++Second government defeat – Lords vote for parliamentary veto on final Brexit deal

The BBC reports:

The government has suffered a second Brexit defeat in the House of Lords as peers backed, by 366 votes to 268, calls for a “meaningful” parliamentary vote on the final terms of withdrawal.
Backing the move, former deputy PM Lord Heseltine said Parliament must be the “custodian of national sovereignty”.
Ministers said it was “disappointing” and would seek to overturn the move when the bill returned to the Commons.
The previous defeat was on the issue of guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens.
After a three-hour debate, peers amended legislation which will trigger official Brexit talks to require the final terms of the UK’s departure from the EU to be put to separate votes in the Commons and the Lords.

* Paul Walter is a Liberal Democrat activist and member of the Liberal Democrat Voice team. He blogs at Liberal Burblings.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in News and Parliament.
Advert

53 Comments

  • I expect this to be overturned in the commons next week and rightly so.

    It is ludicrous for the Lords to try and tie the Prime Minister and the UK down like this.

    If this was to go through, the EU would offer us a really bad deal, knowing that parliament would then vote against the deal. It is utter madness.

    well and truly time for this unelected mob to get the chop

  • Philip Rolle 7th Mar '17 - 7:56pm

    The people said leave. The Lords seem to want to frustrate that vote. It will do them no good. Mrs May has so far proved sure footed on this matter and she will not allow either Lords amendment to stand.

  • lloyd harris 7th Mar '17 - 7:59pm

    All the Lords have done is add to the bill stuff the Government says it was going to do anyway. The problem is people don’t believe the Government so want it written down.

    Trying to overturn the written guarantee the Government promised just goes to show that the Lords might just be right in not believing the promises and wanting it put into law.

  • nvelope2003 7th Mar '17 - 8:27pm

    Matt : In that case why not give the House of Commons the chop as well. What is the point of having a Parliament if it cannot vote against the Government when it disagrees with it ?

  • The Lords is stuffed full of old Europhiles. This is not about anything very much except a sort show of power. Minor amendments will put it through and it will make not a bit of difference to anything.

  • nvelope2003 7th Mar '17 - 8:32pm

    So there is no point in Parliament then. It is just a show to deceive the public. Well people have been saying that for years and have stopped voting in elections. It seems they were right after all.

  • @lloyd harris

    Actually the Lords has gone further than that.

    The Government has been clear that parliament would get a meaningful vote on the deal, however the options would be
    a) to accept the deal negotiated
    or
    b) Leave and reject the deal

    What the lords have done by this ammendment stating that the Government needs permission from the Commons and the Lords to leave the EU without an agreement is them trying to insert another option
    C) to reject the deal and remain in the EU

    Which is of course their intention, so that the EU gives us the worst possible deal so that the House of Commons and Lords vote to reject the deal and remain.

    Hope the lords enjoyed their twice subsidised luxurious food and beverages today at our expense, no wonder some of them have cookers that are unused.

    @nvelope2003
    The house of commons is democratically elected and accountable to the electorate, funny that used to always be the Liberal Democrats position. But then they have a history of flip flopping when it suits them, like on the terms and conditions of referendums,

  • nvelope2003 7th Mar '17 - 8:40pm

    Not sure that an election which gives a party which got about 4 million votes and one MP can be called democratic. The system is rigged in favour of certain interests and to exclude others.

  • What is this life if, full of care, We have no time to stand and stare?— W.H.Davies
    WISE WORDS INDEED….
    Indeed Paul – love it………..

  • So what you are saying, matt, is my view, which is that we should hold off on triggering Article 50 in order that we don’t come to some sort of “deal” (any “deal”, as has been explained countless times, will be worse than our current situation). The situation we need is one that demonstrates that incontrovertibly to people, so that we don’t get led down the garden path to Brexit and THEN realise! When it is, of course, too late to restore the status quo ante. Still no test of the revocability or otherwise of Article 50, by the way, in the ECJ. So we are walking blindfold into this.

