proof of residence for British passport renewal

[webfact]

Brexit legislation under fire as it enters upper house

 

Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May leaves 10 Downing Street, London, January 24, 2018. REUTERS/Toby Melville

 

LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Theresa May faces a fresh challenge pushing her flagship Brexit law through parliament after lawmakers demanded changes only a day before parliament's upper house begins to debate the legislation.

 

The House of Lords Constitution Committee said in a report published on Monday that the legislation to end Britain's European Union membership has "fundamental flaws", including ministerial powers it considers too sweeping.

 

"We acknowledge the scale, challenge and unprecedented nature of the task of converting existing EU law into UK law, but as it stands this bill is constitutionally unacceptable," said committee chairwoman Ann Taylor.

 

The legislation is likely to be given a rough ride by the largely pro-EU lawmakers in the upper house and comes as Prime Minister May battles rebellion within her own party over the best route out of the bloc, which Britain is scheduled to leave in March 2019.

 

The Lords committee expressed concern that the government will use the Brexit process to reshape EU laws without proper parliamentary scrutiny as they move into British law.

 

"The bill grants ministers overly-broad powers to do whatever they think is 'appropriate' to correct 'deficiencies' in retained EU law," the report said. "This gives ministers far greater latitude than is constitutionally acceptable."

 

The committee also urged the government to reach agreement about which powers currently held in Brussels will return to Britain's central government and which will be devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

 

The legislation was cleared by the House of Commons this month and will begin its journey through the House of Lords on Jan. 30. It is expected to take until the summer for it to become law.

 

(Reporting by Andrew MacAskill; Editing by David Goodman)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-01-29

[nauseus]

Too many cooks!

[Laughing Gravy]

More than half of the house of lords don't deserve to be there. Being born should not give you the right to join the House of Lords. the sooner it is dismantled with a better system the happier I will be.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:

More than half of the house of lords don't deserve to be there. Being born should not give you the right to join the House of Lords. the sooner it is dismantled with a better system the happier I will be.

It is interesting that you should say that.

 

I believe that nowadays there are less hereditary members of the HoL than there are others who got their titles in the New Years and PMs Dissolution Honours lists.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords

 

The size of the House of Lords has varied greatly throughout its history. From about 50 members in the early 1700s,[39] it increased to a record size of 1,330 in October 1999, before Lords reform reduced it to 669 by March 2000.

 

The Labour Party included in its 1997 general election Manifesto a commitment to remove the hereditary peerage from the House of Lords.[21] Their subsequent election victory in 1997 under Tony Blair finally heralded the demise of the traditional House of Lords. The Labour Government introduced legislation to expel all hereditary peers from the Upper House as a first step in Lords reform. As a part of a compromise, however, it agreed to permit 92 hereditary peers to remain until the reforms were complete. Thus all but 92 hereditary peers were expelled under the House of Lords Act 1999 (see below for its provisions), making the House of Lords predominantly an appointed house.

 

In August 2015, following the creation of a further 45 peers in the Dissolution Honours, the total number of eligible members of the Lords increased to 826. In a report entitled Does size matter? the BBC said: "Increasingly, yes. Critics argue the House of Lords is the second largest legislature after the Chinese National People's Congress and dwarfs Upper Houses in other bi-cameral democracies such as the United States (100 senators), France (348 senators), Australia (76 senators) and India (250 members). The Lords is also larger than the Supreme People's Assembly of North Korea (687 members). [… ] Peers grumble that there is not enough room to accommodate all of their colleagues in the Chamber, where there are only about 400 seats, and say they are constantly jostling for space – particularly during high-profile sittings", but added, "On the other hand, defenders of the Lords say that it does a vital job scrutinising legislation, a lot of which has come its way from the Commons in recent years"

 

I put two parts in bold.

[Laughing Gravy]

6 minutes ago, billd766 said:

It is interesting that you should say that.

