Posted on 03/07/2017 11:40:09 AM PST by ColdOne
London (AFP) - Prime Minister Theresa May suffered her second defeat in a week over Brexit Tuesday when the House of Lords voted to give parliament the final say on how Britain leaves the European Union.
Peers voted by 366 to 268 to amend the bill empowering May to trigger Article 50 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty, the formal notification of Brexit which she has promised to issue by the end of March.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Globalist not going to go quietly
Ah, but the Queen and the City of London... want out of the EU, for the defence of the Realm. Some of these “Lords” will need further education.
Where’s Cromwell when you need him?
I thought The Queen supported the Brexit victory, at least indirectly.
I could be wrong.
The House of Lords ain’t what it used to be. It can delay, but it no longer can block. Brexit will happen.
Lords defy May the voters for a second time on Brexit
Yes, she did— as majorly as she could, she and the world investment bank community housed (with the royal treasure and personal vast holdings, the gold exchange, platinum, etc) in the “City of London”. There are certain nouveaux Lords who haven’t gotten the message, and some of them remain from the non-Separated Scotland (which the queen did not want separated, and so is now stuck with them wanting to stay in the bleeding them dry EU— they need to be “influenced to understand”). the Scots lairds— still a problem with old ties to France and other members, and... holders of N. Sea Oil. France leaves...with LePen winning and this will go the other way Brexit on a fast track.
He sure didn't mince words:
"Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?
Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors."
In the name of God, go!"
Much of that would apply to Congress today.
Indeed... The U.K. globalist contingent made their resolve clear with the murder of Jo Cox. It'll take a few of *their* heads being displayed on pikes before they take a collective step back. Same thing applies here, BTW.
Officially appointed by the Queen, but it is virtually always done on the advice of the government of the day, so in practice, it is ultimately the Prime Minister who decides whether or not somebody becomes a Lord.
In theory, it is an honour granted to somebody who has provided great service to the nation, and that is still the case a lot of the time - but it is also a convenient way for a Prime Minister to reward cronies, or even in some cases to get rid of somebody they don’t want in the House of Commons anymore (they call it being ‘kicked upstairs’ - while, of course, somebody can refuse an honour, plenty will accept it).
What this means is the House of Lords is a real mixed bag in terms of who is in it. You have some brilliant patriots - but you have a lot of political climbers as well.
And because of the patterns of the age when people are appointed, and their life expectancy, a very large proportion of the current Lords are people who were chosen by Tony Blair.
Of the roughly 780 current ‘active’ Lords Temporal, by my rough count, 260 were appointed under Blair, 93 under Brown, 2 under Callaghan, and 1 under Wilson for a total of 366 chosen by Labor Prime Ministers.
Only 31 Thatcher chosen Peers remain in the House, John Major chose 114, 179 from Cameron, 4 from Heath for a total of 328 chosen by Conservative PMs.
(I stress this is a rough count - and about 90 hereditary peers retain their seat in the House of Lords and so don’t figure in this count).
Being chosen under a Labour Prime Minister certainly doesn’t mean a Peer is necessarily on the left, and being under a Conservative Prime Minister doesn’t necessarily mean a Peer is necessarily on the right, but the numbers do point to a House of Lords that is likely to lean in a certain direction - especially when you consider that Sir John Major and David Cameron were both very pro-EU.
(I am actually a strong supporter of the continued existence of the House of Lords - I think it serves a valuable function in the British political system - but it is in desperate need of certain reforms to make it less prone to cronyism (Blair’s manipulations are a self correcting error to some extent over time).
So, roughly a combination of Sinate and SCOTUS?
To some extent, you could see it that way, yes. It has a somewhat similar function to the US Senate as a place where legislation can be reviewed - although its powers are now much more limited - the House of Lords can delay legislation (which may encourage the Commons to agree to its amendments to avoid delay) but can no longer actually reject it or block it completely (except in one case - it retains full power to block the House of Commons from extending its term beyond five years).
And the fact that the Prime Minister of the day functionally controls who becomes a Peer means they could, if they choose to, stack the House with those who agree with their policies, in a similar way to a President being able to try and appoint Justices to the Supreme Court who will agree with their policies.
But this is, to some extent, an issue that has become more significant in the UK in recent years.
Until the 1960s, virtually all peerages were hereditary - passed on (normally from father to son), which meant the House of Lords tended to be quite conservative. Since that time, nearly all new peerages have been ‘Life Peerages’ which expire on the death of the holder. But until 1999, all hereditary peers still had the right to sit in the House of Lords and as there were over eight hundred of them, they outnumbered the life peers. Tony Blair ‘reformed’ the Lords, so most hereditary peers lost their right to sit (they retain the right to elect 92 of their number to continue to sit, and there are a couple of peers who retain the right because they hold hereditary offices necessary to the functioning of the House that have not been changed). This meant that for the first time, it became possible for a sitting Prime Minister to try and stack the House - so Blair did so, appointing new peers at a much higher rate than ever before. David Cameron did the same, but didn’t have as long in office to counterbalance Blair’s appointees. May will probably do the same unless further reform occurs. There was just no real reason to do it before 1999.
??? Are you suggesting that Thomas Mair, rather than his victim, was the globalist? Bizarre.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.