Unelected Lords tryingto stop Brexit

[It’sallbsParticipant]

Heseltine was a big fan of the ERM and still thinks we should be in the EURO.

Mean while some of his collegaues in the Lords are moaning about unadorned hake in the restaurants. (the Lords is full of tea rooms, bars and restaurants subsidised by you and me as taxpayers).

The Lords get £300 per day just to sit there and fall asleep.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[BritGHOWParticipant 2566]

House of Lords reform cannot come soon enough.

One of the key reasons for Brexit is to remove the un-elected elements of the EU bureaucracy, which rings a little hollow when we have this bunch of un-elected dinosaurs trying to oppose it. You could almost call it the un-elected and u-electable trying to keep their gravy train rolling a few years more.

[Manspread MansplainerParticipant 4222]

I’m sure Greece will bring the EU to a grinding halt.

If women ran the world = It would become the shithole you are seeing.

[narwhalParticipant]

To me, this looks like the next step towards the globalist agenda. With control of the majority of politicians, control of the media, and the masses willing to convict without evidence, they are going to test the waters and see if they can circumvent the will of the people.

This is on the agenda in the US. They are going to try and impeach President Trump for no other reason than they do not like him. They are hoping they can come up with some vague circumstantial charges, but they will try even the absence of any wrong doing.

The question is, are the people willing to challenge government when their vote is negated? Will they risk their comfortable lies on principle alone? Will they be able to organize into a legitimate resistance when they have no control over communications?

Although, I fundamentally see this is requiring a response, I do not know that I would be willing to give up all I have on principle.

Ok. Then do it.

[SH3LLZParticipant 5569]

Britain has an interesting political system. Everyone seems unelected and you guys still pay for a “ROYAL” family…

No surprise WOMEN here in the US adore the royal family. They all wish they could be princesses and queens. Most men couldnt give a s~~~ about the so called “ROYALS”…

Its a ridiculous system in the modern world and yet and entire nation just tolerates and pays for it.

#ICETHEMOUT
#MANOUT!

#ICETHEMOUT!!! #MANOUT!!! #HIDEYOURWEALTH #VAGINAISWORTHLESS

[BritGHOWParticipant 2566]

SH3LLZ wrote:

Britain has an interesting political system. Everyone seems unelected and you guys still pay for a “ROYAL” family…

The only un-elected element is the lords, and the vast majority of the British public support the royal family over even elected politicians.

As for this paying for the royals piece, a common misconception, the proceeds of the crown estate (essentially the royal family’s property portfolio) are given to the treasury and a percentage of that money (what is now referred to as the sovereign grant) is given back to the monarch to fund the royal’s official duties.

A strange system yes, but one that’s worked and worked well for over 250 years.

[MutineerParticipant 1467]

Does it really matter that the lords are unelected? Ask yourself this: What are the odds of my vote determining the outcome of the election? I’d hazard a guess that the odds are akin to winning the lottery. Yet when you play the lottery you know what the prize is if you win.

However, politicians routinely break their promises. Therefore, even if you win the election lottery there is no guarantee you’re going to get anything to show for it. In fact, you may lose out considerably when your party of choice/candidate is elected.

"The secret to happiness is freedom... And the secret to freedom is courage." - Thucydides

[OldBillParticipant]

BritGHOW wrote:

The only un-elected element is the lords…

Not exactly. Ninety-two of the 700 odd Lords are elected, but the pool of candidates is limited to the peerage. Also, while the rest are appointed, you better believe they got the position by political means.

The term “election” doesn’t imply universal suffrage now does it involve a universal candidate pool.

A strange system yes, but one that’s worked and worked well for over 250 years.

More like 18 after you consider when the major reform to the Lords occurred.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[It’sallbsParticipant]

OldBill wrote:

Also, while the rest are appointed, you better believe they got the position by political means.

Which has nothing to do with being expert on anything or doing any good for the country. Cronyism is what gets people into the Lords.

There are also hereditary members although their numbers have been limited since The Lords Act of 1999

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[It’sallbsParticipant]

BritGHOW wrote:

SH3LLZ wrote:

Britain has an interesting political system. Everyone seems unelected and you guys still pay for a “ROYAL” family…

The only un-elected element is the lords, and the vast majority of the British public support the royal family over even elected politicians.

As for this paying for the royals piece, a common misconception, the proceeds of the crown estate (essentially the royal family’s property portfolio) are given to the treasury and a percentage of that money (what is now referred to as the sovereign grant) is given back to the monarch to fund the royal’s official duties.

A strange system yes, but one that’s worked and worked well for over 250 years.

You are correct about the Sovereign Grant and the Privy Purse but if you think the tax payer does not give money to the royal family you are being naive.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[It’sallbsParticipant]

OldBill wrote:

Ninety-two

Those are herditary peers elected amongst themselves.

We are not a sovereign nation anyway the EU and successive british Prime Ministers saw to that.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[It’sallbsParticipant]

BritGHOW wrote:

A strange system yes, but one that’s worked and worked well for over 250 years.

Forgive me for being blunt but since when the hell did it work. The Lords expenses scandal dwarfs that of the commons.

No party in power in teh commons ever does anything they say in their manifestos.

CAsh for questions.

