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?

Jassy Juncker has said that we can't sign deals until we are out, which is why I said it. If you think about it, it is possible to scope an agreement in principle in informal bilaterals to the nth degree, without this being formal negotiations, and then have the formal negotiations with final tweaks and sign post Brexit. That adheres to the letter of the process post the triggering of A50.

You will find I think that the Eurocrats are very good at the letter of the agreement as opposed to the spirit (iyswim), and we have to get just as good at parsing words and phrases and getting what we want.

Why does what the Lords wear matter?

If you think about it, it is possible to scope an agreement in principle in informal bilaterals to the nth degree, without this being formal negotiations, and then have the formal negotiations with final tweaks and sign post Brexit.

Can you point me to any trade deal where the formal negotiations were 'final tweaks' rather than the substance of the deal, laboriously worked out over a significant period of time?

We are about to enter a crucial negotiation for this country - more crucial for our mid-term future than any trade deals we might be able to negotiate under the table pre-Brexit. It would be foolhardy to go into that process knowingly dealing in a less than honest way with those we're negotiating with, particularly given that the final deal will be subject to local ratification in some MSes as well as by those actually negotiating, so perception and emotion matters. I'm not worried about fines. I'm worried about a shit outcome to the A50 negotiation. I'll personally be ok - I have a non-EU passport - but I'd prefer not to see the country not fucked for the foreseeable.

Do you think it's a good idea?

Talking about what they wear seems like a tactic to me. Kind of like how women on the red carpet are asked who they're wearing, not what they think.

Well, that's the image you have of them!

Personally, I think all the ceremonial stuff in both houses is crap. Ditto the monarchy.

But it does seem a bit irrelevant in this context. Unless for the purposes of discrediting the revising chamber......

I would definitely support reform of the second chamber (ie not hereditary/life peers and bishops, but a second elected chamber for example elected proportionally according to votes per party but not representing constituencies) but given that this is the second chamber we have, they should be allowed to do their job and indeed be congratulated for doing it. Whether you agree with their decision or not, it is their role to debate bills and vote them through or oppose them. They are no use at all if they just wave everything through.

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.

You must surely be aware that news programmes just use any convenient clip, often using the same one over and over again, itsmine? It doesn't mean that they spend their entire working lives dressed up in red capes. And if you really have been watching the news recently, you would have seen clips of the actual debates from which you would have observed that they don't wear ceremonial dress for those purposes.

If you want to characterise the House of Lords as populated by sleeping octagenarians wearing fancy dress, don't complain when people produce awkward things like facts.

I find it odd that no-one though that member states might want to leave one day, and make plans accordingly

For the same reason that nobody planned here for a Leave vote I guess. Because they're incompetent clowns.

I think some MS do want a good deal with us. But the EU is crap at dealing with a crisis, look at all the 11th hour deals to sort out Greece. I have no confidence that their politicians will think of anything beyond their own egos. And still less confidence that ours will. It is all such a mess.

I find it odd that no-one though that member states might want to leave one day, and make plans accordingly

They did, hence Article 50. But they wanted to make it a prohibitively unattractive option.

Jassy It would be foolhardy to go into that process knowingly dealing in a less than honest way with those we're negotiating with, particularly given that the final deal will be subject to local ratification in some MSes as well as by those actually negotiating, so perception and emotion matters.

Do you really think that Barnier will be dealing in an open and transparent fashion with the UK? Pull the other one, it has bells on it. He has already started sabre rattling with the 'amount' we will have to pay to leave and various other threats. It's like boxers before a contest trying to psych each other out and put the other off balance. Scoping talks are allowable as I understand it, and www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/13/uk-to-begin-talks-with-new-zealand-on-post-brexit-trade-deal evidently the PM does as well.

As an example of EU double dealing see here: mishtalk.com/2017/03/02/junckers-latest-lie-less-is-more/.

Juncker lies; he admits that he does so...given that he is at the helm, and sets the tone, do you really trust there to be good faith? I don't. The MSs will ratify according to their particular self interest at the time; as per Wallonia with CETA.

