Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Is It Time For Another Referendum?
About...............................abolishing the House of Lords?
http://
http://
Answers
“NJ - I bet you didnt read the Bill before you tap tap tapped away ......” Yes I did, Peter. I usually comment on things from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance. And my point still stands. It’s not kinda sensible at all. In fact it’s not even remotely sensible unless the EU guarantees reciprocal rights for UK citizens currently living...
19:59 Fri 03rd Mar 2017
“We shouldn't be playing poker with people's lives and livelihoods here. I thought even UKIP supported this idea. It makes it all the more uncertain for British people abroad, too”
That isn’t the point, ikky.
The Bill before Parliament is to provide authority to trigger A50. Nothing more, nothing less. To place a precondition on that (“We’ll let you do it provided you guarantee the rights of EU citizens already here to remain in the EU) is absurd. I have no doubt that (quite rightly) no EU citizen who arrived here in good faith under the prevailing rules will be kicked out of the UK, with or without their Lordships’ amendment. But if we enter the negotiations with that precondition it places the UK in an invidious position. The EU can simply say “Well we don’t agree continue the rights of UK citizens already elsewhere in the EU to remain but you, of course, will have to allow the 3.2m EU citizens to remain in the UK”. It’s plainly ridiculous. Those reciprocal rights should be the subject of a fairly simple bilateral agreement and the Lords are putting the needs of foreigners above those of UK citizens. It’s simply posturing on the part of the disgruntled second chamber. Mrs May tried to get a pre-A50 agreement on the matter a few weeks ago but it was Frau Merkel who insisted the issue could not be discussed until A50 was triggered. Now we have the Lords insisting on a unilateral declaration that could well lead to the situation I described above.
“Despite packing the Lords full of Tories, they still can't force bad legislation through.”
If you believe that triggering A50 (which is the sole subject matter of the Bill) to be “bad” nothing in their Lordships’ amendment will make it “good”.
That isn’t the point, ikky.
The Bill before Parliament is to provide authority to trigger A50. Nothing more, nothing less. To place a precondition on that (“We’ll let you do it provided you guarantee the rights of EU citizens already here to remain in the EU) is absurd. I have no doubt that (quite rightly) no EU citizen who arrived here in good faith under the prevailing rules will be kicked out of the UK, with or without their Lordships’ amendment. But if we enter the negotiations with that precondition it places the UK in an invidious position. The EU can simply say “Well we don’t agree continue the rights of UK citizens already elsewhere in the EU to remain but you, of course, will have to allow the 3.2m EU citizens to remain in the UK”. It’s plainly ridiculous. Those reciprocal rights should be the subject of a fairly simple bilateral agreement and the Lords are putting the needs of foreigners above those of UK citizens. It’s simply posturing on the part of the disgruntled second chamber. Mrs May tried to get a pre-A50 agreement on the matter a few weeks ago but it was Frau Merkel who insisted the issue could not be discussed until A50 was triggered. Now we have the Lords insisting on a unilateral declaration that could well lead to the situation I described above.
“Despite packing the Lords full of Tories, they still can't force bad legislation through.”
If you believe that triggering A50 (which is the sole subject matter of the Bill) to be “bad” nothing in their Lordships’ amendment will make it “good”.
"it would remain with a second chamber status, whether the members are elected or nominated wouldn't matter "
In which case it hardly really matters whether it is elected or not
But almost certainly it WOULD lead to much more serious contentions between the two chambers
(and people are presumably complaining here simply because the Lords have done something they don't agree with: had the Commons done likewise there would have been a fuss about that - and possibly even another petition).
Aside from that, trying to second-guess the negotiating position of the rest of the EU is pointless: this is ultimately using people as a bargaining chip and well done to the Lords for at least trying to do something about it.
In which case it hardly really matters whether it is elected or not
But almost certainly it WOULD lead to much more serious contentions between the two chambers
(and people are presumably complaining here simply because the Lords have done something they don't agree with: had the Commons done likewise there would have been a fuss about that - and possibly even another petition).
Aside from that, trying to second-guess the negotiating position of the rest of the EU is pointless: this is ultimately using people as a bargaining chip and well done to the Lords for at least trying to do something about it.
Been saying for years that it is undemocratic to have an upper house full of either appointed or hereditary members. One needs an elected upper house but preferable one where parties are not allowed and where a portion of the house is up for reelection at any one time to produce a hysteresis into any changes of public outlook. Longer serving periods for consistency and reduction of feeling an upcoming election affects how one votes, would also help.
(Of course when tech provides a way for the public to vote on issues, leaving the professional politicians to cover day to day uncontroversial stuff, and to put together cases for the important issues, then that will be better again.)
(Of course when tech provides a way for the public to vote on issues, leaving the professional politicians to cover day to day uncontroversial stuff, and to put together cases for the important issues, then that will be better again.)
"...this is ultimately using people as a bargaining chip"
That may well be so, ikky (though I personally don't agree that it is). But if it is true, how does protecting the rights of some prevent the remainder being used for bargaining? It actually makes their position far worse because their rights (which could be used to forge a bilateral agreement) have effectively been forfeited in order to secure the rights of the first lot. It's all very well their Lordships taking the moral high ground, but their stance has made the UK citizens living abroad a far more vulnerable group as a result. If you're happy with that (presumably on the grounds that it is their own fault for being UK citizens who took advantage of EU rules whereas the foreign citizens who came here under the same rules deserve unilateral protection) then fine. Personally I'm not.