  • When are those who voted for Brexit going to realise that the other 27 countries cannot give what remains of the UK a special deal because that would be the end of the EU. If you are better off outside the club, why belong. Giving MPs a vote will not make any difference to the negotiations. Nigel Lawson let the cat out of the bag. There will be no deal.
    Therefore, in 2 years time, we shall have to decide what to do. To drive off the cliff edge or remain. Parliament should make that decision, not Theresa May. If the electorate disagree with the decision there is a general election shortly afterwards. That’s how parliamentary democracy functions.

  • @Tim13

    No I am not saying hold off.

    My opinion is we voted to Leave, get on with it and trigger article 50 and implement what the Government promised and the people voted for, to leave the EU.

    I do not care for testing whether article 50 is revocable because quite frankly that will just encourage the EU to give us a bad deal and again the electorate already voted to leave, we did not vote to test the waters first and see what will happen, we voted out.

    I do not support a 2nd referendum and I find it astonishing that even the lords rejected a 2nd referendum but then at the same time were audacious enough to slip through an amendment that would allow them to reject the deal anyway and stay in the EU. This is in my opinion is disgraceful and totally disrespectful to the electorate and to democracy and shows just how out of touch the lords are and why they need abolishing.

  • Alan’
    When are those who voted Remain going to realise that The EU doesn’t actually have as much power as you think and that the reason the government is has come round to so called Hard Brexit is because the risks are not that high. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again both sides of this debate are going to be disappointed by the lack of spectacular events.
    Britain will leave. Things will trundle along.

  • Andy Coleby 8th Mar '17 - 7:48am

    May is someone who does not like anyone including Mr Heseltine to stand in her way.
    Not that I trusted her one tiny bit before, but the Surrey Council “sweetheart deal” has shown she is devious and not the safe pair of hands gullible Tories think she is.
    If the Lords vote has made her angry, well it was not as futile as some people think

  • One of the most telling elements of the Lord’s debate was the outrage at anti-government dissent expressed by several Tory peers.
    They are the spiritual heirs of Louis XIV who is famed for his declaration “L’ état c’est moi”. Remind you of anyone?

  • Politics is divided between those that want to be screwed over by a eurocentric system and to perpetuate it with total disregard to those at the bottom of working life and the people that voted Laeve – they prefer to over-complicate things preferring to bend to others in a projected ideology of a peculiar form of internationalism AND those that want the UK to hard bargain commensurate with its strengths in order to create new realities like global trade, control of our borders and laws.

    For the LIberal Left (very many of whom are largely employed in good jobs with well-padded pensions sustained in London and other big cities or are on good pensions) they are protected from mass migration, lack of trade deals and EU bureaucracy. Sometimes they benefit from these things.

    Thus they presume that their own eurocentric model is obviously the right one while perpetuating a failed political system that doesn’t lift everyone up in their own failed model.

    Thus there can never be too much migration – more people mean more people mean more people. So we end up with a population of what – 80m? 90m? 100m? and who benefits?

    Remainers can slyly try and defeat Brexit by legal procedures – yet the issues are the issues. Politics abhors a vacuum. If people are thwarted in one way they will assert themselves in another. More national votes for the Tories and UKIP. If you thwart people too many times they will find they will find temporary political homes not to the liking of Liberal Democrats.

  • Glenn – ‘the Lords is stuffed full of old Europhiles – RICH old Europhiles! And they get £300 a day for signing in, sitting on the red benches and pontificating on political issues. Some folk are lucky to earn £300 a week.

    Matt – as I understand it, the ‘meaningful vote’ amendment would require both Houses of Parliament to approve the final deal. It is indeed a backdoor attempt to thwart Brexit. Let’s hope MPs have got the balls to reject both amendments.

    It is disappointing that Remainers are willing to hobble Theresa May and her ministers as they enter negotaitions with the EU and utterly depressing that Europhiles trust the EU bureaucrats more than the UK government.

  • Matt, Philip Rolle, Glenn, Pat & others,

    “The Prime Minister has said, reinforced in the White Paper, that Parliament should have the final say and the final vote.

