UK voters should make final Brexit decision if talks with EU collapse: poll

[sirineou]

New information has just come out that IMO demands a new vote,

 according to a CNN news report  Brexit will make Beer more expensive

[citybiker]

Oops!
 
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/11/more-than-100-pro-leave-constituencies-switch-to-remain

So a 15k poll commissioned by 'best for Britain' & 'hope not hate'

Not much of agenda there then, these groups have to be seen active to continue their funding & recruitment to the great unwashed & tunnel visioned brain dead*, so yes oops, big deal.

*My last is not a personal dig, simply an observation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[nauseus]

47 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

I apologise if you saw my first comment as an accusation; the point I was trying to get across was that the majority of Brexit voters (who are not racists) didn't want to be tarred by the racist brush, and I added an afterthought in brackets when I remembered the 'I am a racist and proud of it' comments I had seen on social media. My conclusion had been based on personal experience of what people were posting on the internet leading up to the referendum, which seemed to principally relate to immigration (leavers) and the economy (remainers), so it came as a surprise to see post-referendum reactions such as a video someone posted on TV (Hello Angry Losers by Pat Condell) claiming that it had all been about sovereignty. Incidentally, a MORI poll before voting showed 48% identifying immigration as the most important issue, whilst Lord Ashcroft's poll had just 33% giving it as their main reason for voting as they did, so my experience did have some factual basis.

To answer your last three points:

1) I've always seen the sovereignty and immigration issues as two sides of the same coin, in that they both relate to nationalism. I personally think that it is good for nations to have a higher authority to keep them in check. 

2) I also take the Telegraph when in the UK (admittedly mainly for the sports coverage), but they do tend to present both sides of the argument. They make no secret as to which side of the fence they stand, but allowances can always be made for that by the readership. On the other hand, the three newspapers I quoted, particularly the Express, were very blinkered in their coverage and tended to engage in scaremongering such as the supposed imminent entry of Turkey into the EU. I must admit, though, that the Mirror was similarly biased in the opposite direction.

3) The figures I quoted were not my estimate, they were the MPs own admissions as to how they voted, less the very few who were not prepared to divulge the information. They were then betrayed by their leaders, who should have united to say that the support of 37% of the electorate in an advisory plebiscite was not sufficient to trigger such a monumental constitutional change. Instead we have the current chaotic situation, in which everyone is a loser.

Thanks. Yes, I'm not a racist. I have friends around the world of many ethnicities. 

 

From polls, media and from chatting to as many people as I could, it seemed that it was 1) sovereignty and 2) immigration but I realize they were not far apart but I think (2) largely depends on (1). The EU treaties, directives and regulations and the influence of the ECJ are all cause of dissatisfaction for many British people. The purported idea of the Common Market was fine, and still is. But the EEC/EC/EU agenda seems to be far more about centralised control rather than economic success (and it has not been successful relative to most of the rest of the world). 

 

I see the economic aspect as linked closely to both (1) and (2). Widely revered and impressive GDP numbers meaning economic expansion can only presently be achieved by adding more people into the mix, mainly as consumers, which I see as an unsustainable approach, given the finite resources the world has.  

 

Any chaotic situation (economic or otherwise) which results from leaving can be mostly fixed if there is enough good will on both sides....but I have not seen much of that so far. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, citybiker said:

 

So a 15k poll commissioned by 'best for Britain' & 'hope not hate'

Not much of agenda there then, these groups have to be seen active to continue their funding & recruitment to the great unwashed & tunnel visioned brain dead*, so yes oops, big deal.

*My last is not a personal dig, simply an observation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Who commissioned the poll is irrelevant, it’s the methodology that matters.

 

I’m heading to the beach, I’ll get you some fresh sand.

[Stupooey]

4 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

You've made a well-written post, but maybe your enthusiasm prompted this bizarre statement.

 

The EU has no remit to keep member nations in check (other than the obvious conformance to EU regulations). 

 

And if it did have such a remit, to follow your logic, who would keep the EU in check?