However, A50 and article 218(3) of the Lisbon Treaty doesn't state that it will be a 'prohibitively unattractive option' does it? The Commission isn't exactly au fait with the procedures here, as it's the first time they will be doing this, but probably not the last.

It's not just Barnier. Or Junker. There are 27 member states and in some cases their own national legislatures that will have to agree any final deal to avoid bouncing us back to WTO rules. Why are people so keen to ignore that part?

Regardless, not handing the other side/s ammunition would seem to be the sensible option. A small slice of NZ's trade pie isn't really that good a prize.

It would be surprising if A50 was explicit in the motivation behind its drafting. Nonetheless, it's so. It was designed to be very difficult to leave, and was never envisioned to be used - particularly as for the first decades there was no exit clause at all. Worth reading up on the background to the exit mechanism -both Lord Kerr and Giuliano Amato are good sources.

Jassy Here in Belgium all the legislatures will have to agree, and I can't remember if that is 5 or 6, or if the communities have a say, as opposed to the just the National govt and the Regions. I am not forgetting that they will have to agree a final deal, and indeed, I think they will be more transparent than those in Berlaymont.

There is a difference in tone for example between the Flemish parliament which wants a good deal for both sides; what is coming out of Berlaymont, and what the Belgian government has said. There are times when you have to apply the letter rather than the spirit of the wording, and whilst you may not be worried about fines for Germany; the point I was making was that the rules in letter and spirit are not applied evenhandedly amd consistently across the EU member states; therefore the Commission already acts in an unfair fashion, and we need to be prepared for that and act accordingly.

So its ok to discredit them when you want to BR! Honestly!!!!

They wear normal clothes...

"So its ok to discredit them when you want to BR! Honestly!!!!"

Oh don't be silly.

If it helps, you can watch BBC Parliament when the House of Lords is on.

You can that they don't wear robes often.

At least 1 poster has discussed the benefits / disadvantages of scrutinising Brexit in Parliament.

Politics should be taught in schools. A basic outline of ideology. A focus on the system in place. Obviously it isn't. Why? Deals can be done when the masses are unaware. The masses don't use jargon "uneducated" I'd say oppressed

Politics should be taught in schools. A basic outline of ideology

It should start right at the basics with local councils and even Parish councils. Discussing how decisions are made. Who holds power to account. How decisions can be influenced. The role of Parliament. The Whips. Comparing democratic systems.

I was never taught this at school - I learnt it. Just watching Parliamentary debates is fascinating. So many rules and procedures.

Ah ok, so not red outfits every time they are featured on the news, but fairly frequently ime. I stand corrected thanks.

This is as bizarre to me as someone assuming that because they've seen someone be a bridesmaid at their wedding, that someone is always dressed in a long peach frock wearing a fascinator*, even when they are at the office, or putting the bins out. Two minutes on Parliament Live would confirm that it's boring suits for men, and pretty standard office wear for women. Exceptions are unless they are taking the oath when they first enter Parliament, or it's the Queen's Speech, or something, then it's red cloaks and ermine ahoy.

Except for the bishops who sit in the Lords. They do all wear matching frocks, like bridesmaids.

• disclaimer: bridesmaids may vary

Agree with what Jassy said a few posts back. The Brexit deal will be discussed by the parliaments of 27 other states. It is nonsensical to shut down parliamentary debate on the country that will be most affected.

I watch a lot of the debates in the HoL as part of my job.

I am ideologically opposed to an unelected chamber. I know that the majority of the Lords have been public-school educated, are rich beyond my wildest draw last have opportunities that many of us can never aspire to and are removed from the lives that many of us lead.

And yet... I listen to them speak and the majority of them are so wise and sensible and speak more sense than their elected counterparts. They are measured in their responses and care less about what people think of their decisions because they don't have to face the electorate every four years,

Similarly, I sit in court most days and listen to these old male judges (and they are men, for the most part) handing down sentences to drug dealers and rapists and I am constantly shocked by how they almost always get it right. They see straight through the bullshit.

So I'm basically torn between my staunch left wing republican politics and my knowledge that these unelected law makers are inexplicably getting it right so much if the time.

The British public didn't vote to leave the EU, 37% of the British public did. I hope you didn't decide your vote based on this kind of thinking.

26% of the population as a whole.