UK government defeated on Brexit bill

[webfact]

UK PM May's Brexit plan suffers setback in parliament

REUTERS

 

Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May n London, Britain, February 23, 2017. REUTERS/Stefan Wermuth

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's upper house of parliament defeated Prime Minister Theresa May's government on Wednesday, voting in favour of a change to her Brexit plan that says she can only trigger exit talks if she promises to protect the rights of EU citizens.

 

The House of Lords voted 358 to 256 to make an amendment to the "European Union (Notification of Withdrawal Bill)" -- legislation that will give May the power to trigger the legal process of leaving the EU.

 

The change requires the government to publish proposals on how to protect EU citizens currently living in Britain -- including their residency rights -- within three months of triggering exit negotiations.

 

May's Conservatives do not have a majority in the upper chamber.

 

The defeat is a blow to May, who had hoped to pass the legislation without changes. While May has said she wants to guarantee EU citizens' rights, she has not been prepared to do so until other member states agreed to a reciprocal deal.

 

The government can try to overturn the change using its majority in the lower chamber of parliament, but Wednesday's vote will delay the final approval of the law.

 

May is still expected to be able to fulfil her plan to trigger the exit process by the end of the month.

 

(Reporting by William James; Editing by Kylie MacLellan)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-03-02

[NanLaew]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

... May is still expected to be able to fulfil her plan to trigger the exit process by the end of the month.

So the UK government was not defeated by anyone over anything.

 

Bloody semantics!

[Baerboxer]

18 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

So the UK government was not defeated by anyone over anything.

 

Bloody semantics!

 

Nope. The Lords can send it back to the lower house but the lower house can still vote it into law as is providing they have sufficient majority. 

 

The point is the Lords make recommendations which the Commons can debate, accept, reject or modify. What can't happen is the government, in the sense of the cabinet, simply doing what they want, which is what May was trying to do by using the Royal Prerogative to by-pass parliament and set a dangerous precedent.

 

 

[NanLaew]

13 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

...which is what May was trying to do by using the Royal Prerogative to by-pass parliament

Is this something she was accused of conspiring to do in the time between saying 'Brexit means Brexit' and more recent times when, after the High Court challenge, her government have come up with the structured plan to proceed with debate through both sitting houses as they are doing now?

Edited March 2, 2017 by NanLaew

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, NanLaew said:

Is this something she was accused of conspiring to do in the time between saying 'Brexit means Brexit' and more recent times when, after the High Court challenge, her government have come up with the structured plan to proceed with debate through both sitting houses as they are doing now?

Absolutely

 

May wanted to ignore Parliament and ride roughshod over any opinions and just do whatever the Con Party wanted.

 

The Lords are absolutely correct to take the moral high ground over EU immigrants. This could have, in some small way, help to restore our reputation for doing the right thing. You know; cricket and underdogs etc. Sadly, it has been such an effort to drag this out of the slavering jaws of the Con Party that much of the beneficial effect has dissipated. May I recommend "Leadership Skills of Atilla the Hun" and of course "The Art of War".

 

I trust that The Lords, The Supreme Court and indeed the magnificent Ms Miller successfully ensure that parliament has the final say on any agreement with the EU concerning Brexit and our future relationship.

[rockingrobin]

The HoL is only following the will of the people

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/22/will-europeans-be-free-to-stay-in-the-uk-after-brexit

“There will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK,” the campaign says. “These EU citizens will automatically be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK and will be treated no less favourably than they are at present,”

 

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

The HoL is only following the will of the people

https://www.theguarange for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK,” the campaign says. “These EU citizens will automatically be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK and will be treated no less favourably than they are at present,”

 

Curious.

If this is not a provision in the Brexit plans will it give grounds for another complaint to the Supreme Court?

[elgordo38]

4 hours ago, NanLaew said:

So the UK government was not defeated by anyone over anything.

 

Bloody semantics!

Its called political football. We kick it to you and you kick it back and so forth. The upper house wanted to score points on making things look like they care about people when they actually don't give a Rat's A**

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

The HoL is only following the will of the people

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/22/will-europeans-be-free-to-stay-in-the-uk-after-brexit

“There will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK,” the campaign says. “These EU citizens will automatically be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK and will be treated no less favourably than they are at present,”

 

 

9 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Curious.

If this is not a provision in the Brexit plans will it give grounds for another complaint to the Supreme Court?

The real issue is can either the UK or EU make citizens who are lawfully resident today unlawful tomorrow. 

[dunroaming]

From the early days the Brexit gang said that anyone from the EU countries living and working in the UK after Brexit would be safe to stay.  However with so many lies and U-turns it is prudent to get that written in stone.  Checks and balances are essential.  David Davis has already openly said that after Brexit the door would not be closed to people wanting to come to the UK to work so it is only logical that those already here should be allowed to remain.

[Thongkorn]

I think this is the beginning of the end for the House of  UN Elected Lords.

[CharlieK]

This is just a smoke screen, This is only about triggering article 50 and nothing to do with the substance of any agreement with the EU. I'm not saying the Lords are wrong, but that clause has nothing to do with actually declaring art 50. It can only be part of any future agreement once negotiations start. 

 

This just shows the public that the wheels of government are turning, but hardly a rebellion against Brexit. Politicians playing politics.

Edited March 2, 2017 by CharlieK

[dunroaming]

41 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

This is just a smoke screen, This is only about triggering article 50 and nothing to do with the substance of any agreement with the EU. I'm not saying the Lords are wrong, but that clause has nothing to do with actually declaring art 50. It can only be part of any future agreement once negotiations start. 

