Article 50 ruling due now
Discussion
ked over your fellow countrymen with your selfish vote. PurpleMoonlight said:
The Lords should be applauded.
People should not be used a pawns.
If the UK can guarantee security for people living here regardless of what the EU chose to do for people living there they should.
It all depends on what you mean by "guarantee security" though, doesn't it ? For example, if you mean "EU nationals fully employed in the UK prior to March 2017 may stay and apply to become a UK citizen", then fine. I don't recall anyone credible expressing a wish to deport working people who contribute to the UK, regardless of their country of origin.People should not be used a pawns.
If the UK can guarantee security for people living here regardless of what the EU chose to do for people living there they should.
If you mean "anyone who gets in before March 2019, regardless of whether they're working or not can stay, plus we'll also pay benefits at UK rates for dependents living in EU countries and a pension for you at pensionable age" then maybe not.
Whilst the idea of unilaterally declaring security for EU citizens appears laudable, in reality it might just start another rush for entries before we leave and even more on the benefits bill for future generations.
Edited by b2hbm on Thursday 2nd March 05:47
Edited by b2hbm on Thursday 2nd March 05:48
BJG1 said:
Who cares if the EU are guaranteeing anything?
The right to remain in the UK for people already here is of limited bargaining power anyway - we're not seriously going to threaten mass deportation. As far as negotiating tactics goes, taking the moral high ground before negotiations start would probably serve us better anyway
Our government should care first and foremost about UK citizens. The HoL is not doing this. The right to remain in the UK for people already here is of limited bargaining power anyway - we're not seriously going to threaten mass deportation. As far as negotiating tactics goes, taking the moral high ground before negotiations start would probably serve us better anyway
What would your proposal be if the EU states indicated mass deportation of UK citizens?
I don't believe this is the intent of anyone right now, but there's a reason the EU won't discuss it up front and it's more than MrrT's "because they're the rules".
If the reason is simply that the EU want to enforce a "rule" to try and show who's boss at the expense of the certainty of citizens of the EU then so be it. Let's play.
The HoL don't give a toss about EU citizens living here, nor ours abroad. They are upset at the Brexit vote and are wanting to assert their position. In doing so, IMO, they have weakened it.
All they have achieved is a slight delay and additional costs to the taxpayer.
I'm a fan of our two house system but the way peers have been selected in the last 20yrs is worse cronyism than the hereditary system. A full rethink is required now. IMO it needs converting to an elected house, preferably selected by PR which would allow that little chestnut to be partially addressed too.
Keep the peerage system by all means but leave it as symbolic more than anything.
I can't see anything changing on this in this Parliament. But I really hope this government has the balls to start things moving. The HoL are evidently as bad, maybe even worse, than the HoC wrt how out of touch they are.
jonnyb said:
turbobloke said:
As expected the HoL was uppity and has delayed progress of the Bill but has not stopped A50. HoC will remove their uppitiness.
I don't understand why its uppity? Why don't the Hoc just agree to the amendments and get on with it?They are not being uppity, they are doing their job.
Over the last 7 months we have seen the brexiteers applaud the Prime Minister's desperate attempts to exclude the House of Commons from the article 50 process. Our judiciary has been vilified in the tabloid press for stating the law on the matter and now we have a petition to abolish the House of Lords for having the temerity to do their job.
There is a ridiculous level of hysteria here. Despite all the nonsense beforehand the a50 bill has sailed through the commons without amendment. It was never going to do the same through the Lords, because they are not ham strung by short term politics.
Proposing the abolition of the lords is akin to ripping out the smoke alarms from your house because you get annoyed that they go off when you accidentally burn the toast. We need a second chamber, it is an historic and particularly successful part of our democracy and it protects our interests in times like these, when the govt is pursuing policy based on zealotry and we have no effective opposition.
PurpleMoonlight said:
The Lords should be applauded.
People should not be used a pawns.
If the UK can guarantee security for people living here regardless of what the EU chose to do for people living there they should.
It wasn't May using people as pawns.People should not be used a pawns.
If the UK can guarantee security for people living here regardless of what the EU chose to do for people living there they should.
May set her stall out shortly after the referendum in terms of EU citizens and guaranteeing their status in the UK,all it needed was the same courtesy in terms of a reciprocal agreement from the EU to make it happen.
The EU or Merkel and some other countries wouldn't let it happen as they refused to negotiate prior to the triggering of A50.
The Lords should be condemned for voting for an amendment that was not required and was nothing other than a delaying tactic, it also does nothing to guarantee the status of UK nationals in EU countries which the Lords and apparently you have no concern for.
Elysium said:
Because the role of the House of Lords is to stop the Commons from making mistakes in the interests of short term expedience. It is a safety net.
They are not being uppity, they are doing their job.
<snip>
Proposing the abolition of the lords is akin to ripping out the smoke alarms from your house because you get annoyed that they go off when you accidentally burn the toast. We need a second chamber, it is an historic and particularly successful part of our democracy and it protects our interests in times like these, when the govt is pursuing policy based on zealotry and we have no effective opposition.
