Lords revolting about Brexit

GROAN!

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

Me too roses

Hesletine made good point I thought. Every single EU country's parliament will debate and decide on the Brexit terms. We who apparently voted for greater sovereignty would not be given that democratic choice if the Brexiters have their way. Ironic isn't it!!

That's the point roses. It IS up to Parliament to decide - not the government.

Yes, thank you for reminding me DD even though I had already said it.

Not quite roses. You wrote that it's up to the HoC not the Lords. The Lords have given the HoC the right to have a voice - not just the government (not the same thing).

I wish they'd just sort out the HOL once and for all and get on with Brexit, it was voted for by the majority who bothered to vote! I'm sick of hearing about it.

You could always stop listening.

I believe it's absolutely right that Parliament (not just the government) should have a say on a change which will affect this country and the lives of our children and grandchildren.

It's ironic that it's the Lords who have forced the amendment. It's a disgrace that Parliament itself hasn't been braver.

Democracy is about more than a cross in a box.

The House of Commons behaved disgracefully when so many were prepared to be bullied by their party whips to support brexit, even although they thought it was against the best interests of the country. The Lords are foing their job by asking the Commons to think again.

Nit picking DD because that was exactly what I did say.Varian yes, I agree, and that is what they are there for.In the end though, it is Parliament that will say, and they may well agree ( gasp!) with the Government to trigger article 50 without those amendments.We shall see.

No, you didn't! At the moment, it's only the government which is having a say. The government and Parliament aren't the same. The Lords amendment gives Parliament a right to have a voice. Whether they'll use it ornot is a different matter.

If what you say is true and the intention always was for Parliament to have a say, why is there a problem?

Why has Heseltine been sacked for supporting something the government intended all along? Unless, of course, it wasn't what was intended!?

Why has Heseltine been sacked for supporting something the government intended all along?

Can you expand on that, dd?

As I understand it the government was going to permit a vote on leave the EU with a deal or leave without one. Whereas asking for a 'meaningful' vote implies that MPs should have rather more than a choice between minor disaster and major disaster.

All this support for the H of Lords by people who until recently were decrying it as an anachronism from the past, unelected, old fashioned, snobbish, completely out of touch, poorly attended by elderly fossils, not fit for purpose and needing a complete re-vamp to bring it up to modern standards. All of the above are true, so why this sudden deference to it, particularly to Lord Hesseltine?!

Yes, ironic isn't it niggly? The HOL is suddenly fine when it's doing what Remainers want it to do.

All these things you say about the HoL are true, Nellie but we need a second chamber and that's what we've got. It is not the first time that they appear to be doing a better job than the cowardly HoC

Ironic though that a non- elected undemocratic body has to show a democratic elected (all but the prime minister) body what democratic sovereignty should look like isn't it!?

Since it would be impossible to negotiate with a committee the size and diversity of the HoC the Government ie, those in charge at the moment, are appointing expert negotiators to act on their behalf. There has to be trust that these people to do their best for us as a nation. Mrs May has already said that the final say as to whether the final agreement is accepted will be put before Parliament. So what's the problem? Of course if Parlaiment says no, we could, as I understand it, when the two years is up, then leave with nothing. So I hope ample, very ample, time is allowed for debate!!

(I still think we'll end up staying in)

And be treated like a traitor state? Yes, that'll be fun...

It's what the Remainers want and they're the most vociferous.

All this support for the H of Lords by people who until recently were decrying it as an anachronism from the past, unelected, old fashioned, snobbish, completely out of touch, poorly attended by elderly fossils, not fit for purpose and needing a complete re-vamp to bring it up to modern standards

Who would that be,*NN*? Do you have a link to a thread that could illustrate your statement?

Well they would be, wouldn't they? They still can't quite believe that the vote didn't go their way...

What the Remainers want is not the choice of a bad deal or a worse deal (WTA rules).

A meaningful choice should be between a bad deal (if that is all on offer) and sticking with what we have now (if it is patently obvious that would be the best thing for the UK)