House Of Lords

[geoffreys]

There is no guarantee anyway that the 27 will agree with or without holding 3 million EU Citizens to ransom.

Jim

Exactly. So why make it easy for them by passing the Lords amendment to the Article 50 bill?
It would be playing into their hands, at maybe our expense!
(our meaning UK Nationals in the EU).
Geoff.

[Jim B]

I think you played into their hands by voting Brexit; l think it's called self imoliation.

Jim

[geoffreys]

I think you played into their hands by voting Brexit; l think it's called self imoliation.

Jim

We voted Brexit to get as far away as possible from their (grubby, greedy, unelected) hands.
Geoff.

[Lynsab]

I think you played into their hands by voting Brexit; l think it's called self imoliation.

Jim

Agree Jim, given that the UK is now leaving we need the Lords to indeed bring clarity back into this...and they did...

I agree too that with the UK going out with guarantees that the three million can stay shows we are by far in a better position...

Of course we can't decide what 27 other countries will do, but they're not the ones leaving..we are to show our hand first...it's only right.

Polls already showing the British public agree with the lords decision on this...

We are leaving ....some of us kicking and screaming, but IMO sense must prevail on how.

The speeches I heard were some of the best I've heard on brexit so far.

[Jim B]

You and others like you want to hold innocent people hostage till you get what you want. You voted for the Brexit so you should be prepared to take the consequences and not threaten people who have had no say in what has happened.

Jim

[Lynsab]

You and others like you want to hold innocent people hostage till you get what you want. You voted for the Brexit so you should be prepared to take the consequences and not threaten people who have had no say in what has happened.

Jim

[Royal]

Once upon a time, in the not too distant past, the House of Lords was made up of the nations' great and the good. Senior military figures (retired Admirals and Generals), retired Industrialists, senior members of the Judiciary, senior members of the Clergy (Bishops etc), senior figures in Education and a smattering of senior politicians were ennobled. They all had something to contribute towards the direction the country as a whole was headed because each of them had spent a lifetime serving in their relative professions and they brought all their expertise to the table when scrutinising the detail of new laws.

I watched a little of the live debate on TV and it seemed to me that there are now an inordinate number of ex-politicians from the House of Commons who have been elevated to the House of Lords. Many of them were career politicians who had not served the country in any other capacity and (in my opinion) are only interested in party politics. No doubt some of them also got to these dizzy heights by toadying up to the political elite of their day and all of them, it seems to me, have their snouts in the trough.

Most of those who actually spoke appeared to be ex politicians who still belong to a specific party. It should not be about party politics. It has always been about holding governments to account and scrutinising the minutiae of new laws.

I am all for the House of Lords, but it desperately needs to be reformed.

[Jim B]

Who's to say an Admiral or a General is more honourable than a Bricklayer or Plumber. It appears to me that the Lords vote was a vote for common sense and honourable; unfortunately something that appears to be sadly lacking in the govrernment.

[geoffreys]

Once upon a time, in the not too distant past, the House of Lords was made up of the nations' great and the good. Senior military figures (retired Admirals and Generals), retired Industrialists, senior members of the Judiciary, senior members of the Clergy (Bishops etc), senior figures in Education and a smattering of senior politicians were ennobled. They all had something to contribute towards the direction the country as a whole was headed because each of them had spent a lifetime serving in their relative professions and they brought all their expertise to the table when scrutinising the detail of new laws.

I watched a little of the live debate on TV and it seemed to me that there are now an inordinate number of ex-politicians from the House of Commons who have been elevated to the House of Lords. Many of them were career politicians who had not served the country in any other capacity and (in my opinion) are only interested in party politics. No doubt some of them also got to these dizzy heights by toadying up to the political elite of their day and all of them, it seems to me, have their snouts in the trough.

Most of those who actually spoke appeared to be ex politicians who still belong to a specific party. It should not be about party politics. It has always been about holding governments to account and scrutinising the minutiae of new laws.

I am all for the House of Lords, but it desperately needs to be reformed.

