Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Imreoir2

JeffKenna wrote: »

Thinking back to my history lessons... If the house of Lords blocks it what happens?

Most likely leads to a vote in the commons that takes that power away from the lords.

RickBlaine

I like Jess Philips a lot. It is always good to see raw passion and genuine concern for her constituents in the HoC. And she completely obliterated Johnson in that speech.

But the whole "I don't understand parliamentary procedure" bit was a bit annoying. She's been an MP for over 4 years, and while I wouldn't expect her to have the same parliamentary knowledge as Bercow, she is working in the HoC, and everyone no matter where they work would be expected to know the rules of their workplace, especially after being there for four years.

DOCARCH

Sam Russell wrote: »

Once parliament is prorogued, all bills die. If the old guard Tories can talk it out, it dies.

There is talk of the House of Lords sitting 24/7 until it passes.

devnull

Doubt the house of Lords will block it when it comes to votes etc.

However the clear tactic being used with all the amendments is for the Tory lords to fillibuster it for as long as possible in the hope that either they run out of time to schedule a vote, or to buy time for Boris to go all out to manufacture an election whilst the fillibusting is going on.

Boris needs to get an election voted through before the bill becomes law or the time runs out essentially, so anything that delays the bill becoming law gives Boris more time to engineer an election.

Itssoeasy

Tell me how wrote: »

He's been no more than rudimentary for the last hour.

Well maybe he's conserving his energy or maybe it hard to keep going when as part of your job is to listen to people saying the same things over and over again.

beggars_bush

RickBlaine wrote: »

I like Jess Philips a lot. It is always good to see raw passion and genuine concern for her constituents in the HoC. And she completely obliterated Johnson in that speech.

But the whole "I don't understand parliamentary procedure" bit was a bit annoying. She's been an MP for over 4 years, and while I wouldn't expect her to have the same parliamentary knowledge as Bercow, she is working in the HoC, and everyone no matter where they work would be expected to know the rules of their workplace, especially after being there for four years.

its a very archaic system with everyone needing legal advice about anything going on

JeffKenna

Imreoir2 wrote: »

JeffKenna wrote: »

Thinking back to my history lessons... If the house of Lords blocks it what happens?

Most likely leads to a vote in the commons that takes that power away from the lords.

For home rule it was the house of Lords only had 3 turns to reject it and then it passed automatically. What's the situation now do you know?

Itssoeasy

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Most likely leads to a vote in the commons that takes that power away from the lords.

The commons took the power away from the Lords in the 1910's and the Lords can only delay any bill three times(I think it is) and then have to pass it.

Itssoeasy

JeffKenna wrote: »

For home rule it was the house of Lords only had 3 turns to reject it and then it passed automatically. What's the situation now do you know?

It's still the same.

Podge_irl

beggars_bush wrote: »

its a very archaic system with everyone needing legal advice about anything going on

It is archaic and to be honest frequently stupid. It is the equivalent of idiotic rules like not wearing brown shoes in the City which simply give the opportunity for those who were schooled in these things to mock those who weren't.

devnull

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The commons took the power away from the Lords in the 1910's and the Lords can only delay any bill three times(I think it is) and then have to pass it.

Won't be enough time for that.

Kermit.de.frog

Sam Russell wrote: »

Once parliament is prorogued, all bills die. If the old guard Tories can talk it out, it dies.

92 amendments to the delay bill.

And they describe the backstop as "undemocratic".

Itssoeasy

devnull wrote: »

Won't be enough time for that.

Well given the time before Proroguing of parliament it won't get three cracks at it. But as far as I know that is the procedure in normal times but the UK parliamentary system is not in normal times.

Water John

House of Lords will adopt a guillotine if necessary, for its first time ever.

As Lord Archer said, how could they unelected block a Bill from those elected.

Itssoeasy

DOCARCH wrote: »

There is talk of the House of Lords sitting 24/7 until it passes.

When are they starting ? Some of the peers aren't in the summer of their lives.

ancapailldorcha

Bambi wrote: »

Jess Phillips is some clueless gawm. Product of Labours gender quotas no doubt.

No insults please.

RickBlaine

beggars_bush wrote: »

its a very archaic system with everyone needing legal advice about anything going on

I've watched loads of these debates over the years and it was my first time hearing an MP of over 4 years beginning a speech by highlighting to the speaker that she might accidentally break parliamentary procedures because she doesn't understand them all. It might be OK in a maiden speech but not after 4 years.

There are other MPs with the same level of education and parliamentary
experience as Phillips who seem to get by OK.

The cynic in me thinks it is a technique to paint herself as a "normal Joe Public" and distance herself from the Oxbridge elite. But that tactic seems unnecessary because she is a strong enough MP in her own right without needing to highlight that.

Itssoeasy

Don't use lying in the house.

nc6000

RickBlaine wrote:

The cynic in me thinks it is a technique to paint herself as a "normal Joe Public" and distance herself from the Oxbridge elite. But that tactic seems unnecessary because she is a strong enough MP in her own right without needing to highlight that.

In fairness I don't think Jess Phillips or many of her Labour colleagues need to do much to distance themselves from the Oxbridge elite.

hometruths

To be fair to the Tories it is difficult to find fault with the argument that the majority of them voted to trigger article 50, i.e leave on 29th March, and then failed to find any consensus to do so.

The current crop of MPs as a whole have shown they are unable to agree on a way to leave, so the only possible solution is a general election to try and get a new make up of MPs.

Yet Johnson is offering them one and now they are saying they don't want that either!

If Johnson loses this vote, as looks likely, I think he should offer to ask for the extension as the price of an election on October 14th.

He can campaign on give me a majority and I will make sure we leave on 31st October deal or no deal.

Similiarly Labour can campaign on we will leave but with a CU deal or whatever it might be.

And Lib dems can campaign on we will revoke Article 50.

If the electorate believe in any of the above positions, somebody will get a majority, and if it is Johnson, parliament ought to respect it.

It is clear that if there is an election on 14th October it is clearly a single issue election - Brexit. It is essentially a people's vote.

Itssoeasy

RickBlaine wrote: »

I've watched loads of these debates over the years and it was my first time hearing an MP of over 4 years beginning a speech by highlighting to the speaker that she might accidentally break parliamentary procedures because she doesn't understand them all. It might be OK in a maiden speech but not after 4 years.

There are other MPs with the same level of education and parliamentary
experience as Phillips who seem to get by OK.

The cynic in me thinks it is a technique to paint herself as a "normal Joe Public" and distance herself from the Oxbridge elite. But that tactic seems unnecessary because she is a strong enough MP in her own right without needing to highlight that.

I took that to mean she might say things that would be considered un parliamentary. I think it's far to say that any member of parliament in the world who is in their seat 4 years would not know as much, or maybe know it off hand like speakers of parliaments who by the nature of their positions are assumed to have a very good knowledge of the procedures.

Sardonicat

There's a lot of MPs still sitting on the opposition benches. Are they abstaining?

DOCARCH

Itssoeasy wrote: »

When are they starting ? Some of the peers aren't in the summer of their lives.

Thursday I believe?

If House of Lords sits 24/7, then no matter how long it takes (48, 72, 96 hours, etc.) to get through all the amendments, it is counted as one day.

If the House of Lords is still on its Thursday sitting on Monday, I think proroguing parliament/HOC has to be delayed until House of Lords sitting has ended.

Capt'n Midnight

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Don't use lying in the house.

No

don't accuse someone of lying to the house


Allegedly fired for lying

Itssoeasy

The house of Lords is in session.

gooch2k9

schmittel wrote: »

To be fair to the Tories it is difficult to find fault with the argument that the majority of them voted to trigger article 50, i.e leave on 29th March, and then failed to find any consensus to do so.

The current crop of MPs as a whole have shown they are unable to agree on a way to leave, so the only possible solution is a general election to try and get a new make up of MPs.

Yet Johnson is offering them one and now they are saying they don't want that either!

If Johnson loses this vote, as looks likely, I think he should offer to ask for the extension as the price of an election on October 14th.

He can campaign on give me a majority and I will make sure we leave on 31st October deal or no deal.

Similiarly Labour can campaign on we will leave but with a CU deal or whatever it might be.

And Lib dems can campaign on we will revoke Article 50.

If the electorate believe in any of the above positions, somebody will get a majority, and if it is Johnson, parliament ought to respect it.

It is clear that if there is an election on 14th October it is clearly a single issue election - Brexit. It is essentially a people's vote.

That would be fine with a PM who is trusted. He would get what he wants immediately and the opposition are left waiting for him to honour his side of the deal. They will never go for that.

Lucy8080

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

92 amendments to the delay bill.

And they describe the backstop as "undemocratic".

It's gone up to 102 amendments now. Each must be voted on at least twice I think. That will take over one hundred hours according to some estimates.

Itssoeasy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

No

don't accuse someone of lying to the house


Allegedly fired for lying

I should have said don't use lying to describe something someone said.

10000maniacs

Has Stephen Kinnock, trying to make a name for himself inadvertently scuppered Benn's bill?
If his amendment is carried, I see a lot more peers not going for it.

MadYaker

schmittel wrote: »

To be fair to the Tories it is difficult to find fault with the argument that the majority of them voted to trigger article 50, i.e leave on 29th March, and then failed to find any consensus to do so.

The current crop of MPs as a whole have shown they are unable to agree on a way to leave, so the only possible solution is a general election to try and get a new make up of MPs.

Yet Johnson is offering them one and now they are saying they don't want that either!

If Johnson loses this vote, as looks likely, I think he should offer to ask for the extension as the price of an election on October 14th.

He can campaign on give me a majority and I will make sure we leave on 31st October deal or no deal.

Similiarly Labour can campaign on we will leave but with a CU deal or whatever it might be.

And Lib dems can campaign on we will revoke Article 50.

If the electorate believe in any of the above positions, somebody will get a majority, and if it is Johnson, parliament ought to respect it.

It is clear that if there is an election on 14th October it is clearly a single issue election - Brexit. It is essentially a people's vote.

Johnson couldn't lead them into an election anymore. Even if labour agreed to an election the brexit party would split the tory vote.