 

This just shows the public that the wheels of government are turning, but hardly a rebellion against Brexit. Politicians playing politics.

The Lords are not trying to stop or delay the triggering of article 50, they are just trying to ensure that the people from the EU who are living and working in the UK will be assured that they are safe to remain.  Without that commitment many of our valued doctors, nurses, care workers and other professionals will be looking elsewhere and that would be an enormous loss to Britain.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Thongkorn said:

I think this is the beginning of the end for the House of  UN Elected Lords.

And what would you suggest as a replacement? 

[CharlieK]

15 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

The Lords are not trying to stop or delay the triggering of article 50, they are just trying to ensure that the people from the EU who are living and working in the UK will be assured that they are safe to remain.  Without that commitment many of our valued doctors, nurses, care workers and other professionals will be looking elsewhere and that would be an enormous loss to Britain.

Which has nothing to do with enacting article 50. Even after the lords vote it doesn't stop the government from making that commitment. But the government also know this is not stopping them declaring art 50. So there is no need for them to amend anything until negotiations start. Whence this is a smoke screen because it doesn't actually achieve anything. It just makes it look as if the cogs are turning. 

 

Giving EU migrants security of a future in the UK has nothing to do with art 50. Article 50 is all about declaring the UK's intention to leave the EU. NO MORE NO LESS.

[mrfill]

27 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

The Lords are not trying to stop or delay the triggering of article 50, they are just trying to ensure that the people from the EU who are living and working in the UK will be assured that they are safe to remain.  Without that commitment many of our valued doctors, nurses, care workers and other professionals will be looking elsewhere and that would be an enormous loss to Britain.

That is happening already. The number of nurses and orderlies from the EU has dropped by 90% since June 2016 and EU medical staff are leaving at a rate 4 times higher. Shortage of nursing staff is at the heart of the current NHS problems and, having removed the bursaries from trainee nurses, the chances of finding British replacements is around zero.

[steve187]

5 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

 

The real issue is can either the UK or EU make citizens who are lawfully resident today unlawful tomorrow. 

yes they can

[dunroaming]

3 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

Which has nothing to do with enacting article 50. Even after the lords vote it doesn't stop the government from making that commitment. But the government also know this is not stopping them declaring art 50. So there is no need for them to amend anything until negotiations start. Whence this is a smoke screen because it doesn't actually achieve anything. It just makes it look as if the cogs are turning. 

 

Giving EU migrants security of a future in the UK has nothing to do with art 50. Article 50 is all about declaring the UK's intention to leave the EU. NO MORE NO LESS.

May's response is that article 50 must go ahead un-amended.  She argues that she wants the commitment from the EU  that UK citizens can remain in the EU in exchange for a commitment from Britain that it will be reciprocal.  I get that but by rejecting the Lords recommendations it can ping-pong back to the Lords and that would inevitably delay the triggering of the article. If May accepts the amendment then there will be no delay.  Not a smoke screen but certainly political posturing.

 

Personally I think that the Prime Minister will push ahead regardless and hope for the best

[steve187]

33 minutes ago, Grouse said:

And what would you suggest as a replacement? 

a gang from TV, on a rota system

[Thongkorn]

52 minutes ago, Grouse said:

And what would you suggest as a replacement? 

 A body that can be accountable to the public wishes,

[dunroaming]

2 minutes ago, Thongkorn said:

 A body that can be accountable to the public wishes,

Simple if all the public had the same wishes.  Unfortunately when you have a public so divided as we have at the moment in the UK......

[Thongkorn]

1 minute ago, dunroaming said:

Simple if all the public had the same wishes.  Unfortunately when you have a public so divided as we have at the moment in the UK......

 Thats where elections come in carrying out the wishes of the democratic  wish of the people who voted, and not changed by an un elected body.

[Grouse]

6 minutes ago, Thongkorn said:

 A body that can be accountable to the public wishes,

And we get back to the fundamental problem with democracy. Can you guarantee that voters have adequate knowledge and education. Of course not. So you need some modified form of democracy. The British version has not been at all bad over time. Destroy it at your peril.

[Thongkorn]

Just now, Grouse said:

And we get back to the fundamental problem with democracy. Can you guarantee that voters have adequate knowledge and education. Of course not. So you need some modified form of democracy. The British version has not been at all bad over time. Destroy it at your peril.

Nothing to do with education ,  Its what the people want, OK it maybe wrong but its there choice, And after time things need tweaking bring up to date, The House of lords was ok in the 16/17 century.  The lords allegedly get £300 per day for being un elected with an opinion that can stop legal voted for Acts,

[Grouse]

8 minutes ago, Thongkorn said:

Nothing to do with education ,  Its what the people want, OK it maybe wrong but its there choice, And after time things need tweaking bring up to date, The House of lords was ok in the 16/17 century.  The lords allegedly get £300 per day for being un elected with an opinion that can stop legal voted for Acts,

And you take decisions based on what? Gut feel?

 

Be careful what you wish for!

 

I, for one, am comforted that there are better informed, better educated and better informed people out there than me....

[cliveshep]

What the stupid Lords will do if this is accepted is deny the leverage required by May to extract reciprocity from the EU for the Brits living abroad and their right of abode.

 

Silly old duffers sitting on their fat posteriors didn't consider that aspect or were trying to start a ping-pong until Brexit failed. Old pals and money still trying it on!

Edited March 2, 2017 by cliveshep

[Thongkorn]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

And you take decisions based on what? Gut feel?

 

Be careful what you wish for!

 

I, for one, am comforted that there are better informed, better educated and better informed people out there than me....

Agree but people should be allowed there opinions,  some times clever people cannot see the wood for the trees.