Lords revolting about Brexit

I think I would rather stick with the Lords as it is - with less members- that an elected House of Lords. We could now have a Tory government and a Tory House of Lords , Obama was prevented from carrying out much because the republicans held the power

Except the cap doesn't fit for a great deal of people Maizie

If the cap fits, Nfk...

I shall go back to merely watching and learning from my betters since apparently I don't know (or it seems care) what Parliamentary Sovereignty is and obviously only voted for Brexit because I'm ignorant and easily lead.

I agree with your post of 19:51, varian. We need a second chamber and the Lords is the best we have at present. Labour did try to make it less 'hereditary' by kicking off a number of hereditary peers. And of course, the new creations are non hereditary.

A reminder that 'Parliament' is not the same as 'the House of Commons'; the Parliament building is not called the Houses of Parliament for nothing. Parliament consists of two 'houses', the House of Lords and the House of Commons. the Lords has lost a great deal of its power as a vetoing chamber over the years but they are still absolutely entitled to make amendments as they see proper.

The Constitution has three aspects; the Legislature (both houses of Parliament), the Executive (the 'government' which is appointed by the monarch) and the Judiciary. Parliament is not obliged to carry out the wishes of the Executive, it is up to Parliament to decide on whether bills proposed by the Executive should be enacted into law. They are at perfect liberty to amend or reject proposed legislation. The reason that Governments generally get the legislation they want through parliament is because they have a majority of MPs. This seems to be the bit that people are not understanding. The Executive and the Legislature are separate in order to prevent abuse of power.

ps sorry it was mentioned on the previous page.

Going back to the vote in the HoL, has anyone mentioned the sacking of Michael Heseltine, because he was one of the leaders in the 'revolt'?

Although our voting system is very flawed, so that a party can gain a majority of MPs by a getting a minority of votes, we still have a representative democracy. MPs are charged with exercising their considered judgement on every issue. They should vote according to their conscience. They are not delegates who must follow the instructions of their constituents.

Most MPs, who have much better understanding of politics than the average person, came to the conclusion that the best interests of the UK would be best served by remaining in the EU.

There was an advisory referendum in which the leave side got slightly more votes than the remain side and MPs had a duty to take that into account, but they knew there were many factors influencing that decision.

Those MPs who still believed that we should remain but were bullied by their party whips or feared for their careers, and acquiecsed in supporting brexit totally against their better judgement let our country down.

Thank you POGS I knew that I had said the HOC and not the Government, but some posters chose not to believe it, and prefer to think that I don't know the difference between the two.

Whitewave

"What you are missing pog is the fact that this statement is not included in the white paper. Why not?"
---

www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-united-kingdoms-exit-from-and-new-partnership-with-the-european-union-white-paper

'This White Paper provides Parliament and the country with a clear vision of what we are seeking to achieve in negotiating our exit from, and new partnership with, the European Union.'
--

The White Paper is not about the policies /process involving the House of Parliament or The House of Lords. The White Paper is specific to the European Union Negotiations.

Happy to be corrected.

I can't remember where it is Jalima but there is somewhere that says that about best for the country.

The HOC has let us down how, exactly, varian?

Sorry POGS and Ana, you are totally missing the point. Of course we should abolish the HoL and replace it with a more democratic second chamber, but until that happens, we must rely on it to act as a check on the government, especially when the HoC lets us all down.

Yes, the HOL is fine when it suits the agenda of some posters...otherwise it should be abolished!

Ana

I had forgotten that thread.

Interesting there were some GN posters who signed the 38 degrees petition to ' Abolish The Lords'.

Nigglynellie made a valid point in her post of 15.56 .

What you are missing pog is the fact that this statement is not included in the white paper. Why not?

rosesarered

" It will be ping ponged and then it is up to the HOC to decide ( not the Lords) "

You are correct and as you 'clearly have stated' the House of Commons 'Not' the government in your post!.

I don't understand why Theresa Mays 'Lancaster House Brexit Speech ' is being ignored by the House of Lords, The Media et al.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/full-text-theresa-may-brexit-speech-global-britain-eu-european-union-latest-a7531361.html

This is from that speech.

" And when it comes to Parliament, there is one other way in which I would like to provide certainty. I can confirm today that the Government will put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament, before it comes into force."

So please explain to me somebody what am I missing? Has the government, Theresa May, not conceded to what the Lords have asked already?

How many did Cameron add to the Lords when he stopped being PM?

Interesting link Ana, thanks

I don't want the House of Lords, but I do want a second reforming house, one to keep the government to account.

I agree, and we certainly do not need 800 of them - a quarter of that number would be sufficient, perhaps 250.

Their role description and responsibilities do not mention that though Welshwife
The Role of an MP
MPs have responsibilities to three main groups: their constituents, Parliament and their political party

Cindersdad, I know my MP agrees with you. I don't need to ask her again.
Sad, roses, that you do not see the difference between the government and the House of Commons.

I don't want the House of Lords, but I do want a second reforming house, one to keep the government to account.

Most democratic countries have two houses in their Govt system - it is just that ours is not re-elected every 4/5 years. Most of the people in the Lords are very experienced politicians who have a good idea of how Govt works. It is interesting that some of them who were MPs affiliated to a party sit in the Lords as a Crossbench peer.
Heseltine made a good point this morning when he pointed out that Brexiteers have been moaning on ever since we joined the EU and Farage announced that if it was a narrow 4% majority he would keep pressing for another referendum - he was not suggesting that we had another one but said those of us who believe we should remain should be allowed to keep saying it. I thought it interesting that he has never met Theresa May.
When an MP is elected he is charged with doing what he/she feels is best for the country - not to follow a party line. The majority of MPs think that it is far from the best interests of UK to leave the EU so should be having the courage of their convictions.

Thanks, Ana. Before my time. Interesting.

I think, Nfk that Remainers have a real interest in cluing themselves up about how the British Constitution works.

Whereas Leave voters seem to be entirely indifferent to it.

I have a strong feeling that the 'sovereignty' which Leavers claimed they were voting to restore didn't actually mean the 'parliamentary sovereignty' which has been key to our constitution for 300+ years. It was just a vague and barely understood 'feeling'.

Who'd have thought that a simple 'No' in answer to one question would have provoked a potential revolution in the UK. For if we abandon parliamentary sovereignty for some different concept of sovereignty that would be a revolution.