 

I believe that nowadays there are less hereditary members of the HoL than there are others who got their titles in the New Years and PMs Dissolution Honours lists.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords

 

The size of the House of Lords has varied greatly throughout its history. From about 50 members in the early 1700s,[39] it increased to a record size of 1,330 in October 1999, before Lords reform reduced it to 669 by March 2000.

 

The Labour Party included in its 1997 general election Manifesto a commitment to remove the hereditary peerage from the House of Lords.[21] Their subsequent election victory in 1997 under Tony Blair finally heralded the demise of the traditional House of Lords. The Labour Government introduced legislation to expel all hereditary peers from the Upper House as a first step in Lords reform. As a part of a compromise, however, it agreed to permit 92 hereditary peers to remain until the reforms were complete. Thus all but 92 hereditary peers were expelled under the House of Lords Act 1999 (see below for its provisions), making the House of Lords predominantly an appointed house.

 

In August 2015, following the creation of a further 45 peers in the Dissolution Honours, the total number of eligible members of the Lords increased to 826. In a report entitled Does size matter? the BBC said: "Increasingly, yes. Critics argue the House of Lords is the second largest legislature after the Chinese National People's Congress and dwarfs Upper Houses in other bi-cameral democracies such as the United States (100 senators), France (348 senators), Australia (76 senators) and India (250 members). The Lords is also larger than the Supreme People's Assembly of North Korea (687 members). [… ] Peers grumble that there is not enough room to accommodate all of their colleagues in the Chamber, where there are only about 400 seats, and say they are constantly jostling for space – particularly during high-profile sittings", but added, "On the other hand, defenders of the Lords say that it does a vital job scrutinising legislation, a lot of which has come its way from the Commons in recent years"

 

I put two parts in bold.

Yes it is also the fact that parties who are in power fill them with there own cronies to self serve the party. Kinnock, Heseltine just to name a few. I would like people to be elected in some manner as it seems once your in, you can't get kicked out, unless you lose your peerage.  Either way I just don't feel it is the best way of a second house, that regulates what the government do.

[billd766]

42 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Yes it is also the fact that parties who are in power fill them with there own cronies to self serve the party. Kinnock, Heseltine just to name a few. I would like people to be elected in some manner as it seems once your in, you can't get kicked out, unless you lose your peerage.  Either way I just don't feel it is the best way of a second house, that regulates what the government do.

 

Dont forget to sign in. eat a good subsidised lunch with subsidised wine (at the taxpayers expense). After lunch don't forget to pick up your £300 daily attendence allowance.

 

A great well paid part time job if you can get it.

[Baerboxer]

May just can't seem to get through her head, or simple doesn't want to, that she and her government can't just do what they fancy and ignore the law, constitution and correct procedures.

 

And no Mrs. May, the electorate, the House of Lords and some in your own party don't trust you.

[Laughing Gravy]

4 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

May just can't seem to get through her head, or simple doesn't want to, that she and her government can't just do what they fancy and ignore the law, constitution and correct procedures.

 

And no Mrs. May, the electorate, the House of Lords and some in your own party don't trust you.

Whilst I agree with you on the trust issue, I feel there are a lot of lords who are servants of the EU and will be upset of the backhanders and other incentives they have with various business interests. If she did what the majority of the electorate voted for it would be simple. Walk away.

[dunroaming]

May is looking more vulnerable every day and the Brexiteers are sharpening their knives.  Question is, do they really want to strike now?

 

But May's problems are far more than just Brexit.  So many issues that she isn't dealing with at all. 

[lungbing]

At least sometime during their political career Kinnock and Heseltine had put themselves up for election.  I object to the likes of Lord Adonis, a political toady advisor or Dame Floella Benjamin who seems to have been ennobled purely because of her race.

[Sir Dude]

The House of Lords should be slashed from 800 to about 400 and all new Lords should be given a 15 year tenure....not life. It's ridiculous that dinosaurs like Heseltine or Prescott get to ride the gravy train forever considering how out-of-touch they are and are interfering in national policy....BS. They throw these appointment around like sweets to entitled ex-politicians.