Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westministers: The Lords Strike Back

999 replies

RedToothBrush · 01/03/2017 19:41

This needs no fanfare or lengthy post. Just this:

The Lords are demanding amendments unilateral protection for EU citizens.

Labour was split 358 for an amendment to 256 against.

This is after Amber Rudd had tried to reassure the Lords by writing a letter assuring peers that EU citizens would be treated with the utmost respect.

Utmost respect = an amendment to guarantee unilateral support.

Today is a good day. It should have been done in the first place.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Motheroffourdragons · 02/03/2017 15:21

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ to protect the privacy of the user.

YERerseISootTHEwindy · 02/03/2017 15:22

Of course there is. People's way of living is at stake. Everyone including Europe knows full well we are leaving.

Motheroffourdragons · 02/03/2017 15:24

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ to protect the privacy of the user.

missmoon · 02/03/2017 15:27

I don't understand the "bargaining chips" theory regarding EU migrants in the UK. If (say) the EU27 can't all agree to a unanimous position on UK migrants, what are we going to do? Deport our EU migrants? Some of them? (e.g., those whose countries are not willing to do a deal?). If we are not prepared to do that (and I don't think the majority of people in this country would support this), then why not give a unilateral assurance to all EU migrants living in this country? The entire negotiations strategy is nonsensical. It doesn't stand up to logic.

HashiAsLarry · 02/03/2017 15:28

Yes, how unreasonable of the EU not to completely disregard the rules we agreed to because now we feel its unfair

The idea that we shouldn't now give this assurance after all - for fear of upsetting racists no less - is a new low.
This. Totally this. Not to mention where it shows immigrants are on the scale of things - less worthy of consideration than racists. Nice.

YERerseISootTHEwindy · 02/03/2017 15:31

If it was a decision taken in the commons I would have accepted it as part of democratic process.. I still wouldn't have been delighted as I think it would be helpful to discuss things with Europe rather than deciding bits we want or will give first.

The point is there will be no plan until there is an outcome from negotiating with Europe.

I never expected there to be a definitive plan. You can fling yourself down a waterside with a plan to end up on Mars. ... doesn't mean that is going to be what happens. We need to see what the eu brings to the table too.

YERerseISootTHEwindy · 02/03/2017 15:35

I want to upset racists... I don't want to give them assistance to spread. By providing them with something which they can credibly view as unjust the hol decision will only help their cause.

HashiAsLarry · 02/03/2017 15:46

That's a complete contradiction. Upsetting racists helps them spread their cause so you don't want that but you want to upset them.

NinonDeLanclos · 02/03/2017 16:03

Since when was national policy dictated by what racists may or may not consider unjust?

This is the most fuckwitted opposition to the Lords' vote I've heard yet.

Mistigri · 02/03/2017 16:12

missmoon the bargaining chips stuff is utter nonsense. Ian Dunt made the case very succinctly in the quote I posted above:

If Spain starts deporting Brits, which they won't & prob legally can't, it'll make little difference that we start turfing out non-Spaniards.

Rarely have I seen an argument demolished so completely, let alone in 140 characters. The point is that, as bigchoc correctly said about 3 pages ago, negotiations will not be symmetrical.

As for the appeasement of racists, history tells us that this never works. Appeasement normalises abhorrent behaviour, and gives it room to breed.

Badders123 · 02/03/2017 16:21

Historically speaking appeasers are rarely judged positively

jaws5 · 02/03/2017 16:22

Appeasement normalises abhorrent behaviour, and gives it room to breed. The normalization of abhorrent ideas has now been in place for a while. I think we all have read and heard opinions that only a year ago would have been unacceptable, all from perfectly ordinary "decent" people. On MN this has been rife, on sections of the press too, and privately I have had to endure listening to "common sense" such as expecting an elderly Italian lady who came here after the war to "be grateful" that this country accepted her as it's so "tolerant". Unthinkable a year ago and totally abhorrent.

NinonDeLanclos · 02/03/2017 16:26

The normalization of abhorrent ideas has now been in place for a while.

Well quite. We've got much bigger problems than how racists may or may not interpret the Lords' vote.

What really encourages racism is politicians and media embracing racist attitudes in the language and behaviour, notably the vile Leave adverts.

NinonDeLanclos · 02/03/2017 16:27

their not the

LurkingHusband · 02/03/2017 16:34

Historically speaking appeasers are rarely judged positively

Chamberlain being the first example that springs to mind ...

