House Of Lords

[Pete G]

There are only two problems with Heseltine's sacking

a) It wasn't done 20 years ago
b) He didn't make the announcement between being thrown off Victoria Tower and hitting the pavement.

Traitorous little [redacted]

[Lynsab]

On the contary it makes the PM look small...If the Prime Minister wants to bring the 52 per cent and the 48 per cent together, she has a funny way of doing it. Discipline is one thing, but she seems to have a vindictive streak that could be counter-productive.

Because she was actually on the losing side of the referendum, but ended up on the top step of the podium after various of the winners disqualified themselves, maybe she thinks acting like a dictator will help...

[geoffreys]

On the contary it makes the PM look small...If the Prime Minister wants to bring the 52 per cent and the 48 per cent together, she has a funny way of doing it. Discipline is one thing, but she seems to have a vindictive streak that could be counter-productive.

Because she was actually on the losing side of the referendum, but ended up on the top step of the podium after various of the winners disqualified themselves, maybe she thinks acting like a dictator will help...

Come on Lyn, when are you going to realize you are flogging a dead horse? Not just dead, decomposing!
Geoff.

[holitec]

I am not usually a polital activist, but I will make the following points. The HOL has added an ammendment ref Protecting EU Citizens that are "Legally Resident", plus a "meaningfull vote" - ok, first, definition of "legally resident", I assume as EU law trumps UK law, Legally Resident must mean that those citizens who have excercised their rights under directive 2004/38/EC , and hold a valid registration document to that effect. We all here hold our yellow slips I assume in accordance with that directive, so I must assume that the EU Citizens in the UK also hold their equivalent documents, so what is wrong with that ammendment.

The Meaningfull vote, what is a meaningfull vote? I suspect it is just to delay the proceedings.

Digby

[Poppy]

From what I have read Heseltine has always been very pro EU and guess what he has also received vast amounts of EU grants in his role as a gentleman farmer!EU grants that you would think were designed to help the struggling small farmers but were able to be claimed by the likes of him - one of the wealthiest men in the UK.

[Mark]

From what I have read Heseltine has always been very pro EU and guess what he has also received vast amounts of EU grants in his role as a gentleman farmer!EU grants that you would think were designed to help the struggling small farmers but were able to be claimed by the likes of him - one of the wealthiest men in the UK.

Good post Poppy, and says it all!

[Jim B]

So what all the critics of Heseltine and the HOL are saying is that you can exercise your democratic rights as long as you vote for the government; sounds a bit like Russia.

Jim

[geoffreys]

So what all the critics of Heseltine and the HOL are saying is that you can exercise your democratic rights as long as you vote for the government; sounds a bit like Russia.

Jim

We are more concerned about the people's democratic rights Jim.
Something Heseltine and his mates in the HOL seem to have scant regard for.
Geoff.

[Royal]

I think that what the critics are saying is that when we refer to ourselves as a sovereign nation, we are referring to US - ie the people. WE are sovereign and WE have the right to decide OUR collective future. In most cases, this right is delegated every 5 years BY US to the government through the ballot box. It was NEVER conferred by us to Brussels. For such a major change to our constitution, the people should have been asked what they thought. However, on 23 June 2016, WE were finally able to tell Parliament what WE wanted for OUR future. The wording of the Referendum was simple. The answer was clear. The wording of the Article 50 bill is equally simple. However, there are some people in Parliament who are actively trying to thwart the will of the British people with all sorts of delaying tactics and obstacles with the sole intention of overturning the result of the referendum. They think that those who voted out didn't understand what they were doing - a simple matter of lack of education(!). Some, unfortunately, are elected 'representatives' (eg Lib Dems in the HoC) and some are unelected (the HoL). In either case, they are not exercising democracy - they are ignoring it. Those who ignore it in the HoC will be held to account in 2020. Those who ignore it in the HoL are totally unaccountable to anyone. Sad.

[Jim B]

I thought everyone in the UK (including Lords, Bishops, Generals and Admirals) have the Democratic right to vote how they wished and shouldn't be coerced or forced to vote for something they don't believe in; that is what happens in Russia and many on here appear to be quite happy to where the country is heading.

Jim

[Royal]

Yes, Jim, you are right. As I said, we usually delegate our sovereignty to the Government every 5 years. When it comes to a matter of conscience (the death penalty, abortion etc) I would have no issue with them voting accordingly. When it comes to actively thwarting the will of the people as given in a Referendum - that's a problem.

[Royal]

...by the way, I am not advocating that members of either House vote for something they don't believe in. An abstention would ensure that the will of the people is carried out whilst not necessarily subscribing to it yourself.

[geoffreys]

...by the way, I am not advocating that members of either House vote for something they don't believe in. An abstention would ensure that the will of the people is carried out whilst not necessarily subscribing to it yourself.

Excellent point!
Geoff.

[Lynsab]

Just put in the two amendments - one is a morally right one, the other is common sense to have a Parliamentary safety net - put them in, stop the ping pong between the two Houses, trigger Article 50 and get on with the complex negotiations. Job done, it's the govt holding it up by making it a big deal and sacking people! They may cause a mini rebellion by other MPs if people are being sacked...they should be more careful this isn't the end, it's just the beginning.

[geoffreys]

Just put in the two amendments - one is a morally right one, the other is common sense to have a Parliamentary safety net - put them in, stop the ping pong between the two Houses, trigger Article 50 and get on with the complex negotiations. Job done, it's the govt holding it up by making it a big deal and sacking people! They may cause a mini rebellion by other MPs if people are being sacked...they should be more careful this isn't the end, it's just the beginning.

You are still flogging a dead horse.
Look, setting Article 50 into motion requires NO amendments whatsoever, because it is merely setting in motion what a majority of the British voters voted for on 23rd June last.
It has already been delayed by several months because the likes of you Lyn took it to the Supreme Court etc.
After that is open to debate in both Houses e.g. what detail should/should not be in the negotiations etc etc.
The latest amendments from the HOL should be rejected by the HOC, and they will be.
The latest cheeky twist from the EU Commission is that they want (THEY!) it doing before the 50th Anniversary of the Treaty of Rome
on 25th March.
Well THEY can you know what!
Geoff.

[Jim B]

Hudswell

It's called Democracy in Action; if you believe everything this Government says then you only have to look at yesterdays budget when they increased the National Insurance Premiums against their promises in their last manifesto. I personally wouldn't believe any of their promises and would suggest it is better written into law than depending on the goodwill or honesty of May and her cohorts.

Jim

[Devil]

How on earth is giving EU citizens the right to reside in the UK without ensuring the rights of British Citizens residing in the EU similar rights morally right?

If it is not morally right, then it must be morally wrong. There is no half-way house between morally right and wrong. You cannot have morally iffy. I say that it is definitely morally right; whether it is politically desirable or not is a horse of another colour.

In any case, it is useless discussing this because the Commons will shoot the two Amendments down in flames and I doubt the Lords will restart the debates on them. It is merely a little sabre-rattling to tell May to be careful and not to overstep the mark of decency. I believe that, with this view in mind, these amendments are probably 'a good thing'; being taken down a peg or two is good for politicians!

[Rita Sherry]

Devil

For what it is worth oh wise one - I am in complete agreement with you.

I do wish people would look at what the functions of Parliament are (both houses) before pen is put to paper save a lot of misunderstanding. Leave the politicians to argue back and forth they know full well on this particular subject where it is going and how it will end. Unfortunately a lot of innocent people will still be both confused and concerned regarding their future place of abode and work both in the UK and the other EU member states by once again hearing and reading misleading statements.

Good posts Royal. Mark why would I chastise you now - I know where you stand and likewise for myself - as I said before be careful what you wish for

Rita

[Mark]

How on earth is giving EU citizens the right to reside in the UK without ensuring the rights of British Citizens residing in the EU similar rights morally right?

If it is not morally right, then it must be morally wrong. There is no half-way house between morally right and wrong. You cannot have morally iffy. I say that it is definitely morally right; whether it is politically desirable or not is a horse of another colour.

In any case, it is useless discussing this because the Commons will shoot the two Amendments down in flames and I doubt the Lords will restart the debates on them. It is merely a little sabre-rattling to tell May to be careful and not to overstep the mark of decency. I believe that, with this view in mind, these amendments are probably 'a good thing'; being taken down a peg or two is good for politicians!

I tend to agree, there is no morally iffy...and to agree to allowing EU citizens to remain"unfettered" in the UK without a reciprocal agreement with the EU or to individual constituents is indeed morally wrong! You have to wonder why, when offered to thrash out the issue prior to formal negotions the EU refused point blank...if that does not raise alarm bells what will.

And Yes you are correct, some sabre rattling going on, nice to see Hessletine fall, or was it pushed, on his.

Two excellent posts.

[smudger]

House of Commons have voted down both of the amendments proposed by HOL .

Way is now clear for Brexit to be triggered.

Common sense has prevailed, just needs May to tell Sturgeon that there will be no Scottish referendum before Brexit in 2019.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/bl ... itics-live