and 2nd Lords Amendment have just been 'LOST' so it goes back to the Lords.

Ping Pong to Pong Ping.

Well said, Ginny, although I am in my seventies I am not yet retired and so just dip in and out of GN.

I am certainly not averse to reading posts from those with a different viewpoint (even although their misguided opinions are invariably wrong!)

It does spur you on to come back with a better argument.

Part of the decision relates to the Dutch elections

T May always said 'the end of March' ( although that isn't very far away now.)

Breaking news according to the Guardian...
Article 50 will not be triggered tomorrow, but it's likely to be the last day in March

Re: Arguing our points of view.

I come onto GN's News and Politics pages almost every day to learn something new and today's read on this thread hasn't disappointed. I enjoy relaxing(!) reading people's views. It’s good that we don't all agree, otherwise there would be no debate. I enjoy just absorbing what others think about issues and assessing how we agree/differ. I'm so impressed by some people's knowledge about all manner of stuff from how Parliament works to trade agreements and employment law, to name a few.

I appreciate the many links (thanks DJ!) to material I wouldn't otherwise have found. I do read widely on the internet and other sources, but there are still items I find in these threads I didn't know.

Apart from any other consideration, we are using our brains and that's all to the good!

Passes it today, meant to write.

Well, I certainly don't think that would happen ( stalling/standoff) I think that triggering article 50 will go ahead quickly , particularly if Parliament passes it, because anything else would undermine T May and the Government, and can't see that happening because of anything Sturgeon may say.

If people who now live abroad and had been out for less than 15 years, had a vote, that seems fair enough to me.

Interesting intervention from Nicola Sturgeon this morning, taking TM by surprise, as it had been expected that she would make announcements about Scotland's position at their conference next week. So, she caught them on the hop as they discuss possibly announcing the triggering of Art 50 tomorrow.

It seems NS spent a considerable time answering journalists' questions, restating arguments for a second referendum but with a new twist - saying she 'had no right not to call a referendum, because doing that would involve her unilaterally deciding Scotland’s future.'

According to some reports, TM will allow a second referendum, but only if it takes place after Brexit, when Scotland will be out of the EU. NS is adamant that it must take place before then, so as to maximise the chances of Scotland being able to rejoin quickly or remain in altogether.

Does anyone else feel this move has the potential to stall the triggering of Art 50? Could there be a stand-off between Westminster and Edinburgh?

X post Welshwife

I understand your point of view Ginny and don't know ( although I expect that you do) if working and living abroad was a time related thing ( in not having a vote) as if you were, for example, only there for a month or so, or had been away for a year etc etc.So am not sure what criteria were cited for not being able to vote.

I had a vote in the referendum despite living in France - been out of UK for less than 15 years - it is people such as us who will be greatly impacted by the results of this decision - although I would have still voted Remain had I been living in UK. The EU nationals in UK and the Brits in EU are the people most affected by the vote and thousands if not millions were denied a vote. Many of these people pay tax in the UK - ours is deducted at source and is as high as when we lived in UK! We then pay tax in France as they have a slightly different system.

PS to Roses, yes, but my DD pays a lot of income tax in this country as she works for a British company abroad and was denied a vote. She is paid in sterling into an English bank account and pays tax to the Inland Revenue. She tried every avenue in her attempts to vote she was not allowed to. That is wrong.

By the way, It's also Fair Trade Fortnight, anhd Brexit is very likely to affect our trading with other countries outside the EU as far as fair trade is concerned.

ukandeu.ac.uk/how-brexit-might-affect-uk-fair-trade-policy/

Just so we all know what we are going to lose.

europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/history_en

Nothing can or should be assumed POGS and rosesarered is certainly not privy to the motivation of every voter, despite stating something as a fact. You have also made a number of logical fallacies.

That really isn't the point POGS. Are you saying that not knowing the difference between fact and opinion in a discussion is irrelevant?

Well my response Whitewave and GG MK2 would be both the Leave and Remain sides of the debate prior to the EU Referendum made 'unsubstantiated' claims and tit for tat evidence of this has been spoken on 'numerous' threads about the EU Referendum Result.

It gets reality no where!

As with assuming after the vote was cast only one side of the arguement ' knows ' how /why the other side voted. There will be many variables and it is not a case of stating 'false facts' more a generalised comment which can possibly be assumed , unless you go with the view only the ignorant, unintelligent who did not know what they were talking about means the entire voting population who voted Leave of course.

It get's you no where!

gg absolutely agree. Turn the clock back to last year and we were being told amongst other rubbish

The EU had more to lose than us

We would regain parliamentary sovereignty

All the payments to the EU would be ours to do with what we wished

Britain would be the bastions of free trade

The rest of the world would be falling over themselves to trade with the UK

Immigration will be under total control

All illusions under which so many voted.

Most Leavers did not think it would be simple, actually djen they knew it would be a complicated process to extricate ourselves after all those years in the EU.

Where, oh where, is the proof that what you are saying as a fact is indeed a fact. More false facts being offered. Did you never learn how to put forward something as an opinion?