All Amendments By The Lords Defeated.

[webbo3]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-amendments-lords-commons-bill-withdrawal-agreement-a4341641.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51210602

Dont they get it, still trying to thwart Brexit, time to abolish the HoL.

[Old_Geezer]

Such a shock.

[webbo3]

Brexit deal passed.
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnsons-brexit-deal-set-to-become-law-11915217

[New Judge]

Only eighteen months late. Not bad.

[Peter Pedant]

// Dont they get it, still trying to thwart Brexit, time to abolish the HoL.//
yeah ! defend our liberties by sending the kids back to their refugee camps to DIIIIIEEE!

( that was one of the amendments defeated - that refugee children had a right to stay. - you know like kindertranport in kinder ( pun intended ) times as Lord Dubs ( one of the kinder) pointed out this time)

[david small]

Abolish this perpetual junket.

[Peter Pedant]

yeah that great democrat de Valera got possed with his own second house and abolished it 1930s
he was one for constitutional tinkering if it prolonged power
and was forced to reconstitute it as the Sinead (*)or something (senate ) five years later
there is a function of a second house as revising - I mean christ even the americans have one

(*) successful side line as a recording studio

[douglas9401]

Abolish? ABOLISH??

Shurely it's part of the rich tapestry of tradition that brings tourists flocking to gawp, a massive boost to the coffers and a dignified example to the world at large.
Mother of parliaments, checks and balances, cooler heads, jumpers for goalposts.

Just so long as they keep schtum, eh?

[webbo3]

Peter pedant.
\\// Dont they get it, still trying to thwart Brexit, time to abolish the HoL.//
yeah ! defend our liberties by sending the kids back to their refugee camps to DIIIIIEEE! //

What, like the 20 yearolds posing as children they let in.

[jim360]

Proposing minor amendments to legislation is *not* trying to "thwart" Brexit.

[EDDIE51]

It is impossible to abolish them!
They are part of the Consitution of the UK ! They serve a vital purpose in 'Ironing out ,fine details of law !
Do you realise that the HUGE majority of them are appointed by Parliment because of their special skills and exprience ? The 'Hereditary Peers' are in a small minority ! (only around 20 in a house of over 200 !)
Appointed Peers also CAN NOT pass on their titles to their family children ! So when they die , their ' title ' dies with them !

[jim360]

It's clearly possible to abolish the House of Lords, although whether it's wise or not is another question. Reforming it is better: for example, by slimming down the size, by removing Lords Spiritual, maybe imposing term limits, etc.

[Marshwarble]

If you want something to happen, you need to plan it. You can't rely on democracy. People are people.

[ichkeria]

As Jim said, not trying to “stop Brexit” but the role of the upper house is to scrutinise and suggest amendments. That would be the case whether the chamber was elected or unelected. It comes back to the Commons in the end. The Bill effectively passed last week when the Commons voted it through. It was never going not to.

[naomi24]

//not trying to “stop Brexit”//

Ho ho ho....

[ToraToraTora]

eddie: "It is impossible to abolish them!
They are part of the Consitution of the UK " - cobras, the constitution is unwritten which basically means we make it up as we go along. I see no problem with abolishing them as long as some form of upper chamber, preferably elected, is put in its place.

[Old_Geezer]

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/legislation/lords-amendments-to-the-eu-withdrawal-agreement-bill/

They must have known that the government wouldn't accept any further 'messing about' with the bill so one wonders what the aim was of not passing it through first time. Preventing Brexit would be a long shot. Delaying the process more than just the rejection cycle wasn't much more likely. Probably being seen to be doing something might be a driver. But it looks obstructive given the issues remoaner MPs have created thus far. Would've been better to put it through 'on the nod' first time and get it sorted.

[jim360]

There's 90+ pages of new legislation to look at. I don't see how anyone can plausibly believe that it was perfect in its first version (as presented to Parliament). As it is, the government conceded that at least one of the points the Lords raised was one they agreed with in principle, and only rejected the Lords' amendment because "this wasn't the proper place". I'm not informed enough to know whether the Government has a serious point on that, or was merely wanting to score a political point. My main issue is that scrutiny of the detail of legislation is both the role of the Lords and vital for the functioning of any democratic process. Legislative chambers cannot and must not be reduced to a rubber-stamp.

[youngmafbog]

Who cares - it's through.

Remoaners suck it up.

Any one heard from that Miller woman

[ichkeria]

And of course, contrary to popular belief now, the previous parliament also voted through the Brexit bill in principle, but what they were not prepared to do was submit to the government's ridiculously short timetable for passing it.
What has been avoided is at least a no deal exit.
What happens in a year's time tho is still anyone's guess.

[dannyk13]

ich //What happens in a year's time tho is still anyone's guess//
Could be a no-deal Brexit.