House of Lords

[ardstrawray]

What are the odds on the abolition of the un elected chamber.

[terry2366]

Not much chance of that where are you going to find an old peoples home with a drinks licence an unlimited supply of booze that pays the inmates £300 a day for sleeping.

[tomsteel]

I read somewhere recently the PM said the HoL would be reviewed as to size, but not scrapped. This was, apparently, stated in the HoC during question time in response to a petition signed by over 100,000 signatories, which Parliament was duty bound to discuss.

[Deniz1]

Who cares?

[ardstrawray]

Who cares?

We should care, when we have a situation where a bunch of un elected people together with the church hierarchy overrule the elected government of the day.

[erol]

... overrule the elected government of the day.

That would currently be the elected minority government, that bought the support of the DUP with a couple of billion pounds of our money ?

[turtle]

Makes a bit of a mockery out of the notion that only old people voted leave ?....the Gravy train rolls on.

[ardstrawray]

... overrule the elected government of the day.

That would currently be the elected minority government, that bought the support of the DUP with a couple of billion pounds of our money ?

The DUP represent british people, they will try to make sure there is no surrender to the republic and the EU

[erol]

... overrule the elected government of the day.

That would currently be the elected minority government, that bought the support of the DUP with a couple of billion pounds of our money ?

The DUP represent british people, they will try to make sure there is no surrender to the republic and the EU

I can not get away from the feeling that your dislike for the House of Lords and it's ability to defeat government bills is less about principals of democracy than it is about brexit and your own personal position on such specifically. I may well be wrong but I strongly suspect that you had little concern about the HoL powers and its defeat of countless government bills over hundreds of years when such defeats were not about brexit. I also suspect that if the HoL happened to be supportive of this minority governments brexit agenda you would again have little or no issue with the 'undemocratic' aspects of the HoL.

[ardstrawray]

I have always objected to the Lords right from my very early political beliefs. I think the country should be governed by the elected chamber, not by hereditary people or who knows what from Brussels

[tomsteel]

Erol, my take on this topic is that Brexit/Remain is secondary to the principle that most folk do not want, or need, unelected/unaccountable bureaucrats interfering with their lives or decisions be they hereditary peers, church elders, political appointees or EU/Brussels gravy train people.

[erol]

Erol, my take on this topic is that Brexit/Remain is secondary to the principle that most folk do not want, or need, unelected/unaccountable bureaucrats interfering with their lives or decisions be they hereditary peers, church elders, political appointees or EU/Brussels gravy train people.

Yet this is the system we have had for literally hundreds of years as far as the 'two houses' structure of parliament goes. As for unelected faceless bureaucrats I would be impressed if anyone could name any of the current (or past for that matter) permanent secretaries yet the reality is such unelected officials wield enormous political power, always have done and will continue to do so long after we have left the EU.

[turtle]

Erol, my take on this topic is that Brexit/Remain is secondary to the principle that most folk do not want, or need, unelected/unaccountable bureaucrats interfering with their lives or decisions be they hereditary peers, church elders, political appointees or EU/Brussels gravy train people.

Couldn't agree more...

[turtle]

Erol, my take on this topic is that Brexit/Remain is secondary to the principle that most folk do not want, or need, unelected/unaccountable bureaucrats interfering with their lives or decisions be they hereditary peers, church elders, political appointees or EU/Brussels gravy train people.

Yet this is the system we have had for literally hundreds of years as far as the 'two houses' structure of parliament goes. As for unelected faceless bureaucrats I would be impressed if anyone could name any of the current (or past for that matter) permanent secretaries yet the reality is such unelected officials wield enormous political power, always have done and will continue to do so long after we have left the EU.

Permanent Secretaries are only advisors,... they don't make or change Policy ?

[erol]

Permanent Secretaries are only advisors,... they don't make or change Policy ?

Personally I think the idea that civil service mandarins can not and do not thwart the will and ambitions of their elected ministers is naive in the extreme.