I must admit I pinched that quote from a response to the Pat Condell video I referenced, by a barrister named Richard Murtagh. The full quote is as follows:

 

(14) “Sovereignty matters to [Leave Voters] in a way that, clearly, it doesn’t matter to [Remain Voters].” [6:50]

RESPONSE –

I disagree for two reasons.

Firstly, as stated, in the UK, nothing is recognised as law by our courts unless our Parliament expressly says so. For now, EU law continues to be recognised as the supreme law of our land… because our Parliament expressly said so.

Our nation’s sovereignty is indeed preserved. But the tension between me and you can be summarised thus:

As a ‘remain’ voter, I’m comfortable with the idea that our Parliament once ceded some of its power to a higher institution to bring (what I consider to be) great benefits to our nation. As a ‘leave’ voter, you are not comfortable with the idea of Parliament having to compromise when it passes a law which conflicts with something higher. Indeed, you want a return to the days when Parliament itself was the highest authority in the land.

This leads me to my second reason for disagreeing.

History shows that when nations are an absolute authority unto themselves (with no higher authority to keep them in check), it’s never long before they start mistreating their own citizens. Hitler and the Nazis had a strong appreciation for sovereignty; as did Stalin and the Soviet Unionists.

Now, I’m not suggesting that Nazism will re-surface in Britain, or that Britain will become the next Soviet Union once we withdraw from the EU. But take a moment to consider the sheer number of legal challenges that have succeeded against our government (and made headlines) over the past two decades…

… and tell me, Mr Condell, that absolute sovereignty isn’t a dangerous thing at the wrong time, in the wrong hands. Yet, this is a danger we’re now exposing ourselves and future generations of our children to. Who will they turn to when the last word on every issue always lies with a politician of the day?

[End of quote]

Regarding your last point - who would keep the EU in check? - each individual country is kept in check by the other 27 (or 26), is it not?

[nauseus]

26 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

I must admit I pinched that quote from a response to the Pat Condell video I referenced, by a barrister named Richard Murtagh. The full quote is as follows:

 

(14) “Sovereignty matters to [Leave Voters] in a way that, clearly, it doesn’t matter to [Remain Voters].” [6:50]

RESPONSE –

I disagree for two reasons.

Firstly, as stated, in the UK, nothing is recognised as law by our courts unless our Parliament expressly says so. For now, EU law continues to be recognised as the supreme law of our land… because our Parliament expressly said so.

Our nation’s sovereignty is indeed preserved. But the tension between me and you can be summarised thus:

As a ‘remain’ voter, I’m comfortable with the idea that our Parliament once ceded some of its power to a higher institution to bring (what I consider to be) great benefits to our nation. As a ‘leave’ voter, you are not comfortable with the idea of Parliament having to compromise when it passes a law which conflicts with something higher. Indeed, you want a return to the days when Parliament itself was the highest authority in the land.

This leads me to my second reason for disagreeing.

History shows that when nations are an absolute authority unto themselves (with no higher authority to keep them in check), it’s never long before they start mistreating their own citizens. Hitler and the Nazis had a strong appreciation for sovereignty; as did Stalin and the Soviet Unionists.

Now, I’m not suggesting that Nazism will re-surface in Britain, or that Britain will become the next Soviet Union once we withdraw from the EU. But take a moment to consider the sheer number of legal challenges that have succeeded against our government (and made headlines) over the past two decades…

… and tell me, Mr Condell, that absolute sovereignty isn’t a dangerous thing at the wrong time, in the wrong hands. Yet, this is a danger we’re now exposing ourselves and future generations of our children to. Who will they turn to when the last word on every issue always lies with a politician of the day?

[End of quote]

Regarding your last point - who would keep the EU in check? - each individual country is kept in check by the other 27 (or 26), is it not?

Have to agree to disagree (again) and even more than last time. Britain is a still a democracy thanks be - there is no comparison with Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union - there is far more chance of a mutation of the EU into a form of the USSR. 

 

What legal challenges is this guy on about anyway?

 

 

[Stupooey]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Have to agree to disagree (again) and even more than last time. Britain is a still a democracy thanks be - there is no comparison with Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union - there is far more chance of a mutation of the EU into a form of the USSR. 

 

What legal challenges is this guy on about anyway?

 

 

Wasn't Germany a democracy when Hitler came to power? Bad outcomes from elections (or even referenda) are not unknown, so having a safety valve must be a plus.

Regarding the legal challenges, I have no idea - they didn't make headlines in Thailand! Air pollution? The 'Snooper's Charter'?

[sirineou]

I dont understand this whole argument.

If this was a democratic vote to elect someone I can understand the  " hey I won , my opponent lost, now let me  serve my term,". but it is not, It is a referendum. Let me use an extreme example. If you had a referendum you all  jump in a lake ,and after you started jumping in the lake you realised that some could not swim and were drowning, would you not want to have another referendum to stop jumping in the lake or would you argue, Hey this is a democracy we we won no more referendums on this subject? I Understand this is a ridiculously extreme example but IMO it illustrates the point. Now that you have a better feel for the process take another vote, If you win it solidifies your position, and the opposition  would have nothing to complain about going forward. You can say , hey we had two votes , one before we knew everything as you claim, and one after we knew everything and the movement won.

[tomacht8]

The whole brexit runs first in the time extension. The time frame is just not good without causing massive economic damage on both sides. Rather a reasonable brexit later than in 7.5 months the chaos.

[My Thai Life]

9 hours ago, nauseus said:

History shows that when nations are an absolute authority unto themselves (with no higher authority to keep them in check), it’s never long before they start mistreating their own citizens. Hitler and the Nazis had a strong appreciation for sovereignty; as did Stalin and the Soviet Unionists.

Ah, now you've provided some context, I understand what you're trying to say.

 

Of course the EU must to be able to enforce regulations which are necessary to the functioning of the EU, for example trading regulations.

 

But anything beyond that is unacceptable to many. Moreover, although the EU member states' national courts generally accept the principle of EU legal primacy, in practice most of them disagree with this extreme interpretation and reserve the right to review the constitutionality of European law under national constitutional law.

 

Also, different nations join the EU at very different stages of their economic and democratic development. They may need the freedom to pursue different policies from each other, unhindered by the EU's idea of correct policy.

 

As for your second point, it's still illogical. If you are saying that political bodies need to have the supervision of a higher authority, then the EU needs higher supervision, which rules out your suggestion of member states supervising the EU.

 

Anyone interested in the sovereignty issue might be interested in Tony Benn's letter to the Spectator from 1975.

 

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/a-lesson-from-the-1975-referendum/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Orac]

Wasn't Germany a democracy when Hitler came to power? Bad outcomes from elections (or even referenda) are not unknown, so having a safety valve must be a plus.
Regarding the legal challenges, I have no idea - they didn't make headlines in Thailand! Air pollution? The 'Snooper's Charter'?

Hitler passed the Enabling Act which allowed his cabinet to pass laws without going through the Reichstag. Though the U.K. is clearly not that far gone yet the checks and balances that were in place to protect the people from ‘bad’ governance are being steadily eroded, be it the removal of the oversight of the ECJ (which basically ensure that UK law is followed), the various EU supranational regulators or the Withdrawal Act which , like the Enabling Act, allows minsters to enact law directly without referral to parliament. At present the worst case is probably a Corbyn government with these sort of powers to do whatever it wants but there are darker things also lurking out there.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

Ah, now you've provided some context, I understand what you're trying to say.

 

Of course the EU must to be able to enforce regulations which are necessary to the functioning of the EU, for example trading regulations.

 

But anything beyond that is unacceptable to many. Moreover, although the EU member states' national courts generally accept the principle of EU legal primacy, in practice most of them disagree with this extreme interpretation and reserve the right to review the constitutionality of European law under national constitutional law.

 

Also, different nations join the EU at very different stages of their economic and democratic development. They may need the freedom to pursue different policies from each other, unhindered by the EU's idea of correct policy.

 

As for your second point, it's still illogical. If you are saying that political bodies need to have the supervision of a higher authority, then the EU needs higher supervision, which rules out your suggestion of member states supervising the EU.

 

Anyone interested in the sovereignty issue might be interested in Tony Benn's letter to the Spectator from 1975.

