House of Lords

[SocketRocket]

Don't think that's is technically the case. They offered a referendum on it, nowhere in the parliamentary bill did it say any result must be enacted upon. Parliament ultimately decides if we leave or not as it is doing now. Wee bit of unbiased background here (had to research a little)-
https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/

I do agree however we the public believed the result would be honoured and therefore probably should leave (even though I dont want to leave) given the result, but we do not absolutely have to leave. A cop out or get out clause yes but it may turn out practically impossible to leave or be the better call for the country if we stay or at least have a trading agreement of some kind in place before we leave. That's what MPs and peers have to weigh up.

having a trading arrangement is nothing to do with staying in the EU unless it keeps us in the single market or customs union.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Don't think that's is technically the case. They offered a referendum on it, nowhere in the parliamentary bill did it say any result must be enacted upon. Parliament ultimately decides if we leave or not as it is doing now. Wee bit of unbiased background here (had to research a little)-
https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/

I do agree however we the public believed the result would be honoured and therefore probably should leave (even though I dont want to leave) given the result, but we do not absolutely have to leave. A cop out or get out clause yes but it may turn out practically impossible to leave or be the better call for the country if we stay or at least have a trading agreement of some kind in place before we leave. That's what MPs and peers have to weigh up.

And just for futher background and to differentiate between the EU referendum and the STV Referendum - in the latter it was written into the referendum Bill that the government would immediately enact the decision of the referendum. No such statement or even implied undertaking was included in the EU Referendum Bill.

So in the case of the STV referendum then indeed parliament 'legally' handed over decision-making on the matter to the electorate. It did not do so in the case of the EU referendum - it did not (despite what politicians might have said) actually 'give up the right to decide' on the matter.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

But in the case of Brexit this no longer applies. Parliament made a decision to leave the decision to stay or leave the EU to the electorate so they gave up their right to decide. The majority voted to leave and this means breaking away completely, we all should understand the difference between leaving something and not leaving. If you leave your golf club you don't keep your clubs in the locker room.

Your definition of completely is not the same as mine.

Now if the various leading lights in the Leave Campaigns had ever been able to agree amongst themselves what leaving the EU completely actually meant, then they could have put that in a Leave manifesto so that every voter was very, very clear on what it meant. But they didn't. And the politicians are not clear; and we are not clear; and the electorate is not clear.

And the EU negotiators and EU27 governments are left scratching their collective head wondering what it is that the UK actually wants.

 

[SocketRocket]

Your definition of completely is not the same as mine.

Now if the various leading lights in the Leave Campaigns had ever been able to agree amongst themselves what leaving the EU completely actually meant, then they could have put that in a Leave manifesto so that every voter was very, very clear on what it meant. But they didn't. And the politicians are not clear; and we are not clear; and the electorate is not clear.

And the EU negotiators and EU27 governments are left scratching their collective head wondering what it is that the UK actually wants.

The Government booklet we all received made it clear that if the vote was to leave then we would leave. The only reason we are not clear is because of the gerrymandering from the remainers to muddy the waters.

Anyhow, we dont want this thread to get away from the HOL as I think we have all more than done the rounds on the Brexit issue.

 

[Hacker Khan]

But in the case of Brexit this no longer applies. Parliament made a decision to leave the decision to stay or leave the EU to the electorate so they gave up their right to decide. The majority voted to leave and this means breaking away completely, we all should understand the difference between leaving something and not leaving. If you leave your golf club you don't keep your clubs in the locker room.

The referendum was non-binding. That by definition does not mean that parliament completely dissolved any responsibility as they would have made it legally binding if they wanted to do that.

 

[SocketRocket]

The referendum was non-binding. That by definition does not mean that parliament completely dissolved any responsibility as they would have made it legally binding if they wanted to do that.

The Government put a booklet through all our doors at great expense stating quite clearly that if the vote was to leave the EU they would enact that wish. Their exact words were :

"This is your decision.
The Government will implement
what you decide."


Suggesting it was not legally binding is playing games with the spirit and intention of the referendum and we all know that. If you and I shook hands on a sale and afterwards I reneged on it suggesting it was not legally binding what would your opinion be of me?

 

[Deleted member 1147]

But in the case of Brexit this no longer applies. Parliament made a decision to leave the decision to stay or leave the EU to the electorate so they gave up their right to decide. The majority voted to leave and this means breaking away completely, we all should understand the difference between leaving something and not leaving. If you leave your golf club you don't keep your clubs in the locker room.

I get it, we're leaving and much I am against it, I accept that fact.
But, if the government come up with an idea of what the end result is going to be, and it is a terrible plan. I would rather have the backstop of knowing that Parliament could prevent that happening and force them to come up with a better plan.
After all, with this shambles of a Govt anything is possible.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The Government put a booklet through all our doors at great expense stating quite clearly that if the vote was to leave the EU they would enact that wish. Their exact words were :

"This is your decision.
The Government will implement
what you decide."


Suggesting it was not legally binding is playing games with the spirit and intention of the referendum and we all know that. If you and I shook hands on a sale and afterwards I reneged on it suggesting it was not legally binding what would your opinion be of me?

Government can say what it wants in as big shouty CAPS as it wants - but if parliament doesn't let it then that's democracy. Don't blame parliament - blame those who suggested that government could do what it wanted without parliamentary agreement. Indeed it could very well be argued that government is indeed enacting the electorate decision - just that parliament is not letting government get all it's own way on it.

And when we walk away with No Deal and refuse to pay the £40bn we owe? What do we think ALL other countries across the world with think of our reliability in holding to agreements made.

And as a skilled negotiator you very well understand that what is said in negotiations is one thing - but what really matters is what is written in the contract and signed off by all parties. And as we are all fully aware - there was nothing in the EU referendum Bill ( you might view it as the 'contract' with the electorate on the referendum) that stated that parliament was handing over it's decision making to the electorate. Nada - zilch.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I get it, we're leaving and much I am against it, I accept that fact.
But, if the government come up with an idea of what the end result is going to be, and it is a terrible plan. I would rather have the backstop of knowing that Parliament could prevent that happening and force them to come up with a better plan.
After all, with this shambles of a Govt anything is possible.

Too logical and sensible - and just not a line that the Sun or The Daily Mail would ever accept and suggest as reasonable to it's readers.

 

[drdel]

Too logical and sensible - and just not a line that the Sun or The Daily Mail would ever accept and suggest as reasonable to it's readers.

There is a Brexit thread, no need to keep rehashing it here as well!

 

[drdel]

The main issue came in recent years when the politicians started to appoint their cronies. Mr Blair especially!

 

[MegaSteve]

The main issue came in recent years when the politicians started to appoint their cronies. Mr Blair especially!

Be very afraid then, for when BoJo gets to the top of the pile...
Nothing he likes better than appointing a pile of 'cronies' when 1 or 2 would be way more than sufficient...

 

[SocketRocket]

Government can say what it wants in as big shouty CAPS as it wants - but if parliament doesn't let it then that's democracy. Don't blame parliament - blame those who suggested that government could do what it wanted without parliamentary agreement. Indeed it could very well be argued that government is indeed enacting the electorate decision - just that parliament is not letting government get all it's own way on it.

And when we walk away with No Deal and refuse to pay the £40bn we owe? What do we think ALL other countries across the world with think of our reliability in holding to agreements made.

And as a skilled negotiator you very well understand that what is said in negotiations is one thing - but what really matters is what is written in the contract and signed off by all parties. And as we are all fully aware - there was nothing in the EU referendum Bill ( you might view it as the 'contract' with the electorate on the referendum) that stated that parliament was handing over it's decision making to the electorate. Nada - zilch.

If the contract didn't represent what we had agreed in discussion then I wouldn't sign it off. If I shook hands with you on an agreement then as far as I am concerned I have made a pledge to honor it, suggesting it's not legally binding such that you can amend and work against the spirit and intention is not the kind of honesty I have any truck with.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

The main issue came in recent years when the politicians started to appoint their cronies. Mr Blair especially!

Blair filled it with his cronies because Maggie and then John had done the same with their mates and the imbalance was huge. It stood out more when Blair did it because he had to catch up on 20 years of Tory peers in a short period in order to get his own legislation through.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I should add the long term hereditary peers, old money families, tend to be big landowners and natural Conservatives so Labour is automatically at a disadvantage there as well. Blair had little choice but to play the system.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I should add the long term hereditary peers, old money families, tend to be big landowners and natural Conservatives so Labour is automatically at a disadvantage there as well. Blair had little choice but to play the system.

Of which I believe there are 92 -75 of which are elected by all hereditary peers (so democratically elected in a way)

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Of which I believe there are 92 -75 of which are elected by all hereditary peers (so democratically elected in a way)

Come now, you surely had to add a smiley after that? An unelected elite vote for another elite and that gives it credibility?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Come now, you surely had to add a smiley after that? An unelected elite vote for another elite and that gives it credibility?

I didn't think it needed one...

But as you mention it - we as an electorate are ourselves an unelected elite (as we are those who are allowed to vote) and we vote for the elite who stand for election

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I didn't think it needed one...

But as you mention it - we as an electorate are ourselves an unelected elite (as we are those who are allowed to vote) and we vote for the elite who stand for election

Ha ha, this is the sort of thing a university lecturer would use as a debate to get your mind going. I think counting the electorate as an elite is stretching the meaning of the word. To vote in a GE you must

• be registered to vote
• be 18 or over on the day of the election (‘polling day’)
• be a British, Irish or qualifying Commonwealth citizen
• be resident at an address in the UK (or a British citizen living abroad who has been registered to vote in the UK in the last 15 years)
• not be legally excluded from voting

That is a pretty wide spread and you are not excluded based on race, gender, wealth, religion as would have been the case in the past.

As for those who can stand, they are pretty much in the same category. It is not like the US where only the wealthy can realistically stand for main office.

After a few hours of this elite question, listening to The Cure et al, a few beers, a takeaway, debating whether Holly Willoughby is hot or not, I think the rest of the room would be on my side (I've added Holly Willoughby for the young kids out there. My own time at university would more likely have been Monica v Rachel (Friends)