NinonDeLanclos · 02/03/2017 16:46

To be fair to Chamberlain we weren't actually ready to go to war at the time of the Munich agreement. Morally speaking it was ignominious, practically speaking it gave us time to gather forces.

NinonDeLanclos · 02/03/2017 16:52

But yes, history is not kind to appeasers in general...

Tryingtosaveup · 02/03/2017 16:53

I am hoping this is the end of the HOL.
The Goverment were elected and they elected their leader. We do not elect prime ministers inthis country. We elect MPs to the HOC.
The Lords are unelected and have no business opposing this Bill, especially as it is the result of a referendum.
It will certainly be overturned by the elected Chamber.
You may not like TM but she is very popular....look at opinion polls....I, like many people think she is doing a good job for the country.
There are many posters on here who are clearly only concerned about their own personal position and not about what is best for the UK.

LurkingHusband · 02/03/2017 16:57

To be fair to Chamberlain

we was just putting forward the Will Of The People. Most of Britain was (rightly) desperate to avoid a war, and Churchill was a bit of a lone voice.

But then we know who writes history (almost literally in Churchills case).

NinonDeLanclos · 02/03/2017 16:57

I, like many people think she is doing a good job for the country

Only because the shit hasn't hit the fan yet.

Pol Pot was popular in 1975.

LurkingHusband · 02/03/2017 16:58

We elect MPs to the HOC.

as almost nobody said in 2010 ....

woman12345 · 02/03/2017 17:02

www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/mar/02/john-mcdonnell-sets-out-labours-three-priorities-for-the-budget-politics-live

^Paul Drechsler, the CBI president, has warned that leaving the EU without a trade deal would be “irresponsible”. He will give a speech on this tonight, but in extracts released in advance he says:
Wherever I go across Europe, I hear concerns about the UK leaving without a deal and falling into World Trade Organisation rules.

We should be under no illusions about what this would really mean. A ‘no deal’ scenario would open a Pandora’s Box of economic consequences.

The UK would face tariffs on 90% of its EU exports by value and a raft of new regulatory hurdles. Let’s remember these barriers would hurt firms on both sides of the Channel.

Here in the UK and across the continent firms are worried about this ‘worst-case scenario’. Some are getting ready for it to reduce economic damage. Some won’t prepare because they’re hoping for a deal. But in reality many firms can’t prepare because the cost of change is simply too high to even consider it.

The prime minister is confident that a deal can be achieved - and we agree.

But to those whose first and only choice is for Britain to walk away without a deal, I say you’re not only wrong but irresponsible
------------------------.

Peers have been sent legal advice saying Brexit will need a further act of parliament. It has been sent to them by Open Britain, a group campaigning for a “soft” Brexit, ahead of a vote next week on an amendment to the article 50 bill saying parliament should get a vote on the final Brexit deal. The advice (pdf), drafted by three QCs, Sir David Edward, Sir Francis Jacobs and Sir Jeremy Lever, says “actual withdrawal from the EU will need to be authorised by parliament in a future Act, once the outcome of the negotiations, and the impact on individual and business rights, is known.” Open Britain says it shows that, if the government does not accept the amendment, it could face another legal challenge over Brexit^.

BigChocFrenzy · 02/03/2017 17:04

"There are many posters on here who are clearly only concerned about their own personal position and not about what is best for the UK." ? Confused

Are you another one saying UK expats should stfu ?

Or who else do you mean is concerned about their own position - those worried about cuts to the nhs and benefits ?
That could be you some day.
Anyone could have a serious illness or accident, or become redundant when they are too old to interest employers.

woman12345 · 02/03/2017 17:05

www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/02/sweden-reintroduce-conscription-amid-rising-baltic-tensions

View more sharing options
Shares
322
Philip Oltermann
@philipoltermann
Thursday 2 March 2017 14.54 GMT First published on Thursday 2 March 2017 12.24 GMT

Sweden has voted to reintroduce military conscription by 1 July after struggling to fill army ranks on a voluntary basis, citing increased Russian military activity in the Baltics as one of the reasons for the policy U-turn.

The real danger to Sweden is Russia.

While the extreme right have their jollies in Europe, Putin is at work.

woman12345 · 02/03/2017 17:09

That could be you some day.

And any one can became a migrant.

Absolutely agree BCF

Swipe left for the next trending thread