 

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/a-lesson-from-the-1975-referendum/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not my words. Looks like these are part of Stupooey's post (which I responded to).

 

 

[My Thai Life]

Hmm, well it's getting interesting with people comparing the UK to the Nazis ! Is this really why you voted to remain, because you're worried that the UK is being overtaken by Nazis?

 

43 minutes ago, Orac said:

Hitler passed the Enabling Act which allowed his cabinet to pass laws without going through the Reichstag. Though the U.K. is clearly not that far gone yet the checks and balances that were in place to protect the people from ‘bad’ governance are being steadily eroded, be it the removal of the oversight of the ECJ (which basically ensure that UK law is followed)

 

FYI, The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the supreme court of the European Union in matters of European Union law.

[Grouse]

 

Many things are happening to attempt to undermine our system mostly unnoticed or misunderstood by the bulk of the electorate. Sad to say I draw comfort from ECJ oversight. Appalling we have fallen so far, so fast

[Stupooey]

4 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

Ah, now you've provided some context, I understand what you're trying to say.

 

Of course the EU must to be able to enforce regulations which are necessary to the functioning of the EU, for example trading regulations.

 

But anything beyond that is unacceptable to many. Moreover, although the EU member states' national courts generally accept the principle of EU legal primacy, in practice most of them disagree with this extreme interpretation and reserve the right to review the constitutionality of European law under national constitutional law.

 

Also, different nations join the EU at very different stages of their economic and democratic development. They may need the freedom to pursue different policies from each other, unhindered by the EU's idea of correct policy.

 

As for your second point, it's still illogical. If you are saying that political bodies need to have the supervision of a higher authority, then the EU needs higher supervision, which rules out your suggestion of member states supervising the EU.

 

Anyone interested in the sovereignty issue might be interested in Tony Benn's letter to the Spectator from 1975.

 

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/a-lesson-from-the-1975-referendum/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding what you refer to as my second point, the words I used were 'keep in check' rather than 'supervise' - a subtle difference, more like a safety valve to curtail the activities of a toxic government. It is highly unlikely that all 28 (or 27) would elect such governments at the same time, so a higher authority than the EU would be unnecessary.

Thank you for posting the letter from Tony Benn, a man I much admired in many ways, but I think he got it mainly wrong in this case, which was a sort of 'Project Fear' ahead of its time. His main gripe seemed to be the erosion of MPs power, but if that had happened would 215 out of 222 Labour MPs (including many who might be termed 'Bennite') have voted remain?

I believe a major reason for the huge disparity in the referendum results between England and Scotland is that, due to the existence of the Scottish Parliament, Scots realised that the vast majority of decisions affecting their daily lives were made at the local level. On the other hand, voters in the so-called deprived areas of England (where the pro-Brexit support was strongest) believed - or were led to believe - that their woes were down to Europe, whereas the real culprit was the Westminster government. Historically, the EU has a far better record of giving help to deprived regions than individual member states, and it is ironic that those who will suffer most under Brexit will probably be many of those who voted in favour of it.

 

[Stupooey]

1 hour ago, My Thai Life said:

Hmm, well it's getting interesting with people comparing the UK to the Nazis ! Is this really why you voted to remain, because you're worried that the UK is being overtaken by Nazis?

 

 

FYI, The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the supreme court of the European Union in matters of European Union law.

As the one who invoked Godwin's law by mentioning the name of Hitler (albeit in a quote from a third party), it was only as an example of what can happen if a nation has absolute sovereignty. There was no intention to 'compare the UK to the Nazis' as you put it, as the original writer made clear.

[Stupooey]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

 

Many things are happening to attempt to undermine our system mostly unnoticed or misunderstood by the bulk of the electorate. Sad to say I draw comfort from ECJ oversight. Appalling we have fallen so far, so fast

Aha, you've played the Herman's Hermits card. Debate over. We remain.

(Reassuring to know that the widow next door woudn't have a willy, though. One can't be too careful.)

[My Thai Life]

39 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

Regarding what you refer to as my second point, the words I used were 'keep in check' rather than 'supervise' - a subtle difference, more like a safety valve to curtail the activities of a toxic government.

Well, whether you call it supervise or "in check",  I personally don't see that the EU can do a better job than the House of Commons and the House of Lords. If you'd prefer to put your faith in the EU that's up to you. Obviously most people didn't agree with you at the referendum. And you've dodged the issue again about how the EU would be "checked" in the event of a move left or right. If you want a checking body for the UK (which we already have anyway), then fair's fair old chap, accept a checking body for the EU (not its member states!). I think what you're really looking for is some sort of guarantee that your political views will prevail - which obviously they didn't in the referendum. But putting your theory to the test are Poland and Hungary, watch that space!

 

And you say Benn is a project fear monger! This does little more than confrm your bias. If you think his main gripe was the erosion of MP power, then it's probably because you haven't read or understood his writing, or because you don't understand how British democracy actually works.

 

And if you don't want to be responsible for comparing British governments to the Nazis, it would be a good idea not to do so, whether by quoting another party or not.

 

I didn't vote, and I didn't want a vote as I've been outside of the UK so long. The results won't affect me at all, except a weak pound following a hard brexit would be beneficial for me, if I ever decided to do any kind of business with the UK, which I don't! 

[Stupooey]

A few general observations. Interesting that you mention the House of Lords, another unelected body, as I suspect that most of the people who want to get rid of it are the self same ones as voted for Brexit to rid them of the EC. I also made it clear, the views expressed were those of a barrister, with considerably more experience of the machinations of EU law than myself, who seemed to think this extra level served a useful purpose. Perhaps in a few years' time, when Prime Minister Rees-Mogg invades Poland, he will be proved right. Or perhaps not.

 

Regarding your idea of a checking body for the EU, I thought I had made it clear that it is far more likely for one nation to go bad than for 27 to do so simultaneously, so it would not be necessary. That is not dodging the issue.

 

Finally the project fear label I attached to Benn was slightly tongue-in-cheek, as of course it is a cliche beloved of Brexit supporters when of course both sides resorted to scare tactics (Turkey about to join the EU anyone?). Benn did outline a worst possible case scenario though, most of which did not pan out in the way he thought it would. And I stand by my analysis of the gist of his argument, which was saying that MPs would not be able to serve their constituents as it would be Europe making the decisions, by-passing the UK Parliament, which did not happen to nearly the same extent as he anticipated. Although he maintained his opposition to the EU until the end, it is interesting that his political heirs did not. Perhaps it's a generational thing.

 

Comparing the British government to Nazis was nothing to do with me or indeed the party I quoted, as he made very clear. He simply gave Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union as two examples of what can happen when individual countries have absolute sovereignty, which would not happen under the EU system. The "comparisons" were purely the work of subsequent posters - Godwin's Law in action, one might conclude.

 

Finally, you seem to assume that I voted to remain. In fact although I was entitled to vote, I chose not to as being an ex-pat with no intention of returning to live in the UK I felt it morally indefensible to do so. If the 700,000 or so UK nationals who have worked long term in Europe, many of whom will be forced to return when (if?) the UK leaves, were denied a vote, then what right did I have? My position is the opposite to yours, though, as my income comes almost entirely from the UK, so the ever weakening pound does have an effect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[citybiker]

IMO the House of Lords are there to scrutinise the Government yet not hinder or block progress.(which is their job & primary role anyway)

 

Both chambers should be accountable, reform, reduce but not removing them completely should be the focus.

 

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

[My Thai Life]

31 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

Regarding your idea of a checking body for the EU, I thought I had made it clear that it is far more likely for one nation to go bad than for 27 to do so simultaneously, so it would not be necessary. That is not dodging the issue.

 

Yes you have made your view clear a couple of times. And I've tried to draw your attenton to the illogicality of it. It remains illogical. But forgetting logic, and just talking about reality, there are two or three players in the EU, the rest are  bystanders.

 

While the HoL may not meet with your approval, they have rather admirably demonstrated their ability to "check" the HoC recently. 

 

 

35 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

And I stand by my analysis of the gist of his argument, which was saying that MPs would not be able to serve their constituents as it would be Europe making the decisions, by-passing the UK Parliament, which did not happen to nearly the same extent as he anticipated

 

Well that's not actually what Benn said. But of course you are welcome to your analysis.

 

[whatsupdoc]

46 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

 

Yes you have made your view clear a couple of times. And I've tried to draw your attenton to the illogicality of it. It remains illogical. But forgetting logic, and just talking about reality, there are two or three players in the EU, the rest are  bystanders.

The rest are bystanders?????????? You have no clue about the EU.

What if one of the smaller players (or even a regional parliament) vetoes a final Brexit deal?

 

And Stupooey was right about it being unlikely that 27 countries go bad simultaneously. Nothing illogical about it.

[My Thai Life]

Oh dear, you and stupey are confusing logic with pragmatics, but I don't want to tax you on that.

 

Yes of course they have vetoes, they can say "yes" or "no", but most have no important role in policy development. They are happy, however, to get the next payout, not that I blame them: I think the lifting out of poverty of several of our European friends to be the greatest achievement of the EU.

 

Regarding how much I know or not about the EU. Well I did assist a delightful Russian polyglot ladyfriend to secure a place on a Master's in EU studies (in German actually, one of her 5 fluent languages).

 

And I have worked in all EU countries (and 20 others) with the exception of the Nordics. But I must admit to being something of a beginner on the EU; it has become so complex, way beyond the ken of the man person on the Clapham omnibus. Imagine how delighted I am to discover such a wealth of unbiased knowledge and wisdom on Thai Visa.

 

 

[bristolboy]

17 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

 

 

Yes of course they have vetoes, they can say "yes" or "no", but most have no important role in policy development. They are happy, however, to get the next payout, not that I blame them:

Belgium, a net contributor to the EU, put a halt to approval of the treaty with Canada until the demands of one of its provinces were satisfied. Italy, another net contributor, has currently put a hold on approval of the same treaty.

[nauseus]

41 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

 

21 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Belgium, a net contributor to the EU, put a halt to approval of the treaty with Canada until the demands of one of its provinces were satisfied. Italy, another net contributor, has currently put a hold on approval of the same treaty.

The Waltons wasn't it? Oh no, was them Walloons.

[stevenl]

Incredible how posters on here can lay the blame for the present situation with the EU.

It is the UK that doesn't know what to do and what it wants to achieve, even at this moment in time after months and months.

 

All UK problems were blamed on the EU during the election, and that hasn't changed. Incredible.

[whatsupdoc]

Belgium, a net contributor to the EU, put a halt to approval of the treaty with Canada until the demands of one of its provinces were satisfied. Italy, another net contributor, has currently put a hold on approval of the same treaty.

And if the UK wants a trade deal with the EU they better not upset Spain and Ireland too much.....


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[My Thai Life]

As I said, they can say yes or no. We all know that. Most have little input on policy making.

 

Let me put it in a way that you might find easier to understand. 2 players could leave, and the show would be over. 10 bystanders could leave and the only tangible effect would be more money in the kitty.

 

Belgium, a net contributor ? sure if you dont include the cash benefits of hosting a large number of EU institutions. The EU has certainly transformed Belgium hasnt it!

 

Talking of money in the kitty, I notice the EU is increasing budgets again. At the same time as enforcing austerity on  some of the bystanders. Hmmm

 

 

 

 

 

[billd766]

On 8/10/2018 at 7:34 AM, Bluespunk said:

So be it. 

 

Thats what democracy is. 

 

2 out of 3, 3 out of 5, 5 out of 7 etc

 

Where do you call a halt?

 

That is also democracy.

 

 

On 8/10/2018 at 7:38 AM, Bluespunk said:

100% wrong. 

 

Calling for a referendum is a democratic right. 

 

For BOTH sides.

[Stupooey]

3 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

 

While the HoL may not meet with your approval, they have rather admirably demonstrated their ability to "check" the HoC recently. 

 

 

 

 

When did I say the House of Lords does not meet with my approval? You keep trying to twist my words or pretending not to understand simple concepts. Why?

To reiterate, I was saying that the HoL would presumably not meet with the approval, since it is an unelected body of the type they appear to despise.