Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Article 50 decision imminent! Parliament could vote. Watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    Apparently there are more than 400 MPs who will vote to invoke 50. (Source: Guido Fawkes).

    Let the unelected Lords try and overturn a clear referendum majority AND the elected House of Commons! Ha ha ha!

    Can you spell suicide your noble, UNELECTED Lords?
    The House of Lords is part of our culture and heritage. If you dislike it, piss off and live elsewhere.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midnightice)
    Because no trade deal would really strengthen confidence in the Euro. Absolute la la land. I'm genuinely under the impression that traders don't watch the news. It's been clear that we will be leaving the single market and customs union since May set up the DfIT.
    Euro's confidence is not that badly affected by the Pound. If it was then u would see a strong correlation in euro-pound movements vs a third currency (benchmark). Instead, you can clearly see way stronger movements in the pound than the euro. The talk of parity is probably because the pound will drop much faster than euro. (Obviously, ceteris paribus)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    The referendum that gave Scotland its parliament was not treated as something the Prime Minister could then rubber stamp with no recourse to the Westminster parliament - it required an act debated and approved by national MPs.

    What May is trying to do strongly resembles the dictatorship powers of Henry VIII and she's even seeking to use one of his legal mechanisms to do it!

    This with a tiny majority in the House. You couldn't make it up.
    The Supreme Court has, I am afraid just provided a road map to tear the Constitution apart. Their Lordships have just interpreted Factortame so that the structure of EU law is not unique. Any government can now by Act of Parliament create a source of law superior to an Act of Parliament. Unless and until Parliament repeals the Enabling Act (and that choice of language was not accidental), all Acts of Parliament are subject to the provisions of that source of law.

    What "rights" do you want to entrench in a British Bill of Rights so that your political opponents cannot reverse them despite having a Parliamentary majority and mandate to do so?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    The House of Lords is part of our culture and heritage. If you dislike it, piss off and live elsewhere.
    Our culture, heritage, constitution, democracy, traditions, etc, matter not a jot to the kipper-type Brexi-droid - all that matters is the monomania of lowering immigration and they would happily resort to nuking Washington if it stood in the way of achieving that goal.

    Hence Farage's demented leering.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The Supreme Court has, I am afraid just provided a road map to tear the Constitution apart. Their Lordships have just interpreted Factortame so that the structure of EU law is not unique. Any government can now by Act of Parliament create a source of law superior to an Act of Parliament. Unless and until Parliament repeals the Enabling Act (and that choice of language was not accidental), all Acts of Parliament are subject to the provisions of that source of law.

    What "rights" do you want to entrench in a British Bill of Rights so that your political opponents cannot reverse them despite having a Parliamentary majority and mandate to do so?
    A starting point might be putting actual, you know, 'votes' before that parliament. we used to have them in the good old days before Brexo-mania.

    BTW, not being a lawyer, I have only a very sketchy understanding of your Factortame/Enabling Act point - please explain a little more?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    The House of Lords is part of our culture and heritage. If you dislike it, piss off and live elsewhere.
    No, I don't like it.

    It is an undemocratic anachronism that has swollen to an unmanageable size.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...too-many-lords

    The only reason it exists at all is because serious reform is too complicated and difficult and no government has the time to devote to it. Better to govern than to waste time on arcane constitutional matters that no-one understands or cares about.

    BUT when the House of Lords stops a government governing, everything changes. Like the Peoples Budget in 1909.

    So if the Commons votes for a vanilla Article 50 bill, and the Lords votes in an amendment saying we have to stay in the single market, and sends it back to the Commons, and everything gets sucked up into the Parliament Act with it having to get approved three times ya de ya...

    May could well say "f'ck this for a game of soldiers, House of Lords" and holds a general election. And if she wins and the Lords STILL refuses to bend she gets the Queen to appoint hundreds of new peers and overturns it with a new majority in the Lords.

    It will be chaos. And do you think people will still be saying "the House of Lords is part of our culture and heritage?"

    The Houses of Parliament have only one democratically elected chamber. If it is frustrated on a matter of national interest by the unelected one there is only going to be one winner.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    a very sketchy understanding
    Is nonetheless more than I have.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Our culture, heritage, constitution, democracy, traditions, etc, matter not a jot to the kipper-type Brexi-droid - all that matters is the monomania of lowering immigration and they would happily resort to nuking Washington if it stood in the way of achieving that goal.

    Hence Farage's demented leering.
    You lost the Referendum. We are about to trigger Article 50 and leave the Single Market.

    Suck it up buttercup.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    A starting point might be putting actual, you know, 'votes' before that parliament. we used to have them in the good old days before Brexo-mania.

    BTW, not being a lawyer, I have only a very sketchy understanding of your Factortame/Enabling Act point - please explain a little more?
    You seem to have a pretty sketchy understanding of the Royal Prerogative too.

    :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    You seem to have a pretty sketchy understanding of the Royal Prerogative too.

    :rolleyes:
    It's a much abused power, but I don't recall another circumstance for many a long year where it was stated by the government that they would bring forward such a sweeping national change without recourse to Parliament - can you?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    No, I don't like it.

    It is an undemocratic anachronism that has swollen to an unmanageable size.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...too-many-lords

    The only reason it exists at all is because serious reform is too complicated and difficult and no government has the time to devote to it. Better to govern than to waste time on arcane constitutional matters that no-one understands or cares about.

    BUT when the House of Lords stops a government governing, everything changes. Like the Peoples Budget in 1909.

    So if the Commons votes for a vanilla Article 50 bill, and the Lords votes in an amendment saying we have to stay in the single market, and sends it back to the Commons, and everything gets sucked up into the Parliament Act with it having to get approved three times ya de ya...

    May could well say "f'ck this for a game of soldiers, House of Lords" and holds a general election. And if she wins and the Lords STILL refuses to bend she gets the Queen to appoint hundreds of new peers and overturns it with a new majority in the Lords.

    It will be chaos. And do you think people will still be saying "the House of Lords is part of our culture and heritage?"

    The Houses of Parliament have only one democratically elected chamber. If it is frustrated on a matter of national interest by the unelected one there is only going to be one winner.
    Why are you living here if you don't like the political system we live by?

    Move elsewhere. This is our country, our laws and our politics.

    If you want to live in some direct democracy then move to a smaller European country that has that...


    ...while you still can.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr. Speaker)
    People are not clever enough to make these decisions - this is why we pay people we elect to make them for us. Referendums are a terrible terrible idea imo
    Views like this are becoming more and more common and I find it a very worrying trend. If you don't believe in the basic principle of democracy (representation by the people for the people) then you need to consider moving to a different country and living under a different system for a few years. You'll soon come back.

    As for the vote it's irrelevant in the long run. The house of commons will vote for it (both labour and the tories are voting to trigger article 50) and the house of lords aren't an issue. Push comes to shove they'll trigger a general election and put it in their manifesto so they can't legally block it. IF that happens (and I don't really want it to) then the Tories will get a much bigger majority. Despite how loud the Lib dems are there support hasn't gone up and has all but vanished here in the south west. Labour look weak because of all the in fighting (I'm a labour member and I think that) I just don't see this ending well. My biggest worry would be UKIP taking our seats in the north. Next months by-election will show if that's going to happen or not.


    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    No, I don't like it.

    It is an undemocratic anachronism that has swollen to an unmanageable size.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...too-many-lords

    The only reason it exists at all is because serious reform is too complicated and difficult and no government has the time to devote to it. Better to govern than to waste time on arcane constitutional matters that no-one understands or cares about.

    BUT when the House of Lords stops a government governing, everything changes. Like the Peoples Budget in 1909.

    So if the Commons votes for a vanilla Article 50 bill, and the Lords votes in an amendment saying we have to stay in the single market, and sends it back to the Commons, and everything gets sucked up into the Parliament Act with it having to get approved three times ya de ya...

    May could well say "f'ck this for a game of soldiers, House of Lords" and holds a general election. And if she wins and the Lords STILL refuses to bend she gets the Queen to appoint hundreds of new peers and overturns it with a new majority in the Lords.

    It will be chaos. And do you think people will still be saying "the House of Lords is part of our culture and heritage?"

    The Houses of Parliament have only one democratically elected chamber. If it is frustrated on a matter of national interest by the unelected one there is only going to be one winner.


    The house of Lords isn't what it was in 1909 in part because of that. They cannot legally block a manifesto pledge. You are way overplaying what powers they have and under-valueing the fact most of them do a good job at holding the goverments to account. If you don't like the system, fine, but it's not the end of the world. No more so then the president of the USA appointing the entire team without the need to be an elected official.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    The scenario you've painted here is practically impossible.

    The Lords cannot block the Commons completely, though they can slow it down a fair amount in order to allow more scrutiny and to prevent poorly-written bills from reaching royal assent. They are entirely within their rights to do that for Brexit if needed, since that's the system we have in place for every law. The idea that this system would suddenly lead to a snap election is ridiculous.
    Would the Lords decree that 'Parliament resolves to invoke article 50' is a badly written bill (or however MPs phrase it).

    Says what it is on the tin!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It's a much abused power, but I don't recall another circumstance for many a long year where it was stated by the government that they would bring forward such a sweeping national change without recourse to Parliament - can you?
    I would say both the First and Second World Wars brought fairly sweeping national change, wouldn't you?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    I would say both the First and Second World Wars brought fairly sweeping national change, wouldn't you?
    There was a debate and a motion in the House at the start of WW2 - it was a complicated war which moved through a number of phases and the House approved later stages in votes and debates.

    WWI was in a different era, but the views of party leaders and their assent was sought. Maybe that war doesn't serve as a great example of when to not consult the House though. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    The House of Lords is part of our culture and heritage. If you dislike it, piss off and live elsewhere.
    A traitor trying to defend heritage? Oh that's rich.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demaistre)
    A traitor trying to defend heritage? Oh that's rich.
    It's called taking the piss.

    Seems to be lost on the both of you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    It's called taking the piss.

    Seems to be lost on the both of you.
    Sarcasm is not easily detectable through a written format, and taking the piss usually means that there is some humour involved.
    Also can't help but notice you didn't defend yourself from my accusation of you being a traitor.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demaistre)
    Sarcasm is not easily detectable through a written format, and taking the piss usually means that there is some humour involved.
    Also can't help but notice you didn't defend yourself from my accusation of you being a traitor.
    Because I was taking the piss. I don't care if you think I'm a ''traitor''.

    But if you really wanna talk about it PM me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Because I was taking the piss. I don't care if you think I'm a ''traitor''.

    But if you really wanna talk about it PM me.
    Again taking the piss usually means there is some humour there, something lacking in your post.

    I really don't fancy listening to a remainers mental gymnastics as to why they aren't a traitor so I'll pass.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.