Good post Royal, I would agree the House of Lords needs reform, rather than being abolished.
The "upper" chamber provides a valuable service in holding the elected Govt to account.
The main reforms I would advocate are:
1. No more hereditary peers.
2. All Peers to be elected by the people, just as MPs and MEPs are.
Simples!
Geoff.

[cyprusgrump]

Once upon a time, in the not too distant past, the House of Lords was made up of the nations' great and the good. Senior military figures (retired Admirals and Generals), retired Industrialists, senior members of the Judiciary, senior members of the Clergy (Bishops etc), senior figures in Education and a smattering of senior politicians were ennobled. They all had something to contribute towards the direction the country as a whole was headed because each of them had spent a lifetime serving in their relative professions and they brought all their expertise to the table when scrutinising the detail of new laws.

I watched a little of the live debate on TV and it seemed to me that there are now an inordinate number of ex-politicians from the House of Commons who have been elevated to the House of Lords. Many of them were career politicians who had not served the country in any other capacity and (in my opinion) are only interested in party politics. No doubt some of them also got to these dizzy heights by toadying up to the political elite of their day and all of them, it seems to me, have their snouts in the trough.

Most of those who actually spoke appeared to be ex politicians who still belong to a specific party. It should not be about party politics. It has always been about holding governments to account and scrutinising the minutiae of new laws.

I am all for the House of Lords, but it desperately needs to be reformed.

Good post...

We shouldn't also forget that many of the Lords receive vast pensions from the EU - hardly an independent voices that can be trusted on the subject of leaving the EU...

[cyprusgrump]

The Government has made it clear that it intends to protect the rights of EU Citizens in the UK, but linked to an decision is reciprocal agreements with EU countries. The EU has already declared it will not discuss or negotiate until Article 50 has been initiated . How anybody thinks that putting this amendment in place prior to the EU gets around the table to discuss Brexit T&C's is a good idea is simply beyound me. Again the EU technocrats are just loving this, the vote is a simple one....Initate Article 50, then negotiate on a level playing field.

Quite...

In fact the UK suggested that both should be protected - it was the EU that rejected the offer...

[Firefly]

I'm with Royal on this one. It seems to me that the House of Lords is riding rough shod over the majority of the British people. It should be reformed, but how do you stop pure party politics coming into it, impossible. So some Labour party members voted to complicate Brexit, because they can, and for no other good reason as far as I can see.

Jackie

[Mark]

The petition calling for reform of the Lords, now has 69,000 signatures, that is double where it was this time yesterday.
I take the comment on board from HIC, that little will come of it.
But it is indicative of the strength of feeling, which will grow.

[Royal]

Who's to say an Admiral or a General is more honourable than a Bricklayer or Plumber. It appears to me that the Lords vote was a vote for common sense and honourable; unfortunately something that appears to be sadly lacking in the govrernment.

It's not about being honourable, Jim, as you must clearly be aware.

The majority of people are probably honourable (most of the time!) whether in a lowly role or an exalted one. The point is that a retired Admiral or a General will have had a full career of probably 40+ years in a role which allows them to speak with some authority on (for example) the defiance of the realm. Bricklayers and plumbers are unlikely to have commanded the number of men that these individuals have or possess their depth of knowledge regarding defence strategy. Cream rises to the top and if you have reached the very top of your profession amongst stiff competition, then it is right that your expertise is not lost to the service of your country. Serving personnel are bound by rules preventing them from expressing any form of political opinion. Those that do, tend to be retired early for exercising their opinions in public. Retired officers of 3, 4 or 5 Star rank have much to offer, which I'm sure you agree the average bricklayer or plumber does not.

As for the Lords vote being in favour of common sense, I beg to differ. If I ask you a question and you try to answer it with irrelevant premises, that is neither common sense nor honourable. The bill was very simply worded:

‘A bill to confer power on the Prime Minister to notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU’.

To start tabling amendments like guarantees or anything else is pointless and superfluous. It is detail which will come out of the subsequent negotiations and which will eventually be put before Parliament for final approval.

