UK Politics Thread X: Boris' Big Bonkers Brexit Bash

[Salandriagado]

The Lords are planning to filibuster the bill if it passes.

If they do, they'll be stripped of their last vestiges of power.

[Old Tyrannia]

Boris Johnson: "I don't want an election, the public don't want an election, but this House has left no other option"
Parliament: https://youtu.be/_EfW9znJYjw?t=133

He talks a lot about elections for someone who doesn't want an election.

The Lords are planning to filibuster the bill if it passes.

If they do, they'll be stripped of their last vestiges of power.

A unicameral parliament would be an utter constitutional disaster. Our Prime Ministers already hold greater power than most heads of government; any Prime Minister able to command a majority in the Commons would, in absence of an upper house, have virtually no restrictions on their power.

[Souseiseki]

may's deal passing would be terrible. don't get me wrong, it would be absolutely hilarious 10/10 MV4 redemption arc like if you cry every time get 'em telt hen, but it would be also be terrible.

[Philjia]

may's deal passing would be terrible. don't get me wrong, it would be absolutely hilarious 10/10 MV4 redemption arc like if you cry every time get 'em telt hen, but it would be also be terrible.

It's not a good deal but it is better than anything Boris will come up with.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

may's deal passing would be terrible. don't get me wrong, it would be absolutely hilarious 10/10 MV4 redemption arc like if you cry every time get 'em telt hen, but it would be also be terrible.

It's not a good deal but it is better than anything Boris will come up with.

Boris doesn't want a deal really.

[Salandriagado]

Boris Johnson: "I don't want an election, the public don't want an election, but this House has left no other option"
Parliament: https://youtu.be/_EfW9znJYjw?t=133

He talks a lot about elections for someone who doesn't want an election.

If they do, they'll be stripped of their last vestiges of power.

A unicameral parliament would be an utter constitutional disaster. Our Prime Ministers already hold greater power than most heads of government; any Prime Minister able to command a majority in the Commons would, in absence of an upper house, have virtually no restrictions on their power.

I didn't say that it's good, just that it's inevitable: every time the Lords exercise their powers on something significant, they get weakened.

[Philjia]

It's not a good deal but it is better than anything Boris will come up with.

Boris doesn't want a deal really.

What Boris wants is to crash the economy so he can sell the public services off to his mates at knockdown prices, which is what Brexit is really about.

[Shrillland]

Boris Johnson: "I don't want an election, the public don't want an election, but this House has left no other option"
Parliament: https://youtu.be/_EfW9znJYjw?t=133

He talks a lot about elections for someone who doesn't want an election.

If they do, they'll be stripped of their last vestiges of power.

A unicameral parliament would be an utter constitutional disaster. Our Prime Ministers already hold greater power than most heads of government; any Prime Minister able to command a majority in the Commons would, in absence of an upper house, have virtually no restrictions on their power.

Well, what about doing what Canada does and have a Senate? It could even be partially appointed.

[Philjia]

The election motion will be voted on at 9:20PM and will almost certainly fail.

[Ifreann]

Boris doesn't want a deal really.

What Boris wants is to crash the economy so he can sell the public services off to his mates at knockdown prices, which is what Brexit is really about.

[Philjia]

He talks a lot about elections for someone who doesn't want an election.

A unicameral parliament would be an utter constitutional disaster. Our Prime Ministers already hold greater power than most heads of government; any Prime Minister able to command a majority in the Commons would, in absence of an upper house, have virtually no restrictions on their power.

Well, what about doing what Canada does and have a Senate? It could even be partially appointed.

The lords should remain at least partially appointed, and a significant portion of the appointed seats should be reserved for experts in a diverse range of fields.

[Nakena]

What Boris wants is to crash the economy so he can sell the public services off to his mates at knockdown prices, which is what Brexit is really about.

Stop flaunting your wealth like that.

[Old Tyrannia]

He talks a lot about elections for someone who doesn't want an election.

A unicameral parliament would be an utter constitutional disaster. Our Prime Ministers already hold greater power than most heads of government; any Prime Minister able to command a majority in the Commons would, in absence of an upper house, have virtually no restrictions on their power.

Well, what about doing what Canada does and have a Senate? It could even be partially appointed.

The Canadian Senate is basically a copy of our House of Lords, except without the hereditary peers or Lords Spiritual (whose influence is fairly marginal in the House of Lords anyway) and with a limited number of members. The latter would probably be a sensible reform, but renaming the house as "the Senate," introducing elected members or doing away with the remaining hereditary contingent and Lords Spiritual are all changes I would oppose.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Well, what about doing what Canada does and have a Senate? It could even be partially appointed.

The lords should remain at least partially appointed, and a significant portion of the appointed seats should be reserved for experts in a diverse range of fields.

Reserving seats for 'experts' sounds like technocracy to me. No thanks.

[The Nihilistic view]

What Boris wants is to crash the economy so he can sell the public services off to his mates at knockdown prices, which is what Brexit is really about.

LOADS A MONEY

[Philjia]

The lords should remain at least partially appointed, and a significant portion of the appointed seats should be reserved for experts in a diverse range of fields.

Reserving seats for 'experts' sounds like technocracy to me. No thanks.

Having multiple levels of pure representative democracy is redundant, having one level of representative democracy is too open to abuse of power, having appointments be purely party political makes it redundant, and having hereditary peers is insane. The purpose of the Lords is to scrutinise legislation, and thus should contain individuals with technical knowledge pertaining to said bills. Having it be, say, 2/3rds to 3/4s elected at the same time would eliminate any risk of unelected technocracy taking full control.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Reserving seats for 'experts' sounds like technocracy to me. No thanks.

Having multiple levels of pure representative democracy is redundant, having one level of representative democracy is too open to abuse of power, having appointments be purely party political makes it redundant, and having hereditary peers is insane. The purpose of the Lords is to scrutinise legislation, and thus should contain individuals with technical knowledge pertaining to said bills. Having it be, say, 2/3rds to 3/4s elected at the same time would eliminate any risk of unelected technocracy taking full control.

Why not get rid of it, and have bills go from the commons to a direct referendum?

[Munkcestrian Republic]

I should be Prime Minister, I think.

[The Nihilistic view]

Given the ruthlessness of purpose so far my money is on it being intentional.

it's almost definitely intentional. the bastards just passed an amendment to fuck with the opposition through the sneaky loophole of "not bothering to count opposing votes" and they're going to get away with it.l

It makes a change to have somebody in charge of the house who knows what they are doing for a change. It's quite exciting.

[Cerinda]

Literally Boris in Parliament

[Salandriagado]

Having multiple levels of pure representative democracy is redundant, having one level of representative democracy is too open to abuse of power, having appointments be purely party political makes it redundant, and having hereditary peers is insane. The purpose of the Lords is to scrutinise legislation, and thus should contain individuals with technical knowledge pertaining to said bills. Having it be, say, 2/3rds to 3/4s elected at the same time would eliminate any risk of unelected technocracy taking full control.

Why not get rid of it, and have bills go from the commons to a direct referendum?

Because that's absurdly impractical.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I should be Prime Minister, I think.

of the UK or Northumbria?

[Souseiseki]

it's almost definitely intentional. the bastards just passed an amendment to fuck with the opposition through the sneaky loophole of "not bothering to count opposing votes" and they're going to get away with it.l

It makes a change to have somebody in charge of the house who knows what they are doing for a change. It's quite exciting.

i mean it's blatant undemocratic horseshit that should be literally illegal and only exists because of our outdated system but if you want to praise that as well then you do you

[Thermodolia]

The election motion will be voted on at 9:20PM and will almost certainly fail.

So did the other bill pass?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Why not get rid of it, and have bills go from the commons to a direct referendum?

Because that's absurdly impractical.

Why? Thursday could be voting day, compulsory voting day.