Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result
Discussion
///ajd said:
jsf said:
He got it by either misunderstanding, or misrepresenting the contents of a document, a common occurrence.
you responded to a discussion about limiting immigration - a number of 100,000 was quoted by s2.I said I hadn't seen that in any official leave documents.
you invited us to read page 30 of your link in a reply - the 2015 toty manifesto
this includes a single number in relation to an immigration limit.
The document states firstly, that the government target for total net migration is in the tens of thousands per year, not the hundreds of thousands. No specific number is given but at worst case giving them a lot of rope, that would mean a target of max 99,999 total net migration.
It then goes on to discuss EU and none EU migration and what they plan to do to control both.
The document states that there is a cap of 20,700 for skilled economic migration from outside the EU.
You then go on to misrepresent this figure to mean all migration from outside the EU will be capped at 20K.
jsf said:
The document does no such thing.
The document states firstly, that the government target for total net migration is in the tens of thousands per year, not the hundreds of thousands. No specific number is given but at worst case giving them a lot of rope, that would mean a target of max 99,999 total net migration.
It then goes on to discuss EU and none EU migration and what they plan to do to control both.
The document states that there is a cap of 20,700 for skilled economic migration from outside the EU.
You then go on to misrepresent this figure to mean all migration from outside the EU will be capped at 20K.
So it has a single figure related to immigration.The document states firstly, that the government target for total net migration is in the tens of thousands per year, not the hundreds of thousands. No specific number is given but at worst case giving them a lot of rope, that would mean a target of max 99,999 total net migration.
It then goes on to discuss EU and none EU migration and what they plan to do to control both.
The document states that there is a cap of 20,700 for skilled economic migration from outside the EU.
You then go on to misrepresent this figure to mean all migration from outside the EU will be capped at 20K.
Thanks. This back peddling is very tiring. We both know you saw a number and linked in haste. Just admit it.
jsf said:
The document does no such thing.
The document states firstly, that the government target for total net migration is in the tens of thousands per year, not the hundreds of thousands. No specific number is given but at worst case giving them a lot of rope, that would mean a target of max 99,999 total net migration.
It then goes on to discuss EU and none EU migration and what they plan to do to control both.
The document states that there is a cap of 20,700 for skilled economic migration from outside the EU.
You then go on to misrepresent this figure to mean all migration from outside the EU will be capped at 20K.
I was trying to encourage our resident spin doctor to admit he's misrepresented something yet again, but to no avail. Never mind, we know.The document states firstly, that the government target for total net migration is in the tens of thousands per year, not the hundreds of thousands. No specific number is given but at worst case giving them a lot of rope, that would mean a target of max 99,999 total net migration.
It then goes on to discuss EU and none EU migration and what they plan to do to control both.
The document states that there is a cap of 20,700 for skilled economic migration from outside the EU.
You then go on to misrepresent this figure to mean all migration from outside the EU will be capped at 20K.
///ajd said:
jsf said:
The document does no such thing.
The document states firstly, that the government target for total net migration is in the tens of thousands per year, not the hundreds of thousands. No specific number is given but at worst case giving them a lot of rope, that would mean a target of max 99,999 total net migration.
It then goes on to discuss EU and none EU migration and what they plan to do to control both.
The document states that there is a cap of 20,700 for skilled economic migration from outside the EU.
You then go on to misrepresent this figure to mean all migration from outside the EU will be capped at 20K.
So it has a single figure related to immigration.The document states firstly, that the government target for total net migration is in the tens of thousands per year, not the hundreds of thousands. No specific number is given but at worst case giving them a lot of rope, that would mean a target of max 99,999 total net migration.
It then goes on to discuss EU and none EU migration and what they plan to do to control both.
The document states that there is a cap of 20,700 for skilled economic migration from outside the EU.
You then go on to misrepresent this figure to mean all migration from outside the EU will be capped at 20K.
Thanks. This back peddling is very tiring. We both know you saw a number and linked in haste. Just admit it.
Unlike you, most people on this forum have the ability to read and absorb the contents in their entirety. I suspect the majority of people on here will read what I wrote and what I linked to and come to a different conclusion than you have to the discussion we just had.
I am now torn between you either being monumentally thick, or a massive troll.
don4l said:
I agree with you.
However, I don't think that the opinion of professors is relevant.
We live in a Parliamentry democracy. The people get to elect a government every so often. Once the MP's are elected, they reign supreme.
As has been pointed out many times, the referendum has no legal basis. Therefore I think that a vote in Parliament will be needed.
This should not provide any solace to Remainers. The vote will only go one way.
The House of Lords won't block the triggering of Article 50 either. They would be replaced by an elected second chamber in the drop of a hat. They know this.
So you dismiss the opinions of the educated as irrelevant. That shows a great deal of self confidence. However, I don't think that the opinion of professors is relevant.
We live in a Parliamentry democracy. The people get to elect a government every so often. Once the MP's are elected, they reign supreme.
As has been pointed out many times, the referendum has no legal basis. Therefore I think that a vote in Parliament will be needed.