[tomsteel]

Maybe the two house government has been in existence for hundreds of years, as was bear baiting, cock and dog fighting, fox hunting and bare-knuckle fighting. All these activities were repealed as society moved on. What was in existence then does not mean it is fit for purpose now. Your bias towards a 'remain' policy is of little relevance to the scrapping of the unelected HoL chamber and a different check and balance mechanism being introduced.

[erol]

Maybe the two house government has been in existence for hundreds of years, as was bear baiting, cock and dog fighting, fox hunting and bare-knuckle fighting. All these activities were repealed as society moved on. What was in existence then does not mean it is fit for purpose now. Your bias towards a 'remain' policy is of little relevance to the scrapping of the unelected HoL chamber and a different check and balance mechanism being introduced.

I have little problem with the idea of constant and ongoing reform of the HoL over time. I do however have a problem with the idea of a knee jerk reforming of the HoL simply because it is not seen as 'pro Brexit' enough for some and I am sorry but I just can not shake this feeling that much, not all but much, of the current debate around the function and role of the HoL is motivated by those who's primary and real interest is a particular form of Brexit.

[turtle]

Maybe the two house government has been in existence for hundreds of years, as was bear baiting, cock and dog fighting, fox hunting and bare-knuckle fighting. All these activities were repealed as society moved on. What was in existence then does not mean it is fit for purpose now. Your bias towards a 'remain' policy is of little relevance to the scrapping of the unelected HoL chamber and a different check and balance mechanism being introduced.

I have little problem with the idea of constant and ongoing reform of the HoL over time. I do however have a problem with the idea of a knee jerk reforming of the HoL simply because it is not seen as 'pro Brexit' enough for some and I am sorry but I just can not shake this feeling that much, not all but much, of the current debate around the function and role of the HoL is motivated by those who's primary and real interest is a particular form of Brexit.

I take it that comment is aimed at me as an ardent Leaver..?.. In with both feet again
But nothing could be further from the truth... My own personal view which I have held for years is that it is an ineffective complete waste of time and a very expensive one at that. I despise the fact that they make decisions that effect me and many others and are unelected to do so.
So the sooner it is dismantled the better for me
But as you mentioned Brexit there are a large number of peers who are collecting hugh pensions from the EU and these toerags have signed & sworn allegiance to the EU.... how else would these leeches vote.... scandalous behavior.

[erol]

I take it that comment is aimed at me as an ardent Leaver..?

No it was not aimed at you. It is a general thing. You may think that the need for reform of the HoL has always been on the agenda to the same degree that it is today and is nothing to do with Brexit. I do not share this view. I do think that many people who have been indifferent or even supported the HoL and opposed reform in the past have a new interest in the issue that is more about their desires over Brexit than the HoL per se. Just as there are those who previously have been ardent advocates of HoL reform who are now very quiet.

But as you mentioned Brexit there are a large number of peers who are collecting hugh pensions from the EU and these toerags have signed & sworn allegiance to the EU.... how else would these leeches vote.... scandalous behavior.

30 out of 800 which to me is not really a 'large number'. Of that 7 have sworn 'oaths of loyalty' and it is far from clear what that actually means anyway. I find this whole 'they get EU pensions' story a non story. Nigel Farage, not a peer yet, will get an EU pension of £73,000 pa when he reaches the age of 63 and he has publicly stated that he intends to take it. The small number of peers who are entitled to an EU pension will receive such regardless of if when and what kind of Brexit is finally implemented. The idea that the Lords in general are thwarting the will of the government and the people simply because they want to protect EU pensions they will get anyway is to me nonsense.

The reason why Brexits bills are having such a hard time in the HoL is to me obvious and it is nothing to do with the fact that a handful of peers are entitled to EU pensions. The reason why it is getting such a hard time is because there is no wide consensus on the issue. Not amongst the public re if we should leave or if we are leaving what sort of deal we should agree. Not in the HoL or the HoC or even with this minority governments own cabinet for pete's sake. I find this 'brow beating' by some (and that is not aimed at any given individual on this forum) that anyone who opposes their particular brand of Brexit as being undemocratic thwarter's of the puiblic's will motivated only by personal greed distasteful in the extreme.