I was born in 1976 and could fill this site with 1000s and 1000s of words about scandals, corruption, lies and how the system does not work and never ahs.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[BritGHOWParticipant 2566]

Mutineer wrote:

Does it really matter that the lords are unelected? Ask yourself this: What are the odds of my vote determining the outcome of the election? I’d hazard a guess that the odds are akin to winning the lottery. Yet when you play the lottery you know what the prize is if you win.

However, politicians routinely break their promises. Therefore, even if you win the election lottery there is no guarantee you’re going to get anything to show for it. In fact, you may lose out considerably when your party of choice/candidate is elected.

I believe that it does, and for the very reason you give, if your candidate breaks his campaign promises, you can get rid of him at the next election, case in point the Liberals got massacred in 2015 following the tuition fees debacle.

OldBill wrote:

Not exactly. Ninety-two of the 700 odd Lords are elected, but the pool of candidates is limited to the peerage. Also, while the rest are appointed, you better believe they got the position by political means.

The term “election” doesn’t imply universal suffrage now does it involve a universal candidate pool.

The strange system comment was directed at how the royal family is funded, the lords issue is just f~~~ed.

Not only is the candidate pool limited but the electorate as well, namely to the sitting members of the house, which just adds to the undemocratic nature of the place as the only people who will be elected are those who conform to the echo chamber.

[743 roadmasterParticipant]

Unless being paid by outside source, leaving the EU is in the best interest of the people in the house of lords more then in the house of commons.
I would be interested to hear what reforms are in mind for the house of lords.

mgtow is its own worst enemy- https://www.campusreform.org/

[OldBillParticipant]

BritGHOW wrote:

… which just adds to the undemocratic nature…

No, you don’t understand.

“Democracy” simply means “rule of the majority”. It doesn’t require universal suffrage or universal candidate pools.

The modern usage of the word may imply that, but the term “modern usage” is just another way of saying “S~~~ a lot of people believe which isn’t necessarily true”.

I’m not defending the Lords, far from it, I’m just insisting we try to be precise – especially when talking about government and politics.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[Anonymous 14]

What people around the world really need to do is get rid of all politicians and vote directly on all issues. Simple in today’s age, just have it happen once a month, or every three months. People without computers would just go down to local polling stations. Make all bills presented to be put in concise, brief terms, and have yes and no votes on things. Now, that is if we want TRUE DEMOCRACY. Which, by the way, I oppose. I would rather there be nearly zero government, f~~~ the whole mess, no rules needed for the most part. But guess what would happen in a true Democracy? About half the nonsense my country does (wage never ending war) would stop overnight. Bankers would have never gotten bailed out, s~~~, FIAT money would probably be a thing of the past as well. Tons of s~~~ would be de-criminalized. Also, with direct voting on issues budget would be greatly reduced because we could stop paying all the Politicians who go back on their word anyhow once they are elected. Can them all. They are literally tools of special interest groups, get rid of the whole structure and the few would stop getting what they wanted more often than the many.

[BritGHOWParticipant 2566]

OldBill wrote:

No, you don’t understand.

“Democracy” simply means “rule of the majority”. It doesn’t require universal suffrage or universal candidate pools.

The modern usage of the word may imply that, but the term “modern usage” is just another way of saying “S~~~ a lot of people believe which isn’t necessarily true”.

I’m not defending the Lords, far from it, I’m just insisting we try to be precise – especially when talking about government and politics.

I understand perfectly.

Democracy literally translated means rule of the people, You are correct that neither electorate nor candidates have to be universal and that the definition can therefore be extended to mean rule of the majority of the electorate that can be bothered to get off their asses and vote on a given topic.

The topic in question is whether the UK should remain in or leave the EU, and in the referendum of 23rd June 2016 the British people who were given that decision voted 51.9:48.1 to leave, a majority of over 1.25 million votes.

The 794 members of the house of lords are not elected by and therefore not accountable to the British people, indeed of that 794 only the 90 comprising the remainder of the hereditary peers are “elected” at all, and even of those only 15 are elected by the entirety of the house, the remainder by varying subdivisions of the same 90 with electorates ranging from 49 to as few as 4.

For 794 people with no popular mandate to attempt to overturn the expressed will of the British people is undemocratic whatever language you wrap it up in.

[It’sallbsParticipant]

BritGHOW wrote:

OldBill wrote:

No, you don’t understand.

“Democracy” simply means “rule of the majority”. It doesn’t require universal suffrage or universal candidate pools.

The modern usage of the word may imply that, but the term “modern usage” is just another way of saying “S~~~ a lot of people believe which isn’t necessarily true”.

I’m not defending the Lords, far from it, I’m just insisting we try to be precise – especially when talking about government and politics.

I understand perfectly.

Democracy literally translated means rule of the people, You are correct that neither electorate nor candidates have to be universal and that the definition can therefore be extended to mean rule of the majority of the electorate that can be bothered to get off their asses and vote on a given topic.

The topic in question is whether the UK should remain in or leave the EU, and in the referendum of 23rd June 2016 the British people who were given that decision voted 51.9:48.1 to leave, a majority of over 1.25 million votes.

The 794 members of the house of lords are not elected by and therefore not accountable to the British people, indeed of that 794 only the 90 comprising the remainder of the hereditary peers are “elected” at all, and even of those only 15 are elected by the entirety of the house, the remainder by varying subdivisions of the same 90 with electorates ranging from 49 to as few as 4.

For 794 people with no popular mandate to attempt to overturn the expressed will of the British people is undemocratic whatever language you wrap it up in.

Precisely.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[Author]

Posts