That may well be so, ikky (though I personally don't agree that it is). But if it is true, how does protecting the rights of some prevent the remainder being used for bargaining? It actually makes their position far worse because their rights (which could be used to forge a bilateral agreement) have effectively been forfeited in order to secure the rights of the first lot. It's all very well their Lordships taking the moral high ground, but their stance has made the UK citizens living abroad a far more vulnerable group as a result. If you're happy with that (presumably on the grounds that it is their own fault for being UK citizens who took advantage of EU rules whereas the foreign citizens who came here under the same rules deserve unilateral protection) then fine. Personally I'm not.
"It isn't triggering A50 that is bad, NJ, it is doing so when the EU knows that if there's no deal the UK is just going to walk away."
And how, exactly, does their Lordships' amendment alter that?
Furthermore, it must be obvious to the EU (and everybody in the UK) that if no satisfactory deal is reached then the UK will walk away because the alternative is to remain and that clearly is not an option (at least it was not an option on the voting form that I completed).
Sticking to the topic of the Bill, like the referendum question it is a binary choice "Do we trigger A50 or not?". There are no provisos. We either do it or we don't. Only when we have done it can the talking begin.
And how, exactly, does their Lordships' amendment alter that?
Furthermore, it must be obvious to the EU (and everybody in the UK) that if no satisfactory deal is reached then the UK will walk away because the alternative is to remain and that clearly is not an option (at least it was not an option on the voting form that I completed).
Sticking to the topic of the Bill, like the referendum question it is a binary choice "Do we trigger A50 or not?". There are no provisos. We either do it or we don't. Only when we have done it can the talking begin.
another referendum - oh god no
one is enough
the question is like asking - do you want more government?
Well the Bill for activating Article 50 is here
https:/
(quig before they reamend it )
and virtually every point that NJ makes seems not to be engaged ....
cl 1 subsection 2 reads
" Within three months of exercising the power under subsection (1), Ministers of
the Crown must bring forward proposals to ensure that citizens of another
European Union or European Economic Area country and their family
members, who are legally resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which
this Act is passed, continue to be treated in the same way with regards to their
EU derived-rights and, in the case of residency, their potential to acquire such
rights in the future."
which is kinda sensible and only involves local domestic law of the united kingdom
well done the Lords !
NJ - I bet you didnt read the Bill before you tap tap tapped away ......
one is enough
the question is like asking - do you want more government?
Well the Bill for activating Article 50 is here
https:/
(quig before they reamend it )
and virtually every point that NJ makes seems not to be engaged ....
cl 1 subsection 2 reads
" Within three months of exercising the power under subsection (1), Ministers of
the Crown must bring forward proposals to ensure that citizens of another
European Union or European Economic Area country and their family
members, who are legally resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which
this Act is passed, continue to be treated in the same way with regards to their
EU derived-rights and, in the case of residency, their potential to acquire such
rights in the future."
which is kinda sensible and only involves local domestic law of the united kingdom
well done the Lords !
NJ - I bet you didnt read the Bill before you tap tap tapped away ......
oh god did you see the awful question time last night
liz truss said - " we regard ensuring the rights of eu citizens the highest priority - the prime minister has said so
is not the word of the prime minister enough ?
we dont need legislation "
and there wasnt the gale of sardonic laughter that I expected ( polite applause )
o and the toothless fella with the russian wife who seemed ok about sending her back ( furriner you see )
liz truss said - " we regard ensuring the rights of eu citizens the highest priority - the prime minister has said so
is not the word of the prime minister enough ?
we dont need legislation "
and there wasnt the gale of sardonic laughter that I expected ( polite applause )
o and the toothless fella with the russian wife who seemed ok about sending her back ( furriner you see )
n if you wanna protect the rights of eu citizens resident here then here is another petition to sign
Dear friends,
I just signed the petition "Protect the rights of E.U citizens living in the UK" and wanted to ask if you could add your name too.
This campaign means a lot to me and the more support we can get behind it, the better chance we have of succeeding. You can read more and sign the petition here:
http://
Thank you!
oliver
P.S. Can you also take a moment to share the petition with others? It's really easy – all you need to do is forward this email or share this link on Facebook or Twitter: http://
Dear friends,
I just signed the petition "Protect the rights of E.U citizens living in the UK" and wanted to ask if you could add your name too.
This campaign means a lot to me and the more support we can get behind it, the better chance we have of succeeding. You can read more and sign the petition here:
http://
Thank you!
oliver
P.S. Can you also take a moment to share the petition with others? It's really easy – all you need to do is forward this email or share this link on Facebook or Twitter: http://
No Peter I won't be signing that petition. Not until there is a similar one to protect U.K. Citizens living in other EU countries. But that would do no good because the UK government has no control over other EU countries.
Perhaps all those worried about EU nationals resident in the UK should also take as much time and interest in our own citizens abroad.
Perhaps all those worried about EU nationals resident in the UK should also take as much time and interest in our own citizens abroad.