This should not provide any solace to Remainers. The vote will only go one way.
The House of Lords won't block the triggering of Article 50 either. They would be replaced by an elected second chamber in the drop of a hat. They know this.
You state the vote of MPs would only go one way. I can't help but think you haven't read an awful lot about the history of our democracy.
I think it unlikely that the vote will go against leaving but, as it is not impossible, I can't really say that my opinion is a fact.
I'm not sure why you brought in the HoL. It can hold up legislation for a year or so. My belief is that there is a majority of MPs who wish to remain in the EU. Now there are all sorts of tricks and such that can be pulled by the government for a vote. There are all sort of tricks that the opposition can pull. The SNP will probably vote on block, the Welsh labour MPs will vote on block. If, and this is only thrown in as a possibility, we have a PM who is pro EU but, as politicians do, says the opposite, then say she suggests a free vote for something as constitutionally important as this matter, what would you say would happen? I don't know of course, but there might be others who are 100% sure they know the answer. But they don't know either. You could say what is more likely, but you can't be definitive.
I doubt it will happen unless something occurs that changes the current circumstances fundamentally. I can think of one or two things that might.
However, let's follow your logic. Let's say, for instance, that the EU comes to the UK with an offer of fundamental change, such as a two tier EU and certain restrictions of free movement of people for the lower tier. Article 50 is delayed by the HoL taking the developments into consideration, suggesting that the vote did not include the new option. To take notice of online petitions the hypothetical remainer PM decides on a new referendum. Or the woman could suggest that as the EU has changed, the new style is a Brexit. Job done.
The only thing I will state for certain is that saying something does not make it happen. You might well believe that we will leave the EU but it remains an opinion. If there are options then there are options and circumstances might change. In fact I think it highly likely circumstances will change, but whether any of these will have an effect, I have no idea.
None of us knows what will happen. I know what I think is probable, and I would argue my point, but there is no one who knows what will happen in a few weeks, let alone a few months.
Wishing doesn't make it so.
///ajd said:
don'tbesilly said:
Please explain how wanting to curb immigration is bigoted in your world?
The link must be unconvincing if you won't post it - is it really that bad?One argument is that immigration is actually good for our economy.
So why would anyone want to limit immigration - unless they just don't like foreigners?
So many here have confirmed immigration has never aftected them personally, so why are they so against it and want to curb immigration? There was a link earlier about how some remainers now regret no saying more about immigration - and having a proper debate instead of allowing Farage to run away with his 'breaking point' rhetoric. Sure there are pluses and minuses but the sentiment is blown out of all proportion. Some brexit posters from here are even defending Tommy Robinson in another thread.
Curb by 'how much' is an answer never provided.
I don't think many leave voters would argue with you on your point that some immigration is good for the economy, however a sizeable number do have a problem with uncontrolled immigration, and have had that concern for many years, it wasn't something that people needed reminding about prior to the referendum.
You obviously don't have a problem with allowing thousands of migrants to come to the UK,a considerable number of these migrants will need state support in multiple forms (unemployment benefit/Housing/child support etc), it's unrealistic to expect all the migrants you want to welcome with open arms to gain employment and contribute to society.
I could cite many other reasons why people have concerns about uncontrolled immigration, none of them have anything to do with liking/disliking foreigners.
I'm assuming that anyone who has genuine concerns about the impact of uncontrolled immigration is bigoted in your opinion, and this notion comes across in literally every post you make with your snidy and insidious comments about those who voted to leave, not everyone shares your idea that uncontrolled immigration is good for the UK, it does NOT make them racist or bigoted.
To emphasise my point you always refer to Farage as he's some kind of God to those who voted leave, and now your banging on about Tommy Robinson and a thread that I know nothing about, nor want to.
I have no interest in Tommy Robinson nor what he stands for, he didn't feature/nor even get a mention at the time of the referendum, you're scraping the barrel, and not for the first time, in bringing him into the conversation.
Perhaps if Cameron had even attempted to curb immigration, and get somewhere near his figures of 'reducing the numbers of migrants down to 10's of thousands as opposed to the 100s of thousands' we wouldn't be having the conversation and the leave campaign wouldn't have had such an effective weapon against the remain campaign, much to your chagrin!
The fact that the remain campaign ignored immigration during the course of the campaign highlights just how out of touch the team were in the voting public,as I mentioned earlier,the general public have been voicing their concerns for many years, to ignore it as they did cost them the vote IMO.
Immigration has been discussed to death on this thread, and others in relation to the referendum, you know only too well what has been suggested in terms of curbing immigration and how it could be administered, fishing for numbers that people would accept is not necessary, as the number that is acceptable should be based on need ( to fill a job opportunity where/when the need arises), and the ability of migrants to contribute both financially and socially.
Derek, the HOL wont be involved in this process.
The HOL used to be able to hold up legislation for a maximum 2 years (1 month for a finance bill) from the point of the 2nd reading of a bill. That was changed to 1 year in 1949 when the Labour government of the time introduced the 2nd parliament act as they were concerned the Lords would block the Nationalisation of the steel and Iron industries, 2 years was too long to get that through before a new election.
