REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[thehistorymakers]

Just to stop you asking this question ad infinitum. Yes, absolutely. The House of Lords SHOULD be able to (try) and block the UK leaving the EU. Their role in our current parliamentary system requires them to have this function.

Whether an unelected chamber should have that power is a different debate but at the moment it is what it is and it would be undemocratic to remove that power from them merely to enable something to happen that not everyone agrees with.

The left in love with the house of Lords. I never thought I'd see the day.

 

[Johnny75]

So you agree the house of Lords should be able to block us leaving the EU?, even though the majority of the electorate in the biggest ever turn out voted to leave and parliament also voted to accept the result.

I am amazed, Johnny. Truly am.

Both TSB and Trips have explained this. It is the role of the Lords that they should be able to block the release of article 50. That is the check against the government doing what they want.

I'm not sure you understand that is how this works. To give a different example, if the government had been advised to pursue a travel ban policy then I would expect the Lords to challenge the validity of this and ask the government to produce a correct document and reasoning before voting on it. If the Lords didn't accept that then the travel ban would not go through. This is how democracy works.

As I said I hope they throw the white paper back to parliament to rewrite a proper version of a deal. Surely you want the best deal for the U.K.?

Just for clarity TSB, Trips and I (if they allow me to speak for them) are not advocating the Lords vote one way or the other merely they can and should be allowed to.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

You do not have a democratic right to exit the EU - that's just a soundbite with no substance. In our democracy, as upheld in the Supreme Court, parliament has the right to exit the EU. That is the democracy that you wanted to take back control of, you can't rewrite the rules to suit your own agenda.

And absolutely yes, if people feel so strongly that they want to protest, demonstrate, take to the streets and flood social media to oppose Brexit then that is their democratic right. And if they prevent it happening you can feel good about yourself by voting the government out at the next election and vote for a party that will promise to take us out of the EU and if that party doesn't win the election I will remind you that you lost and you'd better just accept the result and don't be a bad loser - because if a pro EU party wins the next general election you should not feel able to block that democratic result.

That said, I do think Parliament has a moral obligation to trigger article 50 - it was their fuck up in the first place so they need to take responsibility for it.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

That said, I do think Parliament has a moral obligation to trigger article 50 - it was their fuck up in the first place so they need to take responsibility for it.

It will go through. But do a better job of writing the legislation or it goes on hold. This is no time to be dealing with sloppily written White Papers with more questions than answers, no clarity should = go back and do it again.

Nothing to do with respecting democracy, everything to do with making sure the Government do their job properly.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

The left in love with the house of Lords. I never thought I'd see the day.

I made no comment on the merits of the House of Lords, I was explaining to you what their current role is.

Making stuff up is your default position it seems.

If you have to make things up to take part, find some other children to play with.

 

[thehistorymakers]

You do not have a democratic right to exit the EU - that's just a soundbite with no substance. In our democracy, as upheld in the Supreme Court, parliament has the right to exit the EU. That is the democracy that you wanted to take back control of, you can't rewrite the rules to suit your own agenda.

And absolutely yes, if people feel so strongly that they want to protest, demonstrate, take to the streets and flood social media to oppose Brexit then that is their democratic right. And if they prevent it happening you can feel good about yourself by voting the government out at the next election and vote for a party that will promise to take us out of the EU and if that party doesn't win the election I will remind you that you lost and you'd better just accept the result and don't be a bad loser - because if a pro EU party wins the next general election you should not feel able to block that democratic result.

That said, I do think Parliament has a moral obligation to trigger article 50 - it was their $#@! up in the first place so they need to take responsibility for it.

So basically, you think it is your right to stop coming to fruition, by demonstrations and social media.

Why have elections? By your logic, when you lose just go out mass demonstrations, social media and overturn the democratic result, by militancy and unrest.

I don't know why you said it was me who was undemocratic. I believe you accept the result and see if the winning side carry through their project. If it works out well, you accept it and fight for the changes you don't see working so well. You are advocating blocking the people's democratic result, the parliament's democratic vote, by demonstrations, social media petitions to change the result or cancel it, before Brexit even starts.

That isn't democracy, that is a coup.

 

[Trips]

Wow, flabbergasted.

As has been stated, the job of the Lords is too make sure the government are scrutinised and challenged that what they are doing is correct and the best for all of us, not just the "majority" who voted leave.

May's government has given us no indication on what post-Brexit looks like, in regards to trade, movement of people, immigration controls (would of thought this would already have been decided, given we are "taking back control") Our opposition are so poor at challenging the government on any issue surely you can see how the Lords scrutinising and making sure everything is good before triggering is a good thing?

I hope the Lords do hold up the triggering of Article 50, and only let it pass when they are happy with everything. As has been said, I hope they throw the white paper back at May & co and tell them that this is the biggest constitutional we will be going through in generations, and the pathetic white paper they have produced isn't going to cut it

 

[thehistorymakers]

I made no comment on the merits of the House of Lords, I was explaining to you what their current role is.

Making stuff up is your default position it seems.

If you have to make things up to take part, find some other children to play with.

What is your opinion on the house of Lords, should they have a right to block the vote of the majority of the electorate and the backing of the houses of parliament?

 

[The Saturday Boy]

So basically, you think it is your right to stop coming to fruition, by demonstrations and social media.

Why have elections? By your logic, when you lose just go out mass demonstrations, social media and overturn the democratic result, by militancy and unrest.

I don't know why you said it was me who was undemocratic. I believe you accept the result and see if the winning side carry through their project. If it works out well, you accept it and fight for the changes you don't see working so well. You are advocating blocking the people's democratic result, the parliament's democratic vote, by demonstrations, social media petitions to change the result or cancel it, before Brexit even starts.

That isn't democracy, that is a coup.

As I outlined earlier, elections are only one element of democracy but it seems to be the only bit of democracy that you are interested in. Some of the greatest social and political change did not come through the ballot box. But I guess it suits your agenda to limit your perspective to democracy being nothing more than a tick box exercise.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

What is your opinion on the house of Lords, should they have a right to block the vote of the majority of the electorate and the backing of the houses of parliament?

I have already answered this question.

Ask me whether the House of Lords should be abolished.

 

[thehistorymakers]

As has been stated, the job of the Lords is too make sure the government are scrutinised and challenged that what they are doing is correct and the best for all of us, not just the "majority" who voted leave.

May's government has given us no indication on what post-Brexit looks like, in regards to trade, movement of people, immigration controls (would of thought this would already have been decided, given we are "taking back control") Our opposition are so poor at challenging the government on any issue surely you can see how the Lords scrutinising and making sure everything is good before triggering is a good thing?

I hope the Lords do hold up the triggering of Article 50, and only let it pass when they are happy with everything. As has been said, I hope they throw the white paper back at May & co and tell them that this is the biggest constitutional we will be going through in generations, and the pathetic white paper they have produced isn't going to cut it

So an unelected Lords should be able to change the result of the people and an elected parliament?
Should they be able to block Brexit?

Simple question, yes or no?

 

[thehistorymakers]

I have already answered this question.

Ask me whether the House of Lords should be abolished.

Should the house of Lords be abolished?

 

[The Saturday Boy]

So an unelected Lords should be able to change the result of the people and an elected parliament?
Should they be able to block Brexit?

Simple question, yes or no?

This is what taking back control looks like in action. You knew the rules when you voted.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Should the house of Lords be abolished?

Yes. Absolutely. And replaced with a second chamber made up of elected representatives and appointees who have some expertise. Unfortunately that is not the system that is in place now therefore we are stick with the House of Lords. You knew this when you voted.

 

[Trips]

So an unelected Lords should be able to change the result of the people and an elected parliament?
Should they be able to block Brexit?

Simple question, yes or no?

I have already answered this. Here is the post.....

"Should" they be able to block it - Yes.

"Will" they block it - I highly doubt it.

Just for clarity though - yes I do believe they should be able to block Brexit.

Do I think they will? No. Brexit will go through and we will leave the EU.

However, how is challenging the government on their plans and scrutinising their decision a bad thing?

 

[thehistorymakers]

Yes. Absolutely. And replaced with a second chamber made up of elected representatives and appointees who have some expertise. Unfortunately that is not the system that is in place now therefore we are stick with the House of Lords. You knew this when you voted.

Phew, you had me worried for a bit. Yes an elected second chamber, with some expertise in the field.
I can get some sleep now.

This is what Tim farron said about the house of Lords.


http://www.libdemvoice.org/tim-farr...nyone-to-reform-the-house-of-lords-47283.html

From the link.


"The Lords is wholly undemocratic and will never have the legitimacy it needs for a healthy democracy until this is changed.



There is a simple reason for this and it is called democracy; the people’s laws should only be made by those whom the people have elected."

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Phew, you had me worried for a bit. Yes an elected second chamber, with some expertise in the field.
I can get some sleep now.

This is what Tim farron said about the house of Lords.


http://www.libdemvoice.org/tim-farr...nyone-to-reform-the-house-of-lords-47283.html

Perhaps if you stopped assuming you know what I think you would worry less. And why would I care what Tim Farron thinks, you are the only one who believes it is relevant to this discussion.

 

[thehistorymakers]

Perhaps if you stopped assuming you know what I think you would worry less. And why would I care what Tim Farron thinks, you are the only one who believes it is relevant to this discussion.

It is relevant, because he is the only leader who doesn't accept the result, in England. He speaks all the time against the house of Lords, but is depending on an unelected, undemocratic house of Lords to block the will of the electorate and government. If ever the word hypocracy was justified, it's here.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

It is relevant, because he is the only leader who doesn't accept the result, in England. He speaks all the time against the house of Lords, but is depending on an unelected, undemocratic house of Lords to block the will of the electorate and government. If ever the word hypocracy was justified, it's here.

Not really. The House of Lords is the current second chamber. You can want reform of the House of Lords and be against leaving the EU. All it tells me is that Tim Farron would rather there was an alternative means at his disposal.

You were against the high court and supreme court challenges to the government - after voting to take back control that is hypocrisy.

 

[thehistorymakers]

I have already answered this. Here is the post.....



Just for clarity though - yes I do believe they should be able to block Brexit.

Unelected, undemocratic Lords blocking Brexit has nothing to do with democracy. Parliament voted 6 to 1 to give the people the vote. Including MP'S from all English Parties. The people voted to leave in the biggest ever electoral turn out in the UK. Parliament then votes to accept to majority vote of the referendum to leave and you think an unelected, undemocratic house of Lords should be able to block Brexit!

Nelson Mandela would never have won the South African elections, with that sort of democracy! Shocking.