The reason why Brexit bills are getting such a hard time in the HoL and will do in the commons as well is exactly because a non democratic minority of extreme Brexiter's are tying to bully and force through, in months, their own minority agenda off the back of a referendum that was itself almost a dead tie in the first place. In my view if these people had any regard for democracy and the best interests of the country as a whole they would seek broad consensus and support based on a realistic notion of compromise and if they did this then getting bills passed in the HoL and the HoC would be no problem.

http://www.kibkomnorthcyprusforum.com/v ... 2&#p184052

[turtle]

he reason why Brexit bills are getting such a hard time in the HoL and will do in the commons as well is exactly because a non democratic minority of extreme Brexiter's are tying to bully and force through, in months, their own minority agenda off the back of a referendum that was itself almost a dead tie in the first place. In my view if these people had any regard for democracy and the best interests of the country as a whole they would seek broad consensus and support based on a realistic notion of compromise and if they did this then getting bills passed in the HoL and the HoC would be no problem.

So if we reverse this statement and replace "extreme Brexitets" with "hysterical remainers" and if THEY had any regard for democracy and accept that constanty frustrating the path of Brexit we might actualy get somewhere ?

[erol]

So if we reverse this statement and replace "extreme Brexitets" with "hysterical remainers" and if THEY had any regard for democracy and accept that constanty frustrating the path of Brexit we might actualy get somewhere ?

If there had been any effort by the government to seek genuine wide cross party consensus and such efforts were turned down or rebuffed by 'extreme remainers' who demanded 'stay or nothing', then I would indeed be as critical of such extremism as I am of the extreme Brexiters who want to push through their minority agenda at any cost and by any means fair or foul.

As ever it does feel however that you have simply ignored / skipped over my main point, which is. Which is really the more credible explanation as to what is the main reason why Brexit bills are having a hard time being passed in the HoL ? Because a small handful of peers are entitled to EU pensions ? Or because there is no consensus over Brexit, not in the population at large, not in political parties, not in government and not even in the Cabinet ?

[turtle]

There is consensus with 17.4 million voters but of course that doesn't count does it ?

[erol]

There is consensus with 17.4 million voters but of course that doesn't count does it ?

There is no way I can find to address your claim above without sounding rude or patronising but if I do not try you will not be satisfied with that either.

A difference in a referendum of less than 2 % does not represent consensus, not if the word consensus is to have any actual meaning (consensus = a general agreement.). What that is, is a majority. That was a majority to leave the EU. There has been no direct vote by the public over what kind of relationship the UK should have after leaving the EU and there is even less consensus on this, amongst the public, amongst political parties, amongst the government and even amongst the cabinet. You may well feel that the referendum vote entitles a government that itself could not even secure a democratic majority in parliament to implement any kind of relationship with the EU on leaving no matter how extreme, without any let or hindrance from anyone including the HoL or the HoC. I however do not hold such a view.

As ever it does feel however that you have simply ignored / skipped over my main point, which is. Which is really the more credible explanation as to what is the main reason why Brexit bills are having a hard time being passed in the HoL ? Because a small handful of peers are entitled to EU pensions ? Or because there is no consensus over Brexit, not in the population at large, not in political parties, not in government and not even in the Cabinet ?

[turtle]

Erol...you know all too well that Brexit has been frustrated on all levels since article 50 was activated...you and the remain campaign are hell bent on stopping Brexit and will stop at nothing to achieve this.
You mentioned the permanant secretaries and the power they yield well the same could be said for the peers who now draw and the ones who will draw pentions from the Eu in the future hold massive sway in the HoL within their own parties so yes they are influencing procedings to a degree that will probably derail the final outcome...that will be a sad day for the democracy of this country ....can I ask a serious question here...why the hell would we vote to stay in a customes union that will all but tie our hands behind our backs weight our feet down and throw us into the abyss so we have no meaningfull say in our future....is this what you really want ?

[erol]

As ever it does feel ....

Erol...you know all too well that Brexit has been frustrated on all levels since article 50 was activated...you and the remain campaign are hell bent on stopping Brexit and will stop at nothing to achieve this.

It is late and I am tired but the claim that I personally am hell bent on stopping the UK leaving the EU and will stop at nothing to achieve this, is nonsense. I voted and I express a few opinions on this forum now and again, though rarely without regret having done so, and that is it. Stop at nothing ? Pah ! Again at the risk of sounding rude that claim to me is little more than meaningless rhetoric, the kind that imo typifies far far too much of what passes for 'debate' when it come to Brexit.

You mentioned the permanant secretaries and the power they yield well the same could be said for the peers who now draw and the ones who will draw pentions from the Eu in the future hold massive sway in the HoL within their own parties so yes they are influencing procedings to a degree that will probably derail the final outcome...that will be a sad day for the democracy of this country

We are just going round in circles here. The last defeat for the government in the HoL was by 91 votes. If you were to exclude every peer that gets or will get an EU pension from voting, the government would still have been defeated and not by 1 or 2 % but by a significant majority. Yet you go on and on and on making out that this defeat is a function of 'corrupt' and 'undemocratic' self serving peers to stop the UK leaving the EU. The claim is nonsense imo. The amendment is not one that says the UK should not and will not leave the EU. It says that the democratically elected, not faceless, Parliament and not a minority government should have the right to decide if we leave the EU without a deal at all or not. This then is what you consider a 'sad day for democracy' - that such a decision will not be in the sole power of a minority executive but actually the democratically elected parliament.

....can I ask a serious question here...why the hell would we vote to stay in a customes union that will all but tie our hands behind our backs weight our feet down and throw us into the abyss so we have no meaningfull say in our future....is this what you really want ?

Discussing here between you and me the pros and cons of the UK remaining in the customs union after it leaves the EU is pointless. Clearly you believe that such would not be good for the UK and that is fine and that is your right and I respect you have such an opinion. However to argue that such a decision should be able to made by fiat decision by a minority government and without any vote of any kind, rather than made by a vote in Parliament of elected MPs is to me not an argument for democracy. As far as I am concerned it appears to me more an argument that you should get what you personally want regardless of democracy.

[ardstrawray]

According to Sky news, 15 more lords to be appointed, now the lunatics have really taken over.

[turtle]

Erol,. it is obvious that you take anyone's view that is different to your own with disdain and constantly post derogatory comments against that person including my own and usually defend the undefendable as is with the troublesome unelected lords frustrating things and causing turmoil in the country at large.
I too think debating Brexit with you is futile as you have a penchant for arguing black is white simply for the sake of it and yes I do find some of your comments on the rude side but I care not about that that is how you are?.
With that I will try my utmost from now on to steer clear of any thread that you enter and try not to enter discussion on anything politics with you.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

A few points I’d like to make on this.
I think with the first past the post electoral system and that in my opinion the days of parties getting huge majorities being over, deals such as the ones made with the DUP will become more common in the future.

Whilst the government is a minority government it is worth pointing out that if we had proportional representation then all governments in power would likely be minority governments put together with MPs from various small parties.
If we were like most of Europe and with the far right having elected MPs we could have some very unsavoury politicians having a huge influence on government.
UKIP would have won a large amount of seats under PR and so would no doubt have triggered a referendum as part of their “deal.”
A couple of other interesting facts.
Blair won the 2005 election with less than a quarter of the popular vote. So whilst the majority in the referendum was small it was a majority.
As for the referendum being a wafer thin majority it is worth pointing out that we never voted to join the EU but interestingly the day after we joined there was a poll and the numbers again were a tiny majority against joining so not much changed in 40 odd years.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Whilst not a fan of the HOL I do believe that there is a need for a second chamber.
However not to overthrow legislation as that can’t be right for an unelected chamber to thwart the legislation of an elected chamber.
At its best a House of Lords could be a good thing. A forum of retired businessmen, union officials and the like using their skills to give vital legislation a final polish in a non political way can’t be a bad thing.
Unfortunately over the years as the parties enoble more and more of their ex MPs to have a nice hobby at our expense the Lords has turned into an unelected Commons.

As for Hard Brexit soft Brexit etc.
The majority albeit a small one voted to leave. I think the remainers having lost the referendum are continuing with the failed project fear and accept that we will leave but to keep obeying all EU legislation etc and of course keep making the same contributions.
I’m more in favour of a hard Brexit but to then have another referendum in ten years.
People would then know for sure whether we are better off without the EU and vote accordingly. I’m very confident of the outcome of that vote.
I’d also like to point out the nonsense of allowing 16 year olds to vote in the referendum because their future is affected.
At what point do we draw the line on that? Four year olds are also affected so give them a vote.
Can we then rerun the 1975 referendum? That’s only fair surely?
Be interesting if we threw in some 50-60 year olds who weren’t old enough to vote at the time retrospective votes into that.

[erol]

EnjoyingTheSun do you think the decision on whether to negotiate a hard or soft Brexit should be decided solely at the discretion of the government alone, that itself does not have a majority, or by the HoC ? Which of those do you see as more democratic ?

[jofra]

IF the House of Lords were ever replaced by a second elected house/chamber, AND elections occurred at the same time/same date as general (House of Commons/MPs) elections, IMO such a second house would be worthless and ineffective, as surely the "second" house would result in the same political persuasion as the House of Commons i.e. government....
IMO the only (somewhat) secure way of obtaining a second house that might be a balancing and controlling force on the current government would be to require second house elections to take place (roundabout) halfway through government terms....

[EnjoyingTheSun]

EnjoyingTheSun do you think the decision on whether to negotiate a hard or soft Brexit should be decided solely at the discretion of the government alone, that itself does not have a majority, or by the HoC ? Which of those do you see as more democratic ?

When you say the HOC do you mean the HOL?
The problem with this is that there is so much political point scoring going on that it is a mess.
We have May who is a remainer pressing on with Brexit to keep her party together and keep the electorate onside. In opposition is Corbyn who has been anti EU his entire career but now sees he might get some votes if he swallows his principles.
The people voted out in the largest turnout in what 30 years?
Out means out it doesn’t mean out but we are actually still in but we will wear a different hat but be tied to all the legislation.
HOL serves a purpose but isn’t elected so can’t be as democratic as an elected body.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

IF the House of Lords were ever replaced by a second elected house/chamber, AND elections occurred at the same time/same date as general (House of Commons/MPs) elections, IMO such a second house would be worthless and ineffective, as surely the "second" house would result in the same political persuasion as the House of Commons i.e. government....
IMO the only (somewhat) secure way of obtaining a second house that might be a balancing and controlling force on the current government would be to require second house elections to take place (roundabout) halfway through government terms....

Possibly although America often has a president with a huge popular personal vote and a senate who are from the other party.

[erol]

When you say the HOC do you mean the HOL?

House of commons, not house of lords. My view is that the general election result meant that the Government lost the mandate to execute Brexit solely on their own terms. My immediate reaction to the result was that they would have to seek some sort of cross party approach to the kind of Brexit that would be sought. For me this is what the electorate had 'said' in that election - we do not trust any single party to make these momentous decision on their own. Yet they did not do this. They continued to try and 'go it alone'. In the process they then empower tiny minorities, like the DuP or the likes of the ERG group of Tory MP's headed by Mogg. As I understand it this is the basis of all the HoL defeats inflicted on the government - basically forcing them to have to go to the house of commons and not just make these major decisions on their own. To my mind and somewhat ironically it is all about the sovereignty of parliament, in this case over government and not the Eu but still parliamentary sovereignty. By not seeking some cross party approach May can and to a degree is being held hostage by just 7 of her own MP's, which is enough to wipe out the majority gained by the DUP deal. Any 7 tory MPs not happy with a given approach can threaten to bring the government down.

The problem with this is that there is so much political point scoring going on that it is a mess.
We have May who is a remainer pressing on with Brexit to keep her party together and keep the electorate onside. In opposition is Corbyn who has been anti EU his entire career but now sees he might get some votes if he swallows his principles.
The people voted out in the largest turnout in what 30 years?
Out means out it doesn’t mean out but we are actually still in but we will wear a different hat but be tied to all the legislation.
HOL serves a purpose but isn’t elected so can’t be as democratic as an elected body.

Turkey is not in the EU. It is in the customs union. Various countries are in the EEA and not in the EU. I am not saying that any of these options are right for the UK on leaving but I am afraid I do not buy the argument that unless we have a 'total' separation then we are still in by default. I understand the argument but its not one I agree with. I also am suspicious of the 'rush' to be honest. Why not Leave the EU but stay in the customs union for a period to easy transition ? Nothing would stop us leaving that as well down the road. Like I say I do not claim to have any answers but I am a lot happier with the idea that these decision are made by Parliament and not by a minority government alone.

[erol]

As for the referendum being a wafer thin majority it is worth pointing out that we never voted to join the EU but interestingly the day after we joined there was a poll and the numbers again were a tiny majority against joining so not much changed in 40 odd years.

So many ironies for me comparing the first referendum with the second. The first, which as you say was not if we should enter the EEC, but if we should remain was called, as far as I can see by a party motivated by trying to avoid it tearing itself apart. It just happened to be the Labour party that time.

It is often suggested that the big difference with the 75 referendum was that is was only about signing up for an economic union and not a political one. However from what I have read it seems to me that the issue of sovereignty and of the danger of ever increasing political union was actually at the forefront of the then 'leavers' arguments and very strongly expressed. For me the big difference in the debate leading up to the referendum was that although immigration was a massive issue in the UK at that time, immigration as a result of joining the EEC was not much of an issue then, when the the current members numberd only 6 and all countries with similar levels of wealth as the Uk (with possible exception of Italy). That to me stands out as the biggest difference in the debates that went on in the lead up to the 75 referendum and the 2016 one

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Erol,

In uk at the moment so difficult to reply on iPhone using quotes etc.
My fingers aren’t that nimble.
If I miss anything I apologise and do ask again.

I’m not sure I necessarily agree that the election was a message to the government solely about Brexit. A lot of people don’t think that deeply before casting their vote unfortunately. “I voted labour last time so this time I’m voting Conservative” I’ve heard countless times with the parties reversed.
A cross party group to see Brexit through would be great but it isn’t going to happen.
That would assume politicians act in the interests of the country not themselves.
Also the EU is a gravy train for retired or finished politicians if you were them would you want that to end?

As to leaving the EU and just staying in the Customs Union, great.
But I worry that if we join the customs union we then have to join something else or abide by another thing. Before you know it we are fully in again.
I don’t think it will be that easy.
My personal belief is the EU intend to make leaving as painful and expensive as possible to discourage anyone else leaving.
The EU politicians are consumate negotiators who have had the upper hand over Britain in any talks for the last 40 odd years. The only time they were bettered was by Thatcher’s bull in a china shop approach.
So leaving might have to be brutal unfortunately.

Re the 75 referendum the leavers did push the sovereignty angle but at the time it wasn’t an issue because Maastricht etc was in the future we were as far as we knew just in a trading association and one we were already getting stitched up in.
Remain won for four reasons.
1. Wilson totally lied about the renegotiation deal he got and the EU helped him in that lie. The renegotiation deal was the biggest factor in the remain win.
2. Ten times more money was spent on the remain campaign so it was far more professional
3. Remain had the cuddly politicians whereas leave had Powell and Benn a very tricky pair to unite under
4. We were only a couple of years in, the real damage was yet to come.

[erol]

I’m not sure I necessarily agree that the election was a message to the government solely about Brexit. A lot of people don’t think that deeply before casting their vote unfortunately. “I voted labour last time so this time I’m voting Conservative” I’ve heard countless times with the parties reversed.

I am not saying we all got together in a room and agreed to not give any single party alone the means to decide what kind of brexit deal we would try and negotiate with the EU. However to me that was what the result meant. It is just maths not politics. I have said all this before btw in the thread just after the general election.

A cross party group to see Brexit through would be great but it isn’t going to happen.
That would assume politicians act in the interests of the country not themselves.

In the current situation and under our current political system I can not see any way that Brexit can be delivered other than via a cross party consensus. That was my view after the general election and remains so now. If I were pro Brexit then I would argue that the biggest risk to brexit not happening at all would be a minority maximalist group, in trying to get everything all at once, risking ending up getting nothing. It is said politics is the art of the possible. I also think this maximalist minority know the risks this approach creates but I personally think they fear that unless they go all out now for a kind of brexit that makes it impossible to go back, the people may well over time change their minds. I think they would and are risking all now not because they believe in the 'will of the people' but because they fear it and it's fickle nature.

Also the EU is a gravy train for retired or finished politicians if you were them would you want that to end?

You think outside the EU there will be no gravy trains for retired or finished politicians ? No elevation to the HoL. No going on the lecture circuit. No fat directorships ? There will always be such gravy trains for such people, in or out of the EU. There are many politicians who are pro leaving the EU and I do not think they are so because of some selfless act of wanting to end their post political gravy trains. I think they know there are still plenty enough such gravy trains in or out of the EU.

As to leaving the EU and just staying in the Customs Union, great.
But I worry that if we join the customs union we then have to join something else or abide by another thing. Before you know it we are fully in again.
I don’t think it will be that easy.

At the risk of repeating myself, imo going for everything (total separation) all at once under an unrealistic time pressure and a government that was unable to secure a parliamentary majority is the biggest threat to brexit not happening at all. If I were pro brexit I would argue lets just get out first even it it means compromise and messy continuations in things like some form of customs union. If we can leave the EU then leaving a customs union down the road, with more time and perhaps under a government that has the mandate necessary to pass the required legislation, has to be both possible and easier. Of course this is based on the assumption that 'down the road' that is what the majority of the British people will want.

My personal belief is the EU intend to make leaving as painful and expensive as possible to discourage anyone else leaving.

To my mind expecting anything else was and is madness. Of course the EU will act in ways that it believes best serve it's own interests. Why would it do otherwise ? As long as they believe the 'cost' of encouraging other existing members to leave is greater than the 'cost' in terms of trade with the UK an acrimonious separation will result in then they will act accordingly. We knew all this before the referendum vote.

I think our whole approach after the referendum has been madness. After the result and in the face of the EU saying there can be no start to negotiating exit until article 50 is triggered we should simply have said , fine if you will not start negotiating exit before article 50 we will simply stay and veto everything we can until you are prepared to re consider. To my mind triggering article 50 before we had ourselves even decided what kind of post EU deal and relationship we wanted was bordering on criminal negligence. I also think that it was done anyway because of the fear by those that wanted exit that the tiny and non specific mandate given by the referendum vote might well be not sustainable in to the future. If I put on my most cynical of hats I could imagine that TM as a 'remainer' whole strategy has been to try and be seen to 'deliver' on brexit whilst actually following a policy that she knows will and can only fail to deliver it. Trigger article 50 before we are ready. Create an environment where no consensus amongst ourselves is found or can be found. Place bills before the HoL and HoC that she knows will not and can not secure the votes needed to pass them. Wait for parliament, when faced with a choice of staying in or crashing out, to chose staying in and keep negotiating. Job done, objective achieved and all whilst being able to make out she did everything possible to try and deliver Brexit, but was thwarted by Parliament.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

I can’t see how we will get a cross party consensus.
Corbyn has been anti EU his whole career but seeing an opportunity now uses Brexit as a stick to beat May. politicians sole focus seems to be obtaining and retaining power. Not to get power to do good.

I agree that the leavers might worry that people may change their mind. The lies that have been told for the entire history of the EU are incredible and kept the people inline and I’d be happy to list them. Luckily enough of the people saw through them and were brave.
Obviously an ongoing project fear might effect the best of two vote remainers want.
The people saw through the lies and voted out let’s get out and prove to the waverers it will be better. Until we get out it’s all theory.

Sure but there are other gravy trains but the majority of politicians won’t get seats on them.
Dianne Abbott on the board of Dyson?
Ken Livingstone trying to hypocritically justify taking a seat in the HOL?
Jeremy Hunt selling tickets on the lecture circuit?

The EU however will take any faceless untalented bureaucrat.

The leave vote got more votes than any government for god knows how many years so obviously there is a will there. Unless of course we ignore the people.

May got a minority because she run a poor campaign, Corbyn’s lie on student grants and because May isn’t personally that popular. I’d be interested to have seen how a party led by Boris would have done. He is popular and was pretty much the face of Brexit which a huge amount of people voted for.

I’m up for compromising to get out as long as those compromises don’t tie us in to the same position we were in before indefinitely.

If we get a Brexit which isn’t a Brexit then obviously people who voted yes will probably change their mind. They will think they just wasted their time/vote.
Maybe that is plan 437 from the remain playbook.

You might be right wearing your cynical hat with May or she might be just a very untalented person.
She was an awful Home Secretary so I’d be surprised if she made a good PM.

[erol]

I can’t see how we will get a cross party consensus.

I can not see how this current government can get the legislation necessary to deliver on Brexit passed without one. Just in purely practical / numerical terms.

The leave vote got more votes than any government for god knows how many years so obviously there is a will there. Unless of course we ignore the people.

Comparing the referendum vote with general elections is imo comparing apples with oranges. In terms of the margin that the leave vote secured it was to the best of my knowledge the smallest victory margin of any previous referendum in British history, of which admittedly there have only been a handful.

Do not get me wrong. We had a referendum. A majority voted to leave the EU. I accept that and we should leave the EU. My point is how can we leave the EU if the government comes up with bills that are not able to secure the necessary votes in parliament that are needed ?

I’m up for compromising to get out as long as those compromises don’t tie us in to the same position we were in before indefinitely.

See, finding consensus was not that hard To my mind as long as we manage to leave the EU, then that pretty much will prove that nothing else left is indefinite. On the other hand if we fail to leave the EU then such an argument would not apply.

You might be right wearing your cynical hat with May or she might be just a very untalented person.
She was an awful Home Secretary so I’d be surprised if she made a good PM.

Incompetent or dishonest - neither inspire much hope given she is in charge of guiding the UK through what may well be one of the most important periods for generations

[EnjoyingTheSun]

[quote="]

My point is how can we leave the EU if the government comes up with bills that are not able to secure the necessary votes in parliament that are needed ?

[/quote]

To be honest I don’t think it’s the quality of the bill it’s the honesty of the politicians.
May is a remainer but not a particularly committed one. She will go with the wind.
The tories are divided on the whole issue and realise UKIP could come back if Brexit isn’t delivered and take a lot of votes from them.
Labour are led by a leaver who seems to have amnesia on that fact as the issue might get him in power.
Whilst Labour are also no doubt split I’m sure momentum could bully and deselect their way to get Labour to do Corbyn’s bidding if he remembers he is a leaver.

[erol]

To be honest I don’t think it’s the quality of the bill it’s the honesty of the politicians.

The bill can be changed. The honesty of politicians (in the time frame necessary) on the other hand ?