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?

It's useful to have an element which has a different franchise, if that is the right word. MPs have one eye on 'playing the game', wheeling, dealing, getting promoted, getting reelected. They are motivated by self interest.
House of Lords are a bit random, but include bishops (ethical/interested in looking after people), ex high profile MPs (should be widely knowledgeable) and people who actually choose to be there rather than have to be there.
Between them they are pretty clued up as a group brain, and slow down any impulsive ill thought out, party political shenanigans any government with a majority may get up to. A useful balance, I'd say.

The majority of the British public didn't vote to leave the EU. The majority of the people who could be buggered to get up off their arses and vote did, which leaves us with a rather smaller percentage of the population than 52%

Don't forget this was also people over 18, my 17 year old at the time niece wasn't able to vote even though she wanted to.

And did you know people from commonwealth countries resident even for a short time on a holiday visa could also vote in this election?

The problem with Parliament and political parties right now - is a huge disconnect between voters and their representatives, ie - who are they representing.

Actually, the constituency in which I live voted overwhelmingly remain. In the recent vote on article 50, our MP defied the 3 line whip and voted against the bill. So therefore, represented the majority of his constituents who voted.

Yes, but it was thought that Commonwealth voters would favour remain (partisan as it included Cypriots and the Maltese) and it was actually opposed by leavers. Remainers only had an issue with it when they lost.

The vote was Leave by such a narrow majority that I am glad there are safeguards and discussions about how this is done. I openly admit being Remain but that's was purely because I could not decide at the time and distrusted Boris and some of the sound bites immensely. Better the devil you know in the end.
However I was not surprised we voted Leave and I back that decision. It must be done properly though and we need the best outcome for as many people as possible. Hard Brexit means not thinking through how we exit....that's not acceptable imo. Too many people would suffer and ironically those who would suffer most are in the poorest communities who voted to Leave. Look how many of those communities have had regeneration in areas courtesy of the EU or in partnership with them.
Cornwall gets a huge amount if funding from the EU but have voted to leave. The local councils there are already panicking about how they are going to cope without that extra funding .

This needs discussion...and I am glad we have a body of people (elected or not) who are scrutinising stuff and saying "wait a moment this needs further discussion".

Let's Leave...but let's not be stupid and ride roughshod over those who might suffer as a result.

Actually, the constituency in which I live voted overwhelmingly remain. In the recent vote on article 50, our MP defied the 3 line whip and voted against the bill. So therefore, represented the majority of his constituents who voted.

And yet my MP did exactly the opposite. Staunchly remain, highly educated constituency. MP knows better and votes leave.

Considering that leavers were lied to by those they actually voted for, it almost feels desirable to have an unelected body in charge.

Just see what the elected President is doing to the US. The majority is not always right.

My Father who is a true blue Tory and Leave voter gave me a very funny look when I asked him for his opinion on the HoL involvement in the process , there was even a little sigh ! He spent several (30ish) minutes of explaining how parliament works to me , ending up with 'of course the HoL would be involved in the process , why on earth would anyone think they wouldn't be ? '
He does not believe that they are trying to stop brexit . And he really really wants to leave the EU

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

Agree.

Could I just point out
1: yes members of the HoL get a £300 per day allowance. But only if they turn up.
2: There are loudspeakers in the backs of the benches in both the Commons and the Lords. If you lean back to listen, it looks like you're asleep. It happens in the Commons too.

Alfie Hate to be a pedant, but Cornwall is a unitary authority, so there is only one council there now sadly, and it is nowhere near as good as it used to be. From what I saw, (and despite living in Brussels, Cornwall is where my home /house is, and the authority to which I pay CTax), the MPs who were recently travelling the country to see what each LA would need in the wake of Brexit were impressed at the work Cornwall had done, and the booklet produced to show where the gaps would be, and the ways those gaps could be filled. Hillary Benn was interviewed and said Cornwall was ahead of many LAs in looking at this, and were being proactive. Makes a change from the 'dreckly' attitude one normally encounters from that Unitary Authority.

Yes, Cornwall voted out, and given the effect the CFP has had, are you surprised?

There are loudspeakers in the backs of the benches in both the Commons and the Lords. If you lean back to listen, it looks like you're asleep. It happens in the Commons too.

This. I am so tired of screenshots on twitter showing "our representatives dozing on the job". It's how the acoustics work in that room, that's all. If you don't lean back towards the speakers, you might not hear everything.

That's fair enough scaryteacher and I fully admit I am going by what I have read.

I STILL think Brexit has to be done properly though. Just to ensure we don't make big mistakes. If that means the Lords send stuff back to be looked at again and clarified then I am happy with that...this is what our Parliament does. That's what we will have post Brexit too so we better get behind it and accept it because once we are out that's all we have left.

I voted Remain but that's because I was so on the fence I couldn't decide....we were lied to by both camps. I didn't feel I could make an informed decision. I trust our Parliament to sort out the result and ensure Brexit is done properly.

I'm good friends with at least 4 Lords and they are all sharp minded with their fingers definitely on the pulse when it comes to business and modern life. This idea that the HofL is full of duffers is a long way from the reality.

However a bit like our (amateur) stewards in horse racing they are purely there for the greater good and have no need requirement to agree to anything they don't like.

The CFP in Cornwall was widely and often lazily regarded as being A Bad Thing. This ignored the enormous amount of benefit fishermen could get back from the EU in terms of grants and training. There's a common assumption amongst Cornish fishermen that it's the foreigners who are ruining their fishing grounds when it's not fair that they're not allowed to catch as much as they want and can. A lot if them think Brexit will give them this. Hopefully it won't.