However, in 1946 there was a procedure introduced to Parliament that would allow the Commons to pass laws, provided they were in the manifesto, without the consent of the Lords. This is called the Salisbury convention after the peer that introduced it.
This convention was challenged in 1999, but was upheld. The then leader of the Lords stated "The Salisbury/Addison convention has nothing to do with the strength of the parties in either House of Parliament and everything to do with the relationship between the two Houses . . . It must remain the case that it would be constitutionally wrong, when the country has expressed its view, for this House to oppose proposals that have been definitely put before the electorate."
There have been two royal commissions since this statement into the procedures in both houses, both commissions have upheld the Salisbury convention.
Based on the fact that the referendum was in the conservative manifesto and that was voted through as the majority party, and the referendum was also carried through with a result that the commons will be acting on, the Lords have no say on the matter should it be a requirement that any new legislation were required to be passed in order to invoke article 50.
If there is no requirement for any new legislation to be enacted before Art50 can be invoked, which is my understanding, then the Lords doesn't come into the question anyway.
So I think you are best to not consider the Lords debating any potential deals, its not going to happen.
The HOL used to be able to hold up legislation for a maximum 2 years (1 month for a finance bill) from the point of the 2nd reading of a bill. That was changed to 1 year in 1949 when the Labour government of the time introduced the 2nd parliament act as they were concerned the Lords would block the Nationalisation of the steel and Iron industries, 2 years was too long to get that through before a new election.
However, in 1946 there was a procedure introduced to Parliament that would allow the Commons to pass laws, provided they were in the manifesto, without the consent of the Lords. This is called the Salisbury convention after the peer that introduced it.
This convention was challenged in 1999, but was upheld. The then leader of the Lords stated "The Salisbury/Addison convention has nothing to do with the strength of the parties in either House of Parliament and everything to do with the relationship between the two Houses . . . It must remain the case that it would be constitutionally wrong, when the country has expressed its view, for this House to oppose proposals that have been definitely put before the electorate."
There have been two royal commissions since this statement into the procedures in both houses, both commissions have upheld the Salisbury convention.
Based on the fact that the referendum was in the conservative manifesto and that was voted through as the majority party, and the referendum was also carried through with a result that the commons will be acting on, the Lords have no say on the matter should it be a requirement that any new legislation were required to be passed in order to invoke article 50.
If there is no requirement for any new legislation to be enacted before Art50 can be invoked, which is my understanding, then the Lords doesn't come into the question anyway.
So I think you are best to not consider the Lords debating any potential deals, its not going to happen.
don'tbesilly said:
I didn't say whether the article was convincing or not, whether it was good or bad, I mentioned the article to get a dog to chase a bone, and unsurprisingly the bait was taken,it won't take much to find the article I refer to, and you can judge for yourself.
I don't think many leave voters would argue with you on your point that some immigration is good for the economy, however a sizeable number do have a problem with uncontrolled immigration, and have had that concern for many years, it wasn't something that people needed reminding about prior to the referendum.
You obviously don't have a problem with allowing thousands of migrants to come to the UK,a considerable number of these migrants will need state support in multiple forms (unemployment benefit/Housing/child support etc), it's unrealistic to expect all the migrants you want to welcome with open arms to gain employment and contribute to society.
I could cite many other reasons why people have concerns about uncontrolled immigration, none of them have anything to do with liking/disliking foreigners.
I'm assuming that anyone who has genuine concerns about the impact of uncontrolled immigration is bigoted in your opinion, and this notion comes across in literally every post you make with your snidy and insidious comments about those who voted to leave, not everyone shares your idea that uncontrolled immigration is good for the UK, it does NOT make them racist or bigoted.
To emphasise my point you always refer to Farage as he's some kind of God to those who voted leave, and now your banging on about Tommy Robinson and a thread that I know nothing about, nor want to.
I have no interest in Tommy Robinson nor what he stands for, he didn't feature/nor even get a mention at the time of the referendum, you're scraping the barrel, and not for the first time, in bringing him into the conversation.
Perhaps if Cameron had even attempted to curb immigration, and get somewhere near his figures of 'reducing the numbers of migrants down to 10's of thousands as opposed to the 100s of thousands' we wouldn't be having the conversation and the leave campaign wouldn't have had such an effective weapon against the remain campaign, much to your chagrin!
The fact that the remain campaign ignored immigration during the course of the campaign highlights just how out of touch the team were in the voting public,as I mentioned earlier,the general public have been voicing their concerns for many years, to ignore it as they did cost them the vote IMO.
Immigration has been discussed to death on this thread, and others in relation to the referendum, you know only too well what has been suggested in terms of curbing immigration and how it could be administered, fishing for numbers that people would accept is not necessary, as the number that is acceptable should be based on need ( to fill a job opportunity where/when the need arises), and the ability of migrants to contribute both financially and socially.
Woah, stop these "dark ideas" I don't think many leave voters would argue with you on your point that some immigration is good for the economy, however a sizeable number do have a problem with uncontrolled immigration, and have had that concern for many years, it wasn't something that people needed reminding about prior to the referendum.