That's a gross misrepresentation.They are not being uppity, they are doing their job.
<snip>
Proposing the abolition of the lords is akin to ripping out the smoke alarms from your house because you get annoyed that they go off when you accidentally burn the toast. We need a second chamber, it is an historic and particularly successful part of our democracy and it protects our interests in times like these, when the govt is pursuing policy based on zealotry and we have no effective opposition.
It's more like having 850 smoke detectors. A significant proportion aren't even in the house! A large proportion go off many times a day even when nothing is being cooked. A lot never go off even when the toast is sat burning to a crisp. Then standing back and calling it a good job and to think of changing the setup hysteria.
don'tbesilly said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
The Lords should be applauded.
People should not be used a pawns.
If the UK can guarantee security for people living here regardless of what the EU chose to do for people living there they should.
It wasn't May using people as pawns.People should not be used a pawns.
If the UK can guarantee security for people living here regardless of what the EU chose to do for people living there they should.
May set her stall out shortly after the referendum in terms of EU citizens and guaranteeing their status in the UK,all it needed was the same courtesy in terms of a reciprocal agreement from the EU to make it happen.
The EU or Merkel and some other countries wouldn't let it happen as they refused to negotiate prior to the triggering of A50.
The Lords should be condemned for voting for an amendment that was not required and was nothing other than a delaying tactic, it also does nothing to guarantee the status of UK nationals in EU countries which the Lords and apparently you have no concern for.
Murph7355 said:
BJG1 said:
Who cares if the EU are guaranteeing anything?
The right to remain in the UK for people already here is of limited bargaining power anyway - we're not seriously going to threaten mass deportation. As far as negotiating tactics goes, taking the moral high ground before negotiations start would probably serve us better anyway
Our government should care first and foremost about UK citizens. The HoL is not doing this. The right to remain in the UK for people already here is of limited bargaining power anyway - we're not seriously going to threaten mass deportation. As far as negotiating tactics goes, taking the moral high ground before negotiations start would probably serve us better anyway
What would your proposal be if the EU states indicated mass deportation of UK citizens?
I don't believe this is the intent of anyone right now, but there's a reason the EU won't discuss it up front and it's more than MrrT's "because they're the rules".
If the reason is simply that the EU want to enforce a "rule" to try and show who's boss at the expense of the certainty of citizens of the EU then so be it. Let's play.
The HoL don't give a toss about EU citizens living here, nor ours abroad. They are upset at the Brexit vote and are wanting to assert their position. In doing so, IMO, they have weakened it.
All they have achieved is a slight delay and additional costs to the taxpayer.
I'm a fan of our two house system but the way peers have been selected in the last 20yrs is worse cronyism than the hereditary system. A full rethink is required now. IMO it needs converting to an elected house, preferably selected by PR which would allow that little chestnut to be partially addressed too.
Keep the peerage system by all means but leave it as symbolic more than anything.
I can't see anything changing on this in this Parliament. But I really hope this government has the balls to start things moving. The HoL are evidently as bad, maybe even worse, than the HoC wrt how out of touch they are.
On the issue of bargaining power and taking the moral high ground. The UK has already done that, has made it absolutely clear that EU citizens already here by the time Article 50 declared will be allowed to stay, the only proviso is that similar rights are granted in respect of EU citizens and that it's only the EU holding things up. After article 50 declared then situation to be decided in detail.
However let's suppose UK unilaterally legally declared that regardless of what's agreed in future EU citizens will be allowed to remain. The status of UK citizens would now be a very big bargaining chip for the EU in respect of other issues if they chose to link that to another demand.
HoL being so naive it's beyond pathetic. Time for a rehash of the cronies. No issues with the hereditary system, but let's have an upper revising house that is more meritocratic.
I don't think an elected chamber would work as well. The whole point of the Lords is that they are not under political pressure in the same way as the Commons and are not as obsessed about petty political points scoring so can consider things with a more objective mind.
In may cases they do and have unravelled some pretty awful and unworkable legislation from the Commons in the past.
On this particular issue I think they have done the wrong thing but it is really about making a point. All it does is force another Commons vote - if the Commons vote the same way again it will be batted back and there appeared little appetite in the Lords for sending it back a second time so, I suspect, if it returns to the Lords unamended they will nod it through and it will gain Royal Ascent.
In may cases they do and have unravelled some pretty awful and unworkable legislation from the Commons in the past.
On this particular issue I think they have done the wrong thing but it is really about making a point. All it does is force another Commons vote - if the Commons vote the same way again it will be batted back and there appeared little appetite in the Lords for sending it back a second time so, I suspect, if it returns to the Lords unamended they will nod it through and it will gain Royal Ascent.
Elysium said:
jonnyb said:
turbobloke said:
As expected the HoL was uppity and has delayed progress of the Bill but has not stopped A50. HoC will remove their uppitiness.
I don't understand why its uppity? Why don't the Hoc just agree to the amendments and get on with it?They are not being uppity, they are doing their job.
Over the last 7 months we have seen the brexiteers applaud the Prime Minister's desperate attempts to exclude the House of Commons from the article 50 process. Our judiciary has been vilified in the tabloid press for stating the law on the matter and now we have a petition to abolish the House of Lords for having the temerity to do their job.
There is a ridiculous level of hysteria here. Despite all the nonsense beforehand the a50 bill has sailed through the commons without amendment. It was never going to do the same through the Lords, because they are not ham strung by short term politics.
Proposing the abolition of the lords is akin to ripping out the smoke alarms from your house because you get annoyed that they go off when you accidentally burn the toast. We need a second chamber, it is an historic and particularly successful part of our democracy and it protects our interests in times like these, when the govt is pursuing policy based on zealotry and we have no effective opposition.
confused_buyer said:
I don't think an elected chamber would work as well. The whole point of the Lords is that they are not under political pressure in the same way as the Commons and are not as obsessed about petty political points scoring so can consider things with a more objective mind.
In may cases they do and have unravelled some pretty awful and unworkable legislation from the Commons in the past.
On this particular issue I think they have done the wrong thing but it is really about making a point. All it does is force another Commons vote - if the Commons vote the same way again it will be batted back and there appeared little appetite in the Lords for sending it back a second time so, I suspect, if it returns to the Lords unamended they will nod it through and it will gain Royal Ascent.
In may cases they do and have unravelled some pretty awful and unworkable legislation from the Commons in the past.
On this particular issue I think they have done the wrong thing but it is really about making a point. All it does is force another Commons vote - if the Commons vote the same way again it will be batted back and there appeared little appetite in the Lords for sending it back a second time so, I suspect, if it returns to the Lords unamended they will nod it through and it will gain Royal Ascent.
Its a bit of an 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' scenario. A bunch of old, has-been fuddy-duddies occasionally putting a spanner in the works. I agree there needs to be checks & balances, but the present, unelected system is not the best. What would we replace it with? Some sort of quango/audit committee? How would it be regulated?? Mind you, I'm getting pretty tired of ex-PMs telling Joe Public he's got it wrong....The Lords is quite entitled to say to the Commons "we've looked at it, and we think you should have another think about this bit".
This is all that has happened and is how our Legislature works. They are quite entitled to do it and the Commons is quite entitled to say "thank you, we have looked at it again and we're sticking with it as was" which is what I suspect they will do.
I think we only really get into major problems if the Lords then ignores this and sends it back yet again as an endless delaying tactic. There doesn't, at the moment, seem to be much appetite to do that. They recognise that in the end the Commons must and will win.
This is all that has happened and is how our Legislature works. They are quite entitled to do it and the Commons is quite entitled to say "thank you, we have looked at it again and we're sticking with it as was" which is what I suspect they will do.
I think we only really get into major problems if the Lords then ignores this and sends it back yet again as an endless delaying tactic. There doesn't, at the moment, seem to be much appetite to do that. They recognise that in the end the Commons must and will win.
Biker 1 said:
Mind you, I'm getting pretty tired of ex-PMs telling Joe Public he's got it wrong....
Of course the Lords at the moment hasn't got any ex-PMs in it. The reason of course is that if Major, Blair, Brown or Cameron became a Lord they'd have to declare what they earn and who from.......which they do not want to do.Elysium said:
Proposing the abolition of the lords is akin to ripping out the smoke alarms from your house because you get annoyed that they go off when you accidentally burn the toast.
Not quite! It's akin to ripping out a toaster that burns the toast too often because it can't judge the temperature of events accurately.A toaster selected for better reasons than 'we always used this toaster' would do well as a replacement.
Phil1 said:
That's a gross misrepresentation.
It's more like having 850 smoke detectors. A significant proportion aren't even in the house! A large proportion go off many times a day even when nothing is being cooked. A lot never go off even when the toast is sat burning to a crisp. Then standing back and calling it a good job and to think of changing the setup hysteria.
Nice analogy. It's more like having 850 smoke detectors. A significant proportion aren't even in the house! A large proportion go off many times a day even when nothing is being cooked. A lot never go off even when the toast is sat burning to a crisp. Then standing back and calling it a good job and to think of changing the setup hysteria.
You forgot that some of them are badly wired and likely to cause a fire.
turbobloke said:
Not quite! It's akin to ripping out a toaster that burns the toast too often because it can't judge the temperature of events accurately.
A toaster selected for better reasons than 'we always used this toaster' would do well as a replacement.
Surely the point of an unelected Chamber is that it looks at things objectively without having to worry about the temperature of events?A toaster selected for better reasons than 'we always used this toaster' would do well as a replacement.
Now, in this case, they might have misjudged it but I'm not sure that is a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
confused_buyer said:
turbobloke said:
Not quite! It's akin to ripping out a toaster that burns the toast too often because it can't judge the temperature of events accurately.
A toaster selected for better reasons than 'we always used this toaster' would do well as a replacement.
Surely the point of an unelected Chamber is that it looks at things objectively without having to worry about the temperature of events?A toaster selected for better reasons than 'we always used this toaster' would do well as a replacement.
I would add that the unelected chamber should look at things including the temperature of events but excluding the colour of their tie (or pashmina).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff