why should house of lords be able to determine our future?

[dreamingofsun]

Could someone explain to me why an unelected group of people (many of whom seem old/senile/out of touch with every day life) determine our terms of leaving the european union - and whether we leave it at all. the british public voted to leave - so why do they think they can alter that? why do they think they can over-rule what the majority of public said?

Bertrand That question has been answered on many other threads by lots of Leave voters. I know you are aware of this as you have been on those very threads. It's a bit disingenuous to keep repeating yourself. Go and read the threads again if you've forgotten (but I bet you haven't).

We will be able to make our own trade deals for one; we won't be subject to the acquis and the ratchet for another. There won't be interference about state aid, as there was with Lloyds Project Verde, when the EC mandated that it had to hive off 631branched after Brown had twisted Lloyds arm to rescue HBOS.

Let's turn it round - what benefits do you think we would have had from staying in, and how would things be better (given there was no road map of where the EU was headed and that was no status quo to vote for)?

As I said yes a second house to challenge and amend. Why are they old peers, wearing silly outifts getting paid a lot to do that

Is this debate about a second chamber revising and holding the Government to account OR the House of Lords?

I think we need an elected second chamber - just as many other countries have. I also think we need an elected Head of State. But I have this funny feeling that House of Lords reform is not on the agenda.

Have you actually listened to any of the debate that takes place in the HoL?

And yes, I would be perfectly happy to receive medical treatment or opinion from experts of any age-subject to their physical ability. I don't actually think old people do get "stuck in their ways" any more than young people do.

The Lords are trying to keep our sovereignty in the EU. We want to hand it back to our elected MPs. That's why the Lords are out of order.

But they represent you, you don't represent you, people who voted for Brexit don't represent you. The referendum was advisory. The people gave some advice (a vote) to the government. The laws (made by government) under which we live said the government could not unilaterally enact the results of a non-binding referendum because we are a parliamentary democracy. Therefore parliament (houses of Commons & Lords) then discuss it and decide what to do.

You are not handing sovereignty back (bearing in mind it was an advisory referendum) to elected MP's because that is not our form of government. You actually voted to say you'd quite like to hand sovereignty back to Parliament.

If you thought you voted for something different you'd best take it up with the Brexit campaign.

The vote was more average across the whole country in favour of leave - smaller pockets around towns - London voted remain.

7 in 10 Labour held constituencies voted Leave.

We have had oodles of opportunities to change the HoL. It's been tweaked a bit over the years but not changed to e.g a Senate. Funny that Leave voters are just noticing it now. Maybe you could have given a shit before and lobbied to get it moved up the political agenda.
It really is all about sovereignty and unelected decision makers. It always was and you never bothered to notice.

I don't actually think old people do get "stuck in their ways" any more than young people do

I agree with this - being stuck isn't an age thing its a brain thing. Going on elderly people I know its mixed, some stuck but always have been, some very open and learning still.
Going on my own DF however whilst very open to all new ideas he is still very much brain washed tribal Labour voter, so on that I wouldnt trust him

Funny that some remain voters who are agaisnt the monarchy and the privileges of the Lords are clinging to them in the wake of Brexit.

7 in 10 Labour held constituencies voted Leave

My city voted Remain by 58% to 42%. My MP is Labour. She is standing up for her constituents and is representing us in Parliament. That's her job.

Funny that some remain voters who are agaisnt the monarchy and the privileges of the Lords are clinging to them in the wake of Brexit

Not really. I think we should have an elected Head of State and an elected second chamber.

However - we have what we have and it's good to see some people holding the Government to account.

EU laws can be unwritten too. But that post really reveals something. The assumption from remainers is that the EU is left wing and will always remain left wing so is a convenient way to maintain left wing power in the UK even if the electorate here reject it

Not left wing - just not massively right wing. I can't see the EU ever getting like the Republican party in the US. Even the Democrats are quite right wing compared with most European more right wing parties. But that's what some Tories in the UK want for the UK. I can't see the EU legislating to remove the social chapter. I can absolutely see a right wing Tory government legislating to remove workers rights.

People vote Tory who are not that right wing. There are some Tory MPs who are not that right wing. And it is highly unlikely that such a policy would be in the manifesto, it would just be sprung on the electorate after an election and then it would take a swing back to Labour (or more likely, a new more credible left wing party) to undo it.

I don't think the British electorate would vote en masse to remove workers' rights although too many people vote tribally and never actually think about what they are voting for. But I do think a right wing Tory section would use their power to do it, once the EU safety net has gone.

fairweathercyclist I haven't read anywhere that we are not proposing to maintain a close working relationship; in fact the UK will still be working with the majority of EU member states, as allies or partners, on a daily basis at NATO HQ, where they are NATO nations.

Thought this capx.co/the-eus-customs-union-is-a-protectionist-racket/ was interesting on the customs union.

The Lords are trying to keep our sovereignty in the EU. We want to hand it back to our elected MPs. That's why the Lords are out of order

If you want to hand back sovereignty back to MPs why do you object to them insisting on a role for MPs in the Brexit process?

The European parliament has a role. Why should the British parliament not have a role?

I am very much opposed the hereditary principle and wish very much that we had an elected second chamber. But we haven't. We have what we've got. And I find the leaver characterization of the Lords as full of old people who are therefore decrepit, senile, doddery and incapable singularly unedifying.

Funny that some remain voters who are agaisnt the monarchy and the privileges of the Lords are clinging to them in the wake of Brexit

A flawed bicameral system is better than a unicameral one.

Charming! Poor TM how will she cope in those Man sized boots.

It's just a saying. Heseltine was one of Thatcher's flunkies (for a time anyway - eventually he helped get rid of her), he knows women can cause as much damage as men.

"A flawed bicameral system is better than a unicameral one."

Agree.

Ah just a saying I see so thats OK then. Lots of things that are just sayings - are sexist, racist and unpalatable and we don't say them anymore.

My point is, he could just as easily have said that Cameron had a man-sized job on his hands.

Yep. That would have been sexist too.

IAdoreEfteling I can just see the PM channeling Nancy Sinatra; '..these boots were made for walking/and that's just what they'll do/one of these days these boots are gonna (sp) walk right over you'.

I hope she wears her beautiful bright red suede knee high ones, or her black over the knee ones when she's stomping on His Lordship; putting the boot in perhaps?

Thank goodness for the House of Lords! They're doing their job, which is to make sure the House of Commons does its job properly.

The unelected issue is an issue but on the other hand having an elected second chamber makes them more prone to political shit. I think (and this is just an idea I had when I started writing this post so clearly haven't had time to think it through whether it would be workable or not) the best system would be to have a second chamber made up of representatives from various sectors such as education, social care, various trades etc. etc. elected by their peers (so like union elections but open to all workers in the particular sector) for long terms (at least ten years, preferably longer, so they bear in mind long-term considerations of bills).

A flawed bicameral system can be improved. One of the advantages of the current system is the level of expertise. It has people who've reached the top of their career in whatever it is they do and are experts so can advise on their specialisms accordingly. But the drawback of that is it's hugely unrepresentative. The general demographic is that it's old and rich. It could be improved by making it more representative of British society particularly in wealth terms.

YY Scary Love that Song. She is formidable that's for sure. Just what we need when dealing with the EU.

If anybody actually genuinely thinks this process has anything to do with proper scrutiny they're deluded.

It's a sleight of hand designed to weaken the UKs position in negotiating so that we're back in the position we were pre referendum where the EU could offer the worst possible deal so it would be rejected. It's aim is to stop Brexit - not to scrutinise terms.