16 Word Brexit Begins Bill
Discussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/03/16-key-...
Don't think this is a repost.
Apparently the Government are going to put a 16 word bill through Parliament that explicitly gives them permission to initiate Article 50.
My guess is that they'll need stones of steel and the Parliament Act to make that work: The Lords is bound to chuck it out..
Don't think this is a repost.
Apparently the Government are going to put a 16 word bill through Parliament that explicitly gives them permission to initiate Article 50.
My guess is that they'll need stones of steel and the Parliament Act to make that work: The Lords is bound to chuck it out..
Don said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/03/16-key-...
Don't think this is a repost.
Apparently the Government are going to put a 16 word bill through Parliament that explicitly gives them permission to initiate Article 50.
My guess is that they'll need stones of steel and the Parliament Act to make that work: The Lords is bound to chuck it out..
I don't think the Lords will be a problem - they hopefully recognise that if an unelected house opposes the starter process for negotiation of our exit from the EU they may find that public support for moving to a more representative elected house might surge.Don't think this is a repost.
Apparently the Government are going to put a 16 word bill through Parliament that explicitly gives them permission to initiate Article 50.
My guess is that they'll need stones of steel and the Parliament Act to make that work: The Lords is bound to chuck it out..
Parliament - that's the area that I'd see the most resistance
But that's a win win anyway
davepoth said:
The Lords are under threat and they know it. If they cause trouble on this then reform will be on the Tory manifesto next time around, and it's already on the manifesto of every other party. They'll all need to think very hard about whether they want to frustrate Brexit.
Well in it's current form it is a ridiculous institution. A Revising House, though, has value as does the appointment of experts in particular fields to Government. You could achieve that other ways, though. davepoth said:
The Lords are under threat and they know it. If they cause trouble on this then reform will be on the Tory manifesto next time around, and it's already on the manifesto of every other party. They'll all need to think very hard about whether they want to frustrate Brexit.
Agreed, if Government fail in the eyes of Brexiteers to take us out of the EU in a clean cut then they know that come General Election they are toast. Should the Lords frustrate the will of the people they will find the people exerting pressure on the Government to seek major reformscrankedup said:
davepoth said:
The Lords are under threat and they know it. If they cause trouble on this then reform will be on the Tory manifesto next time around, and it's already on the manifesto of every other party. They'll all need to think very hard about whether they want to frustrate Brexit.
Agreed, if Government fail in the eyes of Brexiteers to take us out of the EU in a clean cut then they know that come General Election they are toast. Should the Lords frustrate the will of the people they will find the people exerting pressure on the Government to seek major reforms
16 words:
"The UK government will invoke Article 50, do not pass go and do not collect £200."
It sounds like it is almost designed to annoy those who have concerns over what will happen - I suspect there is little chance a majority will pass such a brief bill without serious debate over what the consequences and objectives will be.
This is so unlikely to be passed without amendment and some detail that May must know this and is playing for time and an excuse to blame others for frustrating brexit.
Making lots of people resent those who are questioning how brexit is done or ruling it must be done properly (see vilification of judges) is a good tactic for May both for her own popularity and to avoid / put off the inevitable s
t storm of disappointment that is around the corner as the brexit terms become clearer.
davepoth said:
The Lords are under threat and they know it. If they cause trouble on this then reform will be on the Tory manifesto next time around, and it's already on the manifesto of every other party. They'll all need to think very hard about whether they want to frustrate Brexit.
It seems odd that the HoL, the institution that all parties reckon is antiquated and should be ended, continues to exist. It is almost as if the MPs want it to remain, for whatever reason. The purpose of the HoL is to make a stand on important constitutional issues. If they feel a bit of legislation is improper, unconstitutional, inoperable or some other limitation then they must act in accordance to that which they see as best for the UK in their opinion.
There is due process going ahead at this moment. To bypass an inconvenient law, one that hasn't yet been tested in the courts, is a precedent that is dangerous.
The worry is that the HoL won't ignore the risk of their abolition.
The HoL is a check, in the same way that a free media is, although, of course, that's been limited by legislation, introducing draconian laws. The judiciary, it would appear, is being bypassed. Thank goodness for the police. No chance of political control there, or the introduction of a hotch potch of private forces.
Still, nothing to see here. Move on.
Derek Smith said:
It seems odd that the HoL, the institution that all parties reckon is antiquated and should be ended, continues to exist. It is almost as if the MPs want it to remain, for whatever reason.
The purpose of the HoL is to make a stand on important constitutional issues. If they feel a bit of legislation is improper, unconstitutional, inoperable or some other limitation then they must act in accordance to that which they see as best for the UK in their opinion.
There is due process going ahead at this moment. To bypass an inconvenient law, one that hasn't yet been tested in the courts, is a precedent that is dangerous.
The worry is that the HoL won't ignore the risk of their abolition.
The HoL is a check, in the same way that a free media is, although, of course, that's been limited by legislation, introducing draconian laws. The judiciary, it would appear, is being bypassed. Thank goodness for the police. No chance of political control there, or the introduction of a hotch potch of private forces.
Still, nothing to see here. Move on.
Can you revise that down to 16 words please? The purpose of the HoL is to make a stand on important constitutional issues. If they feel a bit of legislation is improper, unconstitutional, inoperable or some other limitation then they must act in accordance to that which they see as best for the UK in their opinion.
There is due process going ahead at this moment. To bypass an inconvenient law, one that hasn't yet been tested in the courts, is a precedent that is dangerous.
The worry is that the HoL won't ignore the risk of their abolition.
The HoL is a check, in the same way that a free media is, although, of course, that's been limited by legislation, introducing draconian laws. The judiciary, it would appear, is being bypassed. Thank goodness for the police. No chance of political control there, or the introduction of a hotch potch of private forces.
Still, nothing to see here. Move on.
Derek Smith said:
It seems odd that the HoL, the institution that all parties reckon is antiquated and should be ended, continues to exist. It is almost as if the MPs want it to remain, for whatever reason.
The purpose of the HoL is to make a stand on important constitutional issues. If they feel a bit of legislation is improper, unconstitutional, inoperable or some other limitation then they must act in accordance to that which they see as best for the UK in their opinion.
There is due process going ahead at this moment. To bypass an inconvenient law, one that hasn't yet been tested in the courts, is a precedent that is dangerous.
The worry is that the HoL won't ignore the risk of their abolition.
The HoL is a check, in the same way that a free media is, although, of course, that's been limited by legislation, introducing draconian laws. The judiciary, it would appear, is being bypassed. Thank goodness for the police. No chance of political control there, or the introduction of a hotch potch of private forces.
Still, nothing to see here. Move on.
People think I'm crazy, but the reason why Theresa May is chasing this in the courts is because establishing Royal Prerogative to withdraw from treaties that confer rights to British Citizens will make it all the easier for her to remove us from the ECHR.The purpose of the HoL is to make a stand on important constitutional issues. If they feel a bit of legislation is improper, unconstitutional, inoperable or some other limitation then they must act in accordance to that which they see as best for the UK in their opinion.
There is due process going ahead at this moment. To bypass an inconvenient law, one that hasn't yet been tested in the courts, is a precedent that is dangerous.
The worry is that the HoL won't ignore the risk of their abolition.
The HoL is a check, in the same way that a free media is, although, of course, that's been limited by legislation, introducing draconian laws. The judiciary, it would appear, is being bypassed. Thank goodness for the police. No chance of political control there, or the introduction of a hotch potch of private forces.
Still, nothing to see here. Move on.
We're headed for dark times... and the masses apparently are too vacant to see it. They'll see it soon enough.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff