Jetpilot Posted March 2, 2017 Author Share Posted March 2, 2017 ^^^ Cant say i wouldnt agree with the above, regardless of the topic, very very archaic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-G- Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 As for Germany itself, we are not negotiating with Germany But by all accounts it is Germany saying, we wont agree to anything, perhaps to the letter of the law as Ekona says. Here's the rub of it. The UK can and should say more than the EU can because it is acting as a singular entity. All this "Germany" talk loses sight of the bigger picture that there are 26 other member states who will have an effective veto on the terms of the final deal and in any future deals. That means that even if you got everyone in the UK to agree to bestest most amazingist deal in the whole wide world, it's not just 1 person or indeed one group of people at the EU who has to agree to it, it's the heads of the other 27 nations in the EU. Do you really want to **** any of them off by leaving the shadow of deportations hanging over them? Won't it be fun when we're stuck in legal limbo & can't sign any future trade deals because the Polish & Irish plebiscites keep rejecting the terms of Brexit. The chance to show initiative and assure folk that their desire insofar as possible is to give EU citizens the right to remain has long since passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 The Lord's is nothing but cronism and an outdated 2nd teir council. Bin them and have an elected upper house put in place. H Not saying I don't agree with you, but then why have a second tier at all? It's just another layer of democracy that really won't serve any purpose, as then all we're doing is having two MPs per constituency. Whilst the olde worlde person who like UK history and the way the law/Parliament works wants to keep the HoL, I'd rather see it removed from the decision making process altogether. It could stay simply as a discussion room, where people who do still have influence in the real world (rightly or wrongly) can debate the choices made by those sitting in the green seats without actually having any real power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richf Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 The Lord's is nothing but cronism and an outdated 2nd teir council. Bin them and have an elected upper house put in place. How can democracy be claimed in a modern country when you have unelected ballons shouting down the elected government ?. After all most of them were 3rd rate civil servents who brown eyed the previous Prime Ministers and really have nothing to offer and no right to be shouting down an elected government. I sincerely hope that a general election comes along soon where a major player puts it into their election manifesto that they will reform the Lords and turn it to an elected house of representation for us minions and boot all these old codgers into touch. Plenty of us dont get to vote on who represents us though so thats not really an argument , I mean did you get to vote for your first minister or the Prime minister ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irn Bru Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 The Lord's is nothing but cronism and an outdated 2nd teir council. Bin them and have an elected upper house put in place. H Not saying I don't agree with you, but then why have a second tier at all? It's just another layer of democracy that really won't serve any purpose, as then all we're doing is having two MPs per constituency. Whilst the olde worlde person who like UK history and the way the law/Parliament works wants to keep the HoL, I'd rather see it removed from the decision making process altogether. It could stay simply as a discussion room, where people who do still have influence in the real world (rightly or wrongly) can debate the choices made by those sitting in the green seats without actually having any real power. Agreed, but at least have "the discussion room people" elected by their peers / public. Again, it's all about the UK being deemed a modern democratic country to live in, unelected "discussion room people", well that's just the same as the Lords is now ! If they were an elected council, then at least everybody gets a say in who they want discussing the relevant bills and laws on their behalf. If it's left to the system it is now, it remains an unelected body looking out for their own interest as the Lords are doing and have done for decades. This is 2017, the pomp and grace that bestows the Lords belongs in the 18th century. Brexit is going to lead to many many new ways of how the uk goes about its business and we as a nation need to evolve past this pomp if we are going to make our mark in the world outside of the eu. And a good start IMHO would be to drain the swamp and drag our political houses into the 21st century where all and every person who enters politics knows their going to be held to account, or they'll be voted out. That's the problem with the Lords, we the public don't get to vote them in. The uk system of lower and upper chambers is full to the gunnels with cronies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irn Bru Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) The Lord's is nothing but cronism and an outdated 2nd teir council. Bin them and have an elected upper house put in place. How can democracy be claimed in a modern country when you have unelected ballons shouting down the elected government ?. After all most of them were 3rd rate civil servents who brown eyed the previous Prime Ministers and really have nothing to offer and no right to be shouting down an elected government. I sincerely hope that a general election comes along soon where a major player puts it into their election manifesto that they will reform the Lords and turn it to an elected house of representation for us minions and boot all these old codgers into touch. Plenty of us dont get to vote on who represents us though so thats not really an argument , I mean did you get to vote for your first minister or the Prime minister ?? Not sure I'm getting your question, but yes of course I did and do at every election ! Edit: Ah... see what your trying to say now. Nobody gets to elect the FM or the PM, we only get vote for a party politician, but you vote for the party leader, cause that's who does all the talking. Only the party MP's can vote for their leader, and as it's been for the last few leaders they have decided who becomes the FM or PM, us minions only get to select our prefered candidates as MP's. Edited March 2, 2017 by Irn Bru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 No-one votes for the Prime Minister. You vote for your local MP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetSet Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 The Lord's is nothing but cronism and an outdated 2nd teir council. Bin them and have an elected upper house put in place. How can democracy be claimed in a modern country when you have unelected ballons shouting down the elected government ?. After all most of them were 3rd rate civil servents who brown eyed the previous Prime Ministers and really have nothing to offer and no right to be shouting down an elected government. I sincerely hope that a general election comes along soon where a major player puts it into their election manifesto that they will reform the Lords and turn it to an elected house of representation for us minions and boot all these old codgers into touch. Major reform of The House of Lords was in The Labour Party manifesto.............in 1964!! They've been in power for over 20 years since then and all they have done is to reduce the number of hereditary peers, who were in the main Conservatives. The problem is that if you had an elected second house it would lead to similar problems they have in The States with one party blocking the other. If you held the election on the same day as a General Election then it'd most likely go the same way with the same party winning both the Lords and the Commons. If you held the election mid term then it would on most occasions result in the opposition winning and blocking legislation...not good. Anyway, The Lords have limited powers and can't block things indefinitely. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 The most they can hold anything up for is 364 days, which of course would be a bit of a pain in the Brexit case Ooh, bin them off and then open the HoL to the public to have meetings in: I bet they'd make a fortune! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 On a side note, our local MP came to Jo's school the other day to congratulate her on her Ofsted results (in less than a year as Acting Head, only having been a Deputy for 3 months prior, she took the school from a dead cert inadequate to Good with elements of Outstanding ) and I got her to ask him to get me some tickets to PMQs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irn Bru Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 The Lord's is nothing but cronism and an outdated 2nd teir council. Bin them and have an elected upper house put in place. How can democracy be claimed in a modern country when you have unelected ballons shouting down the elected government ?. After all most of them were 3rd rate civil servents who brown eyed the previous Prime Ministers and really have nothing to offer and no right to be shouting down an elected government. I sincerely hope that a general election comes along soon where a major player puts it into their election manifesto that they will reform the Lords and turn it to an elected house of representation for us minions and boot all these old codgers into touch. Major reform of The House of Lords was in The Labour Party manifesto.............in 1964!! They've been in power for over 20 years since then and all they have done is to reduce the number of hereditary peers, who were in the main Conservatives. The problem is that if you had an elected second house it would lead to similar problems they have in The States with one party blocking the other. If you held the election on the same day as a General Election then it'd most likely go the same way with the same party winning both the Lords and the Commons. If you held the election mid term then it would on most occasions result in the opposition winning and blocking legislation...not good. Anyway, The Lords have limited powers and can't block things indefinitely. Pete Interesting info on the 1964 manifesto Pete, didn't know that. My gripe as you will have read is that they are "placed" in the Lords by the current PM's, not us, the people they are supposed to work for. Elected officials is democracy at work, the Lords isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetSet Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 The most they can hold anything up for is 364 days, which of course would be a bit of a pain in the Brexit case They can usually make an act of Parliament to push things through, that's been done a few times, like with the hunting bill, however it won't apply to this legislation as it wasn't in the Governments manifesto, so you're right, if the Lords dig their heels in then a years delay would be the result. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 I guess going back to the question, should we have them, well its been on the table for a long time, in fact back at the start of the 1900s I think it was first questioned. It seems though that many people question it, none come up with a viable alternative. Voting in the members seems like it makes sense, but as Pete says it doesn't in many cases create a credible challenge to power in the Commons if its the same party with majority. Alternatively if its an opposing party you end up with nothing going through. You could argue using PR but then that throws a whole new issue up as to where the power really lies, a house with a PR elected membership could be due more power than those in the Commons i.e. 35% of the vote and winning an election. I think in essence the idea is a good one, that you have a sense check of important stuff the party in power in the Commons put together - how we get to that membership is the problem. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted March 2, 2017 Author Share Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) As for Germany itself, we are not negotiating with Germany But by all accounts it is Germany saying, we wont agree to anything, perhaps to the letter of the law as Ekona says. Here's the rub of it. The UK can and should say more than the EU can because it is acting as a singular entity. All this "Germany" talk loses sight of the bigger picture that there are 26 other member states who will have an effective veto on the terms of the final deal and in any future deals. That means that even if you got everyone in the UK to agree to bestest most amazingist deal in the whole wide world, it's not just 1 person or indeed one group of people at the EU who has to agree to it, it's the heads of the other 27 nations in the EU. Do you really want to **** any of them off by leaving the shadow of deportations hanging over them? Won't it be fun when we're stuck in legal limbo & can't sign any future trade deals because the Polish & Irish plebiscites keep rejecting the terms of Brexit. The chance to show initiative and assure folk that their desire insofar as possible is to give EU citizens the right to remain has long since passed. So why would ANY of the 27 member states not want to have good trade deals with the UK and why would ANY of those member states not want any of their countrymen & women already living here protected by way of saying UK citizens will be protected in tehir countries, but the "eu" as an entity, have openly said in so many words, it will not be an easy process, why, because its a political cluster f&ck! Edited March 2, 2017 by Jetpilot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 There's more than economic argument at stake - if the EU allow us a great deal, then we could well see Italy, France and a few others seriously considering go for it too especially if the right wingers get support they need. So the EU is fighting for its survival - however we shouldn't think that plays into our hands. I think it will harm both sides, we will probably lose out economically the EU will lose out politically. But who knows until we see what each side is prioritising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irn Bru Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 One word...... Juncker. HE is the biggest threat to the EU, not us in the UK. That guy needs retiring with some lead !! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted March 2, 2017 Author Share Posted March 2, 2017 There's more than economic argument at stake - if the EU allow us a great deal, then we could well see Italy, France and a few others seriously considering go for it too especially if the right wingers get support they need. So the EU is fighting for its survival - however we shouldn't think that plays into our hands. I think it will harm both sides, we will probably lose out economically the EU will lose out politically. But who knows until we see what each side is prioritising. At that point, the whole eu is flawed imho, a special little member only club with its own interests at heart, not the individual member states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwra Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 So why would ANY of the 27 member states not want to have good trade deals with the UK and why would ANY of those member states not want any of their countrymen & women already living here protected by way of saying UK citizens will be protected in tehir countries, but the "eu" as an entity, have openly said in so many words, it will not be an easy process, why, because its a political cluster f&ck! The word is reciprocal, an agreement has to work in two directions. The second word is negotiation, you dont play poker with an open hand. Its not a clusterfcuk, its the way that humans do business and this is a business arrangement at the end of the day. Without wanting to offend anyone, if you believed the £350m a year to the NHS, the control over our borders and the control over our laws then you really shouldnt be getting involved with this argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwra Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 There's more than economic argument at stake - if the EU allow us a great deal, then we could well see Italy, France and a few others seriously considering go for it too especially if the right wingers get support they need. So the EU is fighting for its survival - however we shouldn't think that plays into our hands. I think it will harm both sides, we will probably lose out economically the EU will lose out politically. But who knows until we see what each side is prioritising. At that point, the whole eu is flawed imho, a special little member only club with its own interests at heart, not the individual member states. Thats like saying Guardiola is a crap football manager as he cares about the teams performance rather than an individual player. The point of the EU is that its one state, not a collection of individuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted March 2, 2017 Author Share Posted March 2, 2017 Mmm, fair enough, so you hand on heart believe Junker has the "teams" best interest at heart? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwra Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 No, I think he has his own best interests at heart the same as the rest of the EC TBF the EU has worked reasonably well for 24 years despite the horror that is the EC, things could be a lot worse. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-G- Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 As for Germany itself, we are not negotiating with Germany But by all accounts it is Germany saying, we wont agree to anything, perhaps to the letter of the law as Ekona says. Here's the rub of it. The UK can and should say more than the EU can because it is acting as a singular entity. All this "Germany" talk loses sight of the bigger picture that there are 26 other member states who will have an effective veto on the terms of the final deal and in any future deals. That means that even if you got everyone in the UK to agree to bestest most amazingist deal in the whole wide world, it's not just 1 person or indeed one group of people at the EU who has to agree to it, it's the heads of the other 27 nations in the EU. Do you really want to **** any of them off by leaving the shadow of deportations hanging over them? Won't it be fun when we're stuck in legal limbo & can't sign any future trade deals because the Polish & Irish plebiscites keep rejecting the terms of Brexit. The chance to show initiative and assure folk that their desire insofar as possible is to give EU citizens the right to remain has long since passed. So why would ANY of the 27 member states not want to have good trade deals with the UK and why would ANY of those member states not want any of their countrymen & women already living here protected by way of saying UK citizens will be protected in tehir countries, but the "eu" as an entity, have openly said in so many words, it will not be an easy process, why, because its a political cluster f&ck! I'll give you two examples. UK wants to retain its EU banking license but also to repatriate fishing. Galicia's economy relies heavily on unfettered access to fishing grounds in the north sea - changing anything to upset Galicia's economy will result in Spain veto'ing the UKs banking license. Ergo, the fishing is NOT going to repatriate fishing despite all the assurances it would. That's just a microcosm of the kind of @*!# you're going to have to deal with for the next 2-10 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 I think you mean we're, not you're. But yes, it's going to be a clusterf*ck of epic proportions. Let's not forget we have both French and German elections midway through, so they're going to be a trifle busy sorting that out and then when they get new leaders BLAMMO we all get to start again. Highly unlikely a proper deal will be done within two years. More likely we'll get a duplicate of what we have now, or we'll go full WTO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-G- Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 I think you mean we're, not you're. Well, we're going to see about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 I knew that's what you were getting at Suffice to say I know your feelings on the matter, and I suspect you can guess mine. For Lexx's sanity, let's agree to leave it there. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.