You obviously don't have a problem with allowing thousands of migrants to come to the UK,a considerable number of these migrants will need state support in multiple forms (unemployment benefit/Housing/child support etc), it's unrealistic to expect all the migrants you want to welcome with open arms to gain employment and contribute to society.
I could cite many other reasons why people have concerns about uncontrolled immigration, none of them have anything to do with liking/disliking foreigners.
I'm assuming that anyone who has genuine concerns about the impact of uncontrolled immigration is bigoted in your opinion, and this notion comes across in literally every post you make with your snidy and insidious comments about those who voted to leave, not everyone shares your idea that uncontrolled immigration is good for the UK, it does NOT make them racist or bigoted.
To emphasise my point you always refer to Farage as he's some kind of God to those who voted leave, and now your banging on about Tommy Robinson and a thread that I know nothing about, nor want to.
I have no interest in Tommy Robinson nor what he stands for, he didn't feature/nor even get a mention at the time of the referendum, you're scraping the barrel, and not for the first time, in bringing him into the conversation.
Perhaps if Cameron had even attempted to curb immigration, and get somewhere near his figures of 'reducing the numbers of migrants down to 10's of thousands as opposed to the 100s of thousands' we wouldn't be having the conversation and the leave campaign wouldn't have had such an effective weapon against the remain campaign, much to your chagrin!
The fact that the remain campaign ignored immigration during the course of the campaign highlights just how out of touch the team were in the voting public,as I mentioned earlier,the general public have been voicing their concerns for many years, to ignore it as they did cost them the vote IMO.
Immigration has been discussed to death on this thread, and others in relation to the referendum, you know only too well what has been suggested in terms of curbing immigration and how it could be administered, fishing for numbers that people would accept is not necessary, as the number that is acceptable should be based on need ( to fill a job opportunity where/when the need arises), and the ability of migrants to contribute both financially and socially.
Derek Smith said:
don4l said:
I agree with you.
However, I don't think that the opinion of professors is relevant.
We live in a Parliamentry democracy. The people get to elect a government every so often. Once the MP's are elected, they reign supreme.
As has been pointed out many times, the referendum has no legal basis. Therefore I think that a vote in Parliament will be needed.
This should not provide any solace to Remainers. The vote will only go one way.
The House of Lords won't block the triggering of Article 50 either. They would be replaced by an elected second chamber in the drop of a hat. They know this.
So you dismiss the opinions of the educated as irrelevant.However, I don't think that the opinion of professors is relevant.
We live in a Parliamentry democracy. The people get to elect a government every so often. Once the MP's are elected, they reign supreme.
As has been pointed out many times, the referendum has no legal basis. Therefore I think that a vote in Parliament will be needed.
This should not provide any solace to Remainers. The vote will only go one way.
The House of Lords won't block the triggering of Article 50 either. They would be replaced by an elected second chamber in the drop of a hat. They know this.
Did you really write that?
You appear to be going off the deep end.
don'tbesilly said:
I didn't say whether the article was convincing or not, whether it was good or bad, I mentioned the article to get a dog to chase a bone, and unsurprisingly the bait was taken,it won't take much to find the article I refer to, and you can judge for yourself.
I don't think many leave voters would argue with you on your point that some immigration is good for the economy, however a sizeable number do have a problem with uncontrolled immigration, and have had that concern for many years, it wasn't something that people needed reminding about prior to the referendum.
You obviously don't have a problem with allowing thousands of migrants to come to the UK,a considerable number of these migrants will need state support in multiple forms (unemployment benefit/Housing/child support etc), it's unrealistic to expect all the migrants you want to welcome with open arms to gain employment and contribute to society.
I could cite many other reasons why people have concerns about uncontrolled immigration, none of them have anything to do with liking/disliking foreigners.
I'm assuming that anyone who has genuine concerns about the impact of uncontrolled immigration is bigoted in your opinion, and this notion comes across in literally every post you make with your snidy and insidious comments about those who voted to leave, not everyone shares your idea that uncontrolled immigration is good for the UK, it does NOT make them racist or bigoted.
To emphasise my point you always refer to Farage as he's some kind of God to those who voted leave, and now your banging on about Tommy Robinson and a thread that I know nothing about, nor want to.
I have no interest in Tommy Robinson nor what he stands for, he didn't feature/nor even get a mention at the time of the referendum, you're scraping the barrel, and not for the first time, in bringing him into the conversation.
Perhaps if Cameron had even attempted to curb immigration, and get somewhere near his figures of 'reducing the numbers of migrants down to 10's of thousands as opposed to the 100s of thousands' we wouldn't be having the conversation and the leave campaign wouldn't have had such an effective weapon against the remain campaign, much to your chagrin!
The fact that the remain campaign ignored immigration during the course of the campaign highlights just how out of touch the team were in the voting public,as I mentioned earlier,the general public have been voicing their concerns for many years, to ignore it as they did cost them the vote IMO.
Immigration has been discussed to death on this thread, and others in relation to the referendum, you know only too well what has been suggested in terms of curbing immigration and how it could be administered, fishing for numbers that people would accept is not necessary, as the number that is acceptable should be based on need ( to fill a job opportunity where/when the need arises), and the ability of migrants to contribute both financially and socially.
Thanks for the considered reply.I don't think many leave voters would argue with you on your point that some immigration is good for the economy, however a sizeable number do have a problem with uncontrolled immigration, and have had that concern for many years, it wasn't something that people needed reminding about prior to the referendum.
You obviously don't have a problem with allowing thousands of migrants to come to the UK,a considerable number of these migrants will need state support in multiple forms (unemployment benefit/Housing/child support etc), it's unrealistic to expect all the migrants you want to welcome with open arms to gain employment and contribute to society.
I could cite many other reasons why people have concerns about uncontrolled immigration, none of them have anything to do with liking/disliking foreigners.
I'm assuming that anyone who has genuine concerns about the impact of uncontrolled immigration is bigoted in your opinion, and this notion comes across in literally every post you make with your snidy and insidious comments about those who voted to leave, not everyone shares your idea that uncontrolled immigration is good for the UK, it does NOT make them racist or bigoted.
To emphasise my point you always refer to Farage as he's some kind of God to those who voted leave, and now your banging on about Tommy Robinson and a thread that I know nothing about, nor want to.
I have no interest in Tommy Robinson nor what he stands for, he didn't feature/nor even get a mention at the time of the referendum, you're scraping the barrel, and not for the first time, in bringing him into the conversation.
Perhaps if Cameron had even attempted to curb immigration, and get somewhere near his figures of 'reducing the numbers of migrants down to 10's of thousands as opposed to the 100s of thousands' we wouldn't be having the conversation and the leave campaign wouldn't have had such an effective weapon against the remain campaign, much to your chagrin!
The fact that the remain campaign ignored immigration during the course of the campaign highlights just how out of touch the team were in the voting public,as I mentioned earlier,the general public have been voicing their concerns for many years, to ignore it as they did cost them the vote IMO.
Immigration has been discussed to death on this thread, and others in relation to the referendum, you know only too well what has been suggested in terms of curbing immigration and how it could be administered, fishing for numbers that people would accept is not necessary, as the number that is acceptable should be based on need ( to fill a job opportunity where/when the need arises), and the ability of migrants to contribute both financially and socially.
The issue I'm struggling with - and its not personal about brexiters - is where we are headed with the immigration thing.
I ask about numbers as I'm unsure what the end effect will really be. If we are at 180,000 net EU migrants now, are we gong for 20,000 or 100,000, or even not too far below where we are today?
If say 85% of migrants benefit our GDP, should that be the figure? Thats still 150,000. If they are a net benefit, does it matter? Are all the stories about pressure on services exaggerated?
I don't think all brexiters who have a thing about immigration are bigoted - but has some of the drive behind the rhetoric that has slowly fostered this view that we're at breaking point been powered by bigotry? It seems that over time the Farage message has taken hold, and I think you can say there is a degree of bigotry about UKIP.
I also think you are right that if there had been a proper dialogue on immigration, perhaps we wouldn't have the leave result - that is very much one of the issues. I think we have different perspectives here - you think it is more a case of "dong more to reduce", whereas I take the view "more done to explain the reality/challenge the Farage message". It seems the tories were keener to chase UKIP votes and have allowed themselves to try and copy part of Farage message rather than challenge it.
So, I ask about numbers as I have a feeling it could go two ways:
- we absolutely hammer numbers down to 10k - but cripple our economy
- we keep it job and sustain based - but we have figures that are 85-90% of what we have today.
If its the latter - is that worth conceding bargaining position for during brexit negotiations and spending huge money controlling?
I only mentioned the Tommy thread due to the number on here defending him - I find it quite surprising really.
Edited by ///ajd on Tuesday 30th August 06:28
Free movement of labour was a really good and worthy ambition, and it still is. The issue and problem that hasn't been addressed is that it, FMOL, was designed for an earlier world when member nations were broadly very similar in respect of economic status and entitlement systems. It was believed that only relatively high educated earners would take advantage, mass movement of low skilled labour was never envisaged.
It's easy to talk about points based systems, eg Australia, or tight control, eg US Green card, but these need resources to manage, both in administrative capacity, and in enforcement, border control, maritime surveillance and systems to deal with "overstayers" and "illegals." That's not to mention an efficient and humane system for dealing with asylum seekers, including sorting wheat from chaff; by which I mean sorting and helping genuine cases, of which there are many, from the chancers, of which there are according to asylum judges, even more.
Currently we are very much lacking in all the above mentioned resources. If we, as a nation, decide to spend more on border control and Visas and Immigration then so be it. We could actually double our current spending and it would still be square root of bugger all in the overall scheme of things.
It's easy to talk about points based systems, eg Australia, or tight control, eg US Green card, but these need resources to manage, both in administrative capacity, and in enforcement, border control, maritime surveillance and systems to deal with "overstayers" and "illegals." That's not to mention an efficient and humane system for dealing with asylum seekers, including sorting wheat from chaff; by which I mean sorting and helping genuine cases, of which there are many, from the chancers, of which there are according to asylum judges, even more.
Currently we are very much lacking in all the above mentioned resources. If we, as a nation, decide to spend more on border control and Visas and Immigration then so be it. We could actually double our current spending and it would still be square root of bugger all in the overall scheme of things.
jsf said:
Derek, the HOL wont be involved in this process.
The HOL used to be able to hold up legislation for a maximum 2 years (1 month for a finance bill) from the point of the 2nd reading of a bill. That was changed to 1 year in 1949 when the Labour government of the time introduced the 2nd parliament act as they were concerned the Lords would block the Nationalisation of the steel and Iron industries, 2 years was too long to get that through before a new election.
However, in 1946 there was a procedure introduced to Parliament that would allow the Commons to pass laws, provided they were in the manifesto, without the consent of the Lords. This is called the Salisbury convention after the peer that introduced it.
This convention was challenged in 1999, but was upheld. The then leader of the Lords stated "The Salisbury/Addison convention has nothing to do with the strength of the parties in either House of Parliament and everything to do with the relationship between the two Houses . . . It must remain the case that it would be constitutionally wrong, when the country has expressed its view, for this House to oppose proposals that have been definitely put before the electorate."
There have been two royal commissions since this statement into the procedures in both houses, both commissions have upheld the Salisbury convention.
Based on the fact that the referendum was in the conservative manifesto and that was voted through as the majority party, and the referendum was also carried through with a result that the commons will be acting on, the Lords have no say on the matter should it be a requirement that any new legislation were required to be passed in order to invoke article 50.
If there is no requirement for any new legislation to be enacted before Art50 can be invoked, which is my understanding, then the Lords doesn't come into the question anyway.
So I think you are best to not consider the Lords debating any potential deals, its not going to happen.
Very informative, thanks for posting that. I was under the impression that they could delay the process but from what you've written that doesn't seem to be the case.The HOL used to be able to hold up legislation for a maximum 2 years (1 month for a finance bill) from the point of the 2nd reading of a bill. That was changed to 1 year in 1949 when the Labour government of the time introduced the 2nd parliament act as they were concerned the Lords would block the Nationalisation of the steel and Iron industries, 2 years was too long to get that through before a new election.
However, in 1946 there was a procedure introduced to Parliament that would allow the Commons to pass laws, provided they were in the manifesto, without the consent of the Lords. This is called the Salisbury convention after the peer that introduced it.
This convention was challenged in 1999, but was upheld. The then leader of the Lords stated "The Salisbury/Addison convention has nothing to do with the strength of the parties in either House of Parliament and everything to do with the relationship between the two Houses . . . It must remain the case that it would be constitutionally wrong, when the country has expressed its view, for this House to oppose proposals that have been definitely put before the electorate."
There have been two royal commissions since this statement into the procedures in both houses, both commissions have upheld the Salisbury convention.
Based on the fact that the referendum was in the conservative manifesto and that was voted through as the majority party, and the referendum was also carried through with a result that the commons will be acting on, the Lords have no say on the matter should it be a requirement that any new legislation were required to be passed in order to invoke article 50.
If there is no requirement for any new legislation to be enacted before Art50 can be invoked, which is my understanding, then the Lords doesn't come into the question anyway.
So I think you are best to not consider the Lords debating any potential deals, its not going to happen.
b2hbm said:
jsf said:
Derek, the HOL wont be involved in this process.
The HOL used to be able to hold up legislation for a maximum 2 years (1 month for a finance bill) from the point of the 2nd reading of a bill. That was changed to 1 year in 1949 when the Labour government of the time introduced the 2nd parliament act as they were concerned the Lords would block the Nationalisation of the steel and Iron industries, 2 years was too long to get that through before a new election.
However, in 1946 there was a procedure introduced to Parliament that would allow the Commons to pass laws, provided they were in the manifesto, without the consent of the Lords. This is called the Salisbury convention after the peer that introduced it.
This convention was challenged in 1999, but was upheld. The then leader of the Lords stated "The Salisbury/Addison convention has nothing to do with the strength of the parties in either House of Parliament and everything to do with the relationship between the two Houses . . . It must remain the case that it would be constitutionally wrong, when the country has expressed its view, for this House to oppose proposals that have been definitely put before the electorate."
There have been two royal commissions since this statement into the procedures in both houses, both commissions have upheld the Salisbury convention.
Based on the fact that the referendum was in the conservative manifesto and that was voted through as the majority party, and the referendum was also carried through with a result that the commons will be acting on, the Lords have no say on the matter should it be a requirement that any new legislation were required to be passed in order to invoke article 50.
If there is no requirement for any new legislation to be enacted before Art50 can be invoked, which is my understanding, then the Lords doesn't come into the question anyway.
So I think you are best to not consider the Lords debating any potential deals, its not going to happen.
Very informative, thanks for posting that. I was under the impression that they could delay the process but from what you've written that doesn't seem to be the case.The HOL used to be able to hold up legislation for a maximum 2 years (1 month for a finance bill) from the point of the 2nd reading of a bill. That was changed to 1 year in 1949 when the Labour government of the time introduced the 2nd parliament act as they were concerned the Lords would block the Nationalisation of the steel and Iron industries, 2 years was too long to get that through before a new election.
However, in 1946 there was a procedure introduced to Parliament that would allow the Commons to pass laws, provided they were in the manifesto, without the consent of the Lords. This is called the Salisbury convention after the peer that introduced it.
This convention was challenged in 1999, but was upheld. The then leader of the Lords stated "The Salisbury/Addison convention has nothing to do with the strength of the parties in either House of Parliament and everything to do with the relationship between the two Houses . . . It must remain the case that it would be constitutionally wrong, when the country has expressed its view, for this House to oppose proposals that have been definitely put before the electorate."
There have been two royal commissions since this statement into the procedures in both houses, both commissions have upheld the Salisbury convention.
Based on the fact that the referendum was in the conservative manifesto and that was voted through as the majority party, and the referendum was also carried through with a result that the commons will be acting on, the Lords have no say on the matter should it be a requirement that any new legislation were required to be passed in order to invoke article 50.
If there is no requirement for any new legislation to be enacted before Art50 can be invoked, which is my understanding, then the Lords doesn't come into the question anyway.
So I think you are best to not consider the Lords debating any potential deals, its not going to happen.
jsf said:
Derek, the HOL wont be involved in this process.
The HOL used to be able to hold up legislation for a maximum 2 years (1 month for a finance bill) from the point of the 2nd reading of a bill. That was changed to 1 year in 1949 when the Labour government of the time introduced the 2nd parliament act as they were concerned the Lords would block the Nationalisation of the steel and Iron industries, 2 years was too long to get that through before a new election.
However, in 1946 there was a procedure introduced to Parliament that would allow the Commons to pass laws, provided they were in the manifesto, without the consent of the Lords. This is called the Salisbury convention after the peer that introduced it.
This convention was challenged in 1999, but was upheld. The then leader of the Lords stated "The Salisbury/Addison convention has nothing to do with the strength of the parties in either House of Parliament and everything to do with the relationship between the two Houses . . . It must remain the case that it would be constitutionally wrong, when the country has expressed its view, for this House to oppose proposals that have been definitely put before the electorate."
There have been two royal commissions since this statement into the procedures in both houses, both commissions have upheld the Salisbury convention.
Based on the fact that the referendum was in the conservative manifesto and that was voted through as the majority party, and the referendum was also carried through with a result that the commons will be acting on, the Lords have no say on the matter should it be a requirement that any new legislation were required to be passed in order to invoke article 50.
If there is no requirement for any new legislation to be enacted before Art50 can be invoked, which is my understanding, then the Lords doesn't come into the question anyway.
So I think you are best to not consider the Lords debating any potential deals, its not going to happen.
The convention has been ignored in the past. There was lots of vitriol but little fall out.The HOL used to be able to hold up legislation for a maximum 2 years (1 month for a finance bill) from the point of the 2nd reading of a bill. That was changed to 1 year in 1949 when the Labour government of the time introduced the 2nd parliament act as they were concerned the Lords would block the Nationalisation of the steel and Iron industries, 2 years was too long to get that through before a new election.
However, in 1946 there was a procedure introduced to Parliament that would allow the Commons to pass laws, provided they were in the manifesto, without the consent of the Lords. This is called the Salisbury convention after the peer that introduced it.
This convention was challenged in 1999, but was upheld. The then leader of the Lords stated "The Salisbury/Addison convention has nothing to do with the strength of the parties in either House of Parliament and everything to do with the relationship between the two Houses . . . It must remain the case that it would be constitutionally wrong, when the country has expressed its view, for this House to oppose proposals that have been definitely put before the electorate."
There have been two royal commissions since this statement into the procedures in both houses, both commissions have upheld the Salisbury convention.
Based on the fact that the referendum was in the conservative manifesto and that was voted through as the majority party, and the referendum was also carried through with a result that the commons will be acting on, the Lords have no say on the matter should it be a requirement that any new legislation were required to be passed in order to invoke article 50.
If there is no requirement for any new legislation to be enacted before Art50 can be invoked, which is my understanding, then the Lords doesn't come into the question anyway.
So I think you are best to not consider the Lords debating any potential deals, its not going to happen.
In any case, the referendum was in the manifesto and, remarkably, a government honoured its promise. It has gone ahead. That bit is done.
You will be aware that there was nothing in the process of the manifesto to suggest or hint, let alone require, that the result would be honoured. So there is nothing to stop the HoL from delaying the activation of A50 on a multiple of grounds. It is not unknown for those in parliament to engage in contortions of logic.
Your understanding may be right on whether an act of parliament is required. My knowledge of law is nowhere near sufficient even to make a partially educated guess. However I can read. There is a lot of argument among the great and good as to whether this would be legal. There is a legal process going through at the moment to challenge it. There may well be others.
I would bet that there are factions developing in parliament as I type. In this I am not going out on a limb. I would also bet that MPs are looking for any advantage, personal or party, to gain from the next couple of years or so. You can look towards habit and non-binding agreements and depend on them if you wish. However, I look to the much more dependable resource of history.
I have no idea what might happen and I would suggest that no one does either. There are likelihoods and possibilities, but if you think that MPs won't try to pull a flanker, you underrate their deviousness.
Mrr T said:
jsf thanks for a fair summary of the current legal position between the HOC and the HOL. I do however think your conclusion that any bill to trigger Art 50 would be covered by the Salisbury convention is open to interpretation. The Tory party manifesto only included a promise to deliver a non binding referendum. On that basis I think the HOL might say the convention does not apply.
The Party manifesto was to deliver a referendum (legally non binding) and implement any decision. I will quote it for you:Conservative_manifesto said:
And then we will ask the British people whether they want to stay in on this basis, or leave. We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome.
https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto page 73 if you want to check it yourself. Fastdruid said:
https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto page 73 if you want to check it yourself.
Well done that man 
Fastdruid said:
Mrr T said:
jsf thanks for a fair summary of the current legal position between the HOC and the HOL. I do however think your conclusion that any bill to trigger Art 50 would be covered by the Salisbury convention is open to interpretation. The Tory party manifesto only included a promise to deliver a non binding referendum. On that basis I think the HOL might say the convention does not apply.
The Party manifesto was to deliver a referendum (legally non binding) and implement any decision. I will quote it for you:Conservative_manifesto said:
And then we will ask the British people whether they want to stay in on this basis, or leave. We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome.
https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto page 73 if you want to check it yourself. Mrr T said:
Fastdruid said:
Mrr T said:
jsf thanks for a fair summary of the current legal position between the HOC and the HOL. I do however think your conclusion that any bill to trigger Art 50 would be covered by the Salisbury convention is open to interpretation. The Tory party manifesto only included a promise to deliver a non binding referendum. On that basis I think the HOL might say the convention does not apply.
The Party manifesto was to deliver a referendum (legally non binding) and implement any decision. I will quote it for you:Conservative_manifesto said:
And then we will ask the British people whether they want to stay in on this basis, or leave. We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome.
https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto page 73 if you want to check it yourself. How else are we going to honour the result to leave the EU?
So the Salisbury convention *should* see Lib Dem and Labour not oppose it. You are correct in that doesn't of course stop the Conservatives or independent Lords from opposing it.
At the same time however the legislation (and of course there will have to be some) is most likely to be a repeal of the 1972 act followed by (or included in a) bill on the basis
of continuing existing EU law until such a time as it becomes replaced by UK law.
I'd actually imagine that what will happen is that Article 50 is triggered by May and then the legislation is put before the HoC/HoL as somewhat of a fait accompli. Which doesn't really then give the HoL much leeway to oppose it apart from on reasonable grounds of it's actual contents.
Fastdruid said:
It really does. The manifesto clearly says that they will hold a referendum and honour the results, leaving the EU means leaving the EU which means either triggering Article 50 or directly repealing the 1972 act (which realistically isn't going to happen without article 50 first, ripping up international treaties without negotiation is not a good idea).
How else are we going to honour the result to leave the EU?
So the Salisbury convention *should* see Lib Dem and Labour not oppose it. You are correct in that doesn't of course stop the Conservatives or independent Lords from opposing it.
At the same time however the legislation (and of course there will have to be some) is most likely to be a repeal of the 1972 act followed by (or included in a) bill on the basis
of continuing existing EU law until such a time as it becomes replaced by UK law.
I'd actually imagine that what will happen is that Article 50 is triggered by May and then the legislation is put before the HoC/HoL as somewhat of a fait accompli. Which doesn't really then give the HoL much leeway to oppose it apart from on reasonable grounds of it's actual contents.
What Labour and Lib Dem peers "should" do and what they will do are 2 very different things.How else are we going to honour the result to leave the EU?
So the Salisbury convention *should* see Lib Dem and Labour not oppose it. You are correct in that doesn't of course stop the Conservatives or independent Lords from opposing it.
At the same time however the legislation (and of course there will have to be some) is most likely to be a repeal of the 1972 act followed by (or included in a) bill on the basis
of continuing existing EU law until such a time as it becomes replaced by UK law.
I'd actually imagine that what will happen is that Article 50 is triggered by May and then the legislation is put before the HoC/HoL as somewhat of a fait accompli. Which doesn't really then give the HoL much leeway to oppose it apart from on reasonable grounds of it's actual contents.
I completely disagree with the idea May will invoke Art 50 without Parliamentary approval.
Once Art 50 is triggered an agreement must be reached within 2 years and can only be extended with unanimous approval.
Triggering Art 50 without some indication from other EU countries of where the negotiations would end up would be like playing Russian roulette.
If it all goes wrong and we have to leave without any access to the single market (the WTO option) the consequences for the UK would be a disaster. May would have to resign, the Tories, would lose the next election and likely be unelectable for 20 years.
Now is the time for a leave plan. What do you mean leave did not have a plan?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff