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?

Efteling, I'm curious about yor point on animal welfare. Do you think meaningful trade deals we may enter into have a significant chance of raising welfare standards in other countries?

OP you are misunderstanding the way the system works. The HoL has to be unelected because they supposed to be deciding on things on what is the best course of action, not based on whether they will get voted back in next year. Secondly they can't overturn anything. They can just ask for stuff to be reconsidered by the HoC - this is a safeguard against any bad decisions by the HoC (which can easily happen if one party has a large majority there). If they ask for amendments the bill will go back to the HoC. If it passes through there unchanged again, it is unlikely the HoL would stand in its way a second time.

In this case, it's a very important decision that is being made, and it's right that it gets proper scrutiny. If this delays things by a couple of weeks, so what. It's our future for the next few decades that's at stake.

Thirdly, the HoL are NOT trying to undo the referendum vote, just change certain subtleties about how things are done. There are a lot of different types of Brexit - it's important we go for a good one!

Fourthly, surely it's a good thing if they are old! They have had loads of experience and have seen it all before. I certainly wouldn't want the future decided by a bunch of 20 somethings.

I get that the thread is about HoL/ parliament/brexit but I can't for the life of me understand when posters argue for pages on other threads about other institutions, that this ancient outdated set up isn't railed against. Its better than nothing is apparently it.

I have railed for pages and pages on the subject when it was the topic being discussed.

However, having seen a unicameral system close up - yes, it's a great deal better.

Some of us are capable of multitasking and campaigning for Lords Reform at the same time as recognising that the current system is preferable to no house of review.

It's the 'it's not the best, trash it without having any idea what we'd do next!' thinking that has us in our current situation of debating the role of our sovereign Parliament in determining which Brexit model we pursue.

Yes they'll be saying Faith schools are better than nothing next.

Looks at self, looks at DS1 who is now attending a faith school because his only available options were faith schools, and yes, it's better than nothing.

Doesn't stop me campaigning against faith-based selection or state funding for state schools, mind. I find life is full of uncomfortable compromises. Don't you?

In this case I say hoorah for the 'unelected group of people (many of whom seem old/senile/out of touch with every day life)'!!! Gotta love'em.

Ah, but you see, some of us can grasp complexity!

There are benefits to an appointed rather than elected chamber, as have been endlessly rehashed on those threads after threads you mention. I happen to think they're outweighed by the downsides of not having a directly elected upper house, but I'm not silly enough to pretend that those benefits don't exist, or that nothing would be better than the upper house we currently have.

Embrace the complex idea! It's quite fun, I promise.

ami I think holding your cards close to your chest in any negotiation is a good first step, and you have to give your negotiators free rein and not hedge them about with preconditions as the Lords have tried to do with the status of EU citizens for example. Whilst it may be the moral high ground to assure them they can stay, it takes away a strand in the negotiations to do so upfront. Barnier doesn't give a flying fig about doing the right thing, and EU politics are byzantine to say the least and dishonest at the worst. Remember Juncker saying he lies when he thinks it necessary? This explains Belgium and to a certain extent the EU for me.

I think Parliament should scrutinise the final deal, perhaps in a closed cross party committee, but not be peeking over shoulders the whole time whilst that deal is thrashed out, and be prepared to walk away without a deal if necessary. This is all about who blinks first imo, us or the EU.

You also have to remember that some EU member states want a good deal for us and them, as a bad one for us shoots them in the foot. The Flemish government have already been to the Belgian government to lobby for this as Flanders exports a lot to us. EU member states also want to maintain cooperation with us in the various other treaty organisations we will all still belong to, like NATO, and they want access to intelligence we get via the Five Eyes. The EU doesn't like the Anglo Saxon model, which is why I don't think we have ever been a good fit in the EU, and I think we are far more upfront about things. Dh (who was seconded to the EU) and still works with 28 other nations on a daily basis says that it is almost impossible to get a straight answer as everything is hedged around with caveats and conditionalities. The EP might be having a 'say' on the final shape of the package they want, but ultimately, it will come down to what the Heads of Govt want for their individual nation, as the EU, as it is now, is a pork barrel political vanity project (see Strasbourg!).

itsmine - i was quoting the OP

Actually, in politics and philosophy, people who don't vote are presumed to acquiesce to the majority vote

The usual assumption is that people who don't vote want to keep the status quo.

I rail against the house of lords on a regular basis. But the system we have in this country requires a second chamber and that is the second chamber that we've got.

Incidentally, the average age is 69- so hardly doddery. And considering there are several 90 year olds that average is a bit skewed.

mega plenty of images of them in their red capes too if you cba to Google.

But not when debating, which is what you said happened, its mine.

I'm afraid when you can't get the difference between what happens when peers perform ceremonial functions as opposed to their role in the second chamber, you're not really in a position to pronounce on their competence in that role.

"Bert your 80yr old surgeon teaching analagy wasn't really worth the repeat grin"

Really? I thought it was quite apposite.

I have no idea but I know it's pointless to try and hold up the eu as some great standard bearer of animal standards.

If you look at my original post relating to that issue, efteling, you will see that that is the whole point. The main reason why there are reasonable regulations about animal welfare standards in the EU is that we insisted on it. Once we're out, they have no incentive to keep those standards. Therefore they will be able to trade in meat much more cheaply, which will put our farmers at a massive disadvantage in international trade assuming we want to keep those standards. To say nothing of the effect on millions of farm animals, of course.

Jassy *By specifying only that nothing could be signed until post-Brexit you strongly implied that all else - including years of formal negotiations - could happen before.

Weasel words were your aim, though, eh? I'd hoped for a better and more honest standard of debate. Perhaps foolishly, but I'm an optimist.*

I didn't imply anything - you chose to read that into what I wrote. Nothing can be signed until post Brexit, fact.

Weasel words I'm just following the Brussels/EU standard that you seem so wedded to. Love your dig that I am neither honest not open, I am both, but you don't seem to grasp that the EU does not play by the rules, so we should be aware of that and on the look out for it. If you have watched the Katya Adler documentary on Brexit, perhaps you might recall the section where Adler is talking to Mogherini, the EU High Representative. Mogherini states that there are sanctions in place for countries that break the rules, but as Adler points out these are not used, and Mogherini says nothing to that. Why has Germany not been fined for having a current account surplus, which breaches the growth and stability parameters? www.politico.eu/article/no-fines-for-portugal-spain-over-budget-failures-european-commission-deficit/ points to a lack of credibility and consistency in applying the rules.

If you want an open and honest debate, then read what is written, don't infer, and stop accusing people of weasel words. you might just get a better response then. Some attempt to try to understand why people voted leave might go a long way as well, as opposed to the dismissive tone used by you and others.

"Seriously they must perform a lot of 'ceremonial functions' as every time they're featured on the news of late they've had their red outfits on"

Really?

this is when they were on the News last

Scary, if you're going to get so het up about people reading things into your posts, you might want to try avoiding it yourself.

So why did you only mention signing, rather than the other things that can't happen until we're out? Quite a curious choice.

You can check who claims what on the Parliament website, e.g for October 2016: www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-finance-office/2016-17/allowances-expenses-2016-17-month-7-october.pdf

Some claim the full amount, some claim less than the full amount, some don't claim anything at all.

I thought they only wore robes in the House for the Queen's Speech.

Are there more occasions than that?

Not red outfits at all when debating.

This rather reminds me of the Sun's recent attempts to discredit the Law Lords. But I'm sure there's nothing like that going on.

Heaven knows what itsmine would say if she found any peers who play tennis................