PS I don't think it's very honourable to seek to guarantee the rights of EU citizen's in the EU without even considering the rights of our own citizens in the EU. Or is that being racist?

[Lynsab]

Geoff,& poppy if you have an arguement you wish to make with me over my opinions re Trump or Farage....please send me a private message about it, and take it off board, as trying to incite an arguement with me on here because you don't like what I say won't work...but be sure I won't change opinion.

CG my ' personal' remark I made recently was purely because 'personal insults' to some forum members were forthcoming in some replies on other threads...which is not allowed...so I remarked in order to stop them...my opinions and thoughts re leaders and ex numpties are though a different thing, others have made negative remarks and not been pulled up regarding them...

If admin believe I break rules on my total dislike of Farage, Trump and my ability to highlight those thoughts, like a few others then they I'm sure will let me know.

..my opinion on the House of Lords decision is the same as many others....It’s right that they scrutinise the legislation that is passed up to them. I think we have seen a very healthy and vigorous debate in the Lords.

That in turn has started a rethink...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 07086.html

Neither do I believe UK expats are any less important in this debate, the ONLY difference IMO is we the UK are the ones leaving the EU...therefore we need to make it plain that does not include stopping our EU residents living in the UK, on the contrary we need them...that shows France Spain Portugal Italy Belgium Germany etc etc and yes Cyprus where many expats live work and retire too will not be left on the back foot....which I believe every immigrant was before this lords amendment....reliant on some ' deal ' . these are human beings with futures and should NEVER have been used as pawns. But they have...now let's hope some sense has prevailed.

[Mark]

Let's have a group hug, and at least try and be friendly!

[Poppy]

Lynsab I have no intention of having an argument with you via pm. I do not use the pm facility and have no intention of starting to do so .Please don' t try to tell me what I can or can not post on this forum. it appears that we will never agree about certain things but I believe I am perhaps a little more tolerant than you and I will repeat that I believe that some of your comments are not appropriate to the moderate politics forum.

[Mark]

Lynn, I am sorry but you are being Naive at best....if you really believe that the UK taking a leap of faith in allowing 3 million EU citizens to remain in the UK, with all its benefits will encourage the other 27 members to follow suit prior to formal negotions taking place..is admirable but foolish. It puts us at a disadvantage which the EU will take advantage of and the end result will be a less benificial outcome for the UK, which for those " I told you so's" might suit...but for the Majority of UK citizens it will not. Yes we are all reliant on a deal, but a fair deal that should be agreed with no advantage, the amendment gives the EU an unfair advantage in any deal..

Bravo!

[Lynsab]

Lynn, I am sorry but you are being Naive at best....if you really believe that the UK taking a leap of faith in allowing 3 million EU citizens to remain in the UK, with all its benefits will encourage the other 27 members to follow suit prior to formal negotions taking place..is admirable but foolish. It puts us at a disadvantage which the EU will take advantage of and the end result will be a less benificial outcome for the UK, which for those " I told you so's" might suit...but for the Majority of UK citizens it will not. Yes we are all reliant on a deal, but a fair deal that should be agreed with no advantage, the amendment gives the EU an unfair advantage in any deal..

To be honest I've no idea what will happen, I just have an opinion on what should...

I just don't see how using people as pawns on deals that will take years to make, is heartless on people who've made their futures elsewhere within the EU...they should be safeguarded first...then go on to the deals or whatever...,people are NOT for sale...

Far from 'being at a disadvantage' ...we already are! Showing we do indeed care about people is far more important and we should initiate it.

Can I see Spain kicking out expats? For what reason? The only trouble I see there is the reciprocal healthcare...the unknown at the moment.

But each eu country has different rules regarding third country nationals, which the uk also has, that's why residency needs to be guaranteed now...

[Royal]

I just don't see how using people as pawns on deals that will take years to make, is heartless on people who've made their futures elsewhere within the EU...they should be safeguarded first...

No! No! and thrice No!

The first duty of any government is to protect its' citizens - not the EU citizen's living within its' borders. The interests of U.K. Expats have not yet been protected, but I'm satisfied that this is what the PM is seeking to do. Quite so...