    “The amendment in the Lords tonight gave effect to both of these, so it’s now over to the Commons.” [Baroness Smith]

    I don’t know what you are smoking but it has certainly befuddled your thinking. The full text of the Lord’s amendment may be found here:

    https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2016-2017/0152/hcb152.1-2.html

    It doesn’t support your interpretation, but does hold May to her word.

    As for “thwarting Brexit”; well this has been widely debated once Article 50 is invoked, there are only two outcomes: the UK leaves or the EU27+UK consent to disregard the UK’s notice of withdrawal… Hence the only debate is whether May’s negotiated deal is any better than simply falling off the Article 50 exit conveyor ie. if May says she has done a deal, it only costs £350m per week to the EU, I take it that Hard Brexit cult members will be happy, because “we are leaving”.

    I think the fundamental question Brexit cult members need to ask themselves is:
    You wanted to restore Parliamentary sovereignty, but suddenly you seem terrified of Parliament having a say, never mind sovereignty. So what is it you fear?

  • gremalkincat 8th Mar '17 - 11:36am

    Several here have suggested that the Lords amendment would force the EU to give a bad deal.
    Surely, if the choice for Parliament is deal or no deal (as TM has stated) then the EU has will give us as bad a deal as possible, anyway (as long as it is a teeny bit better than WTO rules).
    The fact is we’re going to get a bad deal and the only good deal on the table is not leaving (or if we really must leave then EFTA).

  • I cannot accept the sheer hypocrisy and lunacy of what happened in the Lords.

    Last year they voted to hand back “Direct Democracy” to the people in the form of a plebiscite. It was in the Governments manifesto to have that referendum; they promised that that would implement the will of the people. {Though it was that government’s position to campaign for remain at that time}.
    After months of debate and information, media and news articles, social media, political forums, after all the spin , scare and doom mongering {More so on the remain side} we had the vote and the people voted to leave.

    Theresa May managed to get her Brexit negotiations article 50 through the commons s un-amended, as it should be. It was Parliament carrying out democratic will of the people in the direct democracy that they themselves legislated for.
    It then reaches the unelected lords and what do we get?
    The lords reject giving the people the final say on the terms negotiated in a 2nd Referendum on the brexit negotiations, but then audaciously put a clause into the legislation that means that the Prime Minister and the government will have to seek permission from both houses should there be no deal and she still wants to go ahead with leaving the EU.

    Come on guys what’s this is really saying is, we handed over direct democracy to you guys, but you’ve had your say, now were going to rip that direct democracy away from you, you are getting no further say on this matter and it will be down to us unelected lords and Members of parliament to decide what is best for us going forward, which is probably going to be us rejecting the deal and voting to stay in the EU.

    That would be a kick in the guts to democracy and will cause utter outrage

  • lloyd harris 8th Mar '17 - 12:50pm

    If anyone is interested here are the two actual amendments passed by the Lords and being sent to the Commons for them to approve or reject:
    https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2016-2017/0152/hcb152.1-2.html

    Clause 1
    Within three months of exercising the power under subsection (1), Ministers of the Crown must bring forward proposals to ensure that citizens of another European Union or European Economic Area country and their family members, who are legally resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which this Act is passed, continue to be treated in the same way with regards to their EU derived-rights and, in the case of residency, their potential to acquire such rights in the future.”

    Clause 2
    “Parliamentary approval for the outcome of negotiations with the European Union
    (1) The Prime Minister may not conclude an agreement with the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, on the terms of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, without the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
    (2) Such approval shall be required before the European Parliament debates and votes on that agreement.
    (3) The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to an agreement on the future relationship of the United Kingdom with the European Union.

  • @lloyd harris

    You missed one out


    (4)
    The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in
    relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom
    shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable
    terms.””

  • Arnold Kiel 8th Mar '17 - 2:35pm

    Whoever is outraged by the HoL’s amendments must be convinced that signing the agreed deal or leaving without such deal are the two best options. I fail to understand why a third option, doing nothing, should not even be evaluated. It is never wrong to have more options. By this logic, the real dispute is about who should do the evaluation.

    Another referendum, while democratically the cleanest solution, has, in my opinion, undesirable side-effects. The Government has a conflict of interest: they have positioned themselves firmly in the “Brexit-at-all-cost” corner, and therefore cannot remain in power in an option three scenario. Consequently, they cannot be trusted to make an impartial evaluation in the country’s interest.

    That leaves Parliament as the best final evaluator of the three options. Brexiteers, who were so keen on restoring the UK’s parliamentary sovereignity should concur.

    A Government, or a parliamentary majority whipped by Government, that excludes one option from being evaluated and considered, at a point in time when circumstances might have dramatically changed, effectively declares that it is interested only in it’s own, not the country’s wellbeing.

  • Denis Loretto 8th Mar '17 - 2:56pm

    To Matt and others here who fulminate as to what they see as the attempt of the Lords to frustrate the will of the Commons and indeed “the people” – calm down, everyone knows the Commons will prevail after a bit of ping pong.
    However, to anyone other than the utter brexiteers who want the UK to walk away now from any deal whatsoever with the other members of our continent and risk destroying much of our industry (as Professor Patrick Minford has at least had the honesty to admit would happen) it is welcome that the government does not receive the message that no-one cares what sort of conclusion they come up with. There was a real danger that the Commons were seen as just rolling over – with most of the Labour Party leading the retreat. The Lords have made it clear that there are still very many of us who are highly concerned as to the nature of the deal sought and concluded. The attempt to “bring us all together” as enthusiastic brexiteers is clearly illusory – just as the idea that the 1975 referendum would silence those who wanted us out.
    There must be maximum pressure on the UK government to get the best deal possible for the British people.

  • I fail to understand why a third option, doing nothing, should not even be evaluated

    The point is not that it shouldn’t be evaluated; it’s that it should be.

    In fact it was already evaluated, last June, and was rejected.

    So that having been rejected, it leaves the other two options to choose between.

  • There must be maximum pressure on the UK government to get the best deal possible for the British people.

    The problem is that as long as the option is to not leave is on the table, that provides an incentive for the EU to negotiate in bad faith in order to try to present the worst deal possible, in the hopes that that will cause Parliament to stay within the EU. Yes?

    They will think that if they can make the deal sufficiently bad, they won’t have to live with it, because if it’s bad enough then the UK will close the door on Brexit.

    the only way to ensure that the EU is motivated to give us a good deal is to make it clear that they will have to live with it: that there is no chance that the UK could, at the end of the process, decide to stay in the EU after all.

    Only then can negotiations begin with both sides clear about what is at stake.

  • @Dav

    Exactly, well put

    @Arnold

    “Whoever is outraged by the HoL’s amendments must be convinced that signing the agreed deal or leaving without such deal are the two best options. ”
    Absolutely that is what I think, out, out, out at any cost.
    Though I do not believe there will be a cost, I believe it will be to our benefit and to our future prosperity outside of the EU which is a failed project teetering on the edge of collapse for which Germany is almost entirely responsible for.

    “Another referendum, while democratically the cleanest solution, has, in my opinion, undesirable side-effects. ”
    I no doubt think that most remainers would now agree with you, that’s why we have not seen any outrage about the Lords rejecting a 2nd referendum, most fear that a 2nd referendum would have gone the same way as before with leave coming out on top. Now the same people see the Lords / Commons having to give approval in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms, as their best possible chance of scuppering Brexit. Had that amendment not gone through the lords, I suspect there would have been a lot more outrage about the 2nd referendum on this forum.

  • Arnold Kiel 8th Mar '17 - 4:55pm

    @Dav, matt: I know you are in the “out, out, out at any cost” camp. You do not need a meaningful vote.

    But there must be leavers, who would like to know more about the cost, possibly even comparing them to the Brexit promises made, and think again. Are you telling me that there are no such leavers, or do you want to deprive everybody, represented and representing, of their right to think again?

    If it is the former, you need not fear another evaluation as Parliament would surely follow such easily ascertainable sentiment. If it is the latter, how long do you want to uphold such prohibition to think? Forever, or just until the damage is irreversibly done?

  • But there must be leavers, who would like to know more about the cost, possibly even comparing them to the Brexit promises made, and think again

    I’m sure there are. Just as I’m sure there are people who voted remain even though they really wanted to vote leave, because they were scared of the economic effects, and who are now wishing they had had the courage to go with their principles instead of fear.

    If there were some massive indication that public opinion had changed and there was a clear, massive majority in favour of staying, then I would say that, indeed, the government would be right to put exit plans on hold, perhaps until after a general election could test the mood of the country.

    But there is no evidence that that is the case. And in the absence of such evidence, I don’t see the point in a second expensive, even more massively decisive vote, especially when it would smack of the EU’s old ‘vote again until you get it right’ tricks played on, for example, Ireland.

    The decision was made. If there’s any evidence that a consensus is forming in the country that the decision was wrong, then that should be addressed. but there is currently no such evidence. A few people on either side have changed positions, but that’s all.

  • even more massively decisive vote

    Sorry, ‘even more massively divisive’ — the one thing a second vote definitely wouldn’t be is decisive!

  • nvelope2003 8th Mar '17 - 6:17pm

    Matt: Out out out at any cost ? You do not know whether leaving will benefit the economy any more than I or anybody else. That is the worry about all this. A group of people like you have convinced the voters that they will be better off and that may not happen. I suspect the costs and benefits will be small but all this disruption will stop the Government dealing with the real issues and that may be what all this is about. And those who will lose most will be those who thought the country would benefit but did not care whether it would or not. I guess that is some form of justice.

  • @Arnold Kiel

    “But there must be leavers, who would like to know more about the cost, ”
    Do you have a crystal ball or a time machine that we can borrow?

    Nobody knows what the “costs” will be until AFTER we have left and some time has passed in order to assess the facts.
    Forecasters have been hopelessly wrong in the past and are not reliable source of information, they have instead relied on project fear which was rejected by the majority.

    Nobody know’s the type of deal we will get from the EU and whether it will be good or bad for the UK/ EU until after negotiations have taken place and a deal is on the table. Problem is, remainers are doing there darn hardest to thwart the process in the hope of scuppering it entirely and / or hoping that it will be such a bad deal that it can then be rejected and we will remain in the EU.

    If you had your Europhile way, I am sure you would have the UK tied into an ever closer union with the EU, joining the single currency and goodness know’s what else.

    @nvelope2003

    “And those who will lose most will be those who thought the country would benefit but did not care whether it would or not”
    You have no idea who if any will lose anything, you are speculating and relying on project fear as always. As you said yourself “You do not know whether leaving will benefit the economy any more than I or anybody else”

    Your side of the argument did not set out what the cost would be for us STAYING in the EU, and there clearly would be costs and consequences. So please lets not have this pretence that the risks are all laid at the feet of leaving the EU.

  • Arnold Kiel 8th Mar '17 - 9:08pm

    @ Dav: thank you for acknowledging the legitimacy to think again, and the need to respond to changes in the overall view of the public.
    @ matt: having the actual negotiation-result in hand is undoubtedly a much better basis for decision making than the mix of lies, fear, and emotion that was available on June 23, 2016. Forecasters are often wrong, but does that make it right to take decisions without having a view on their consequences? When you voted to leave, I am sure you had a view of the future that would bring. So did I. The best we can do is to exchange our (and experts’) views to test and advance our thinking.

  • nvelope2003 8th Mar '17 - 9:19pm

    Matt: Surely the point is that all this effort is being put into a silly project which might or might not benefit the country and will certainly cost a lot of money but is largely motivated by jealousy of the success of our former enemies who have prospered despite two devastating defeats in war because they are ruled by people who are able and know what they are doing while the UK is run by a bunch of hopeless incompetents who are too snobbish to get down to the hard work that is necessary. When I hear the debates in Parliament it seems like a badly run primary school with all these silly men shouting and screaming and most people find this disgusting, and rightly so.

  • @Arnold Kiel

    But the fact remains we will not know the “economic” effects of leaving the EU until after we have actually left and new policies and trade agreements come into effect.

    Even with the deal on the table, we will not know the actual economic outcome until after it has happened and been implemented, all we will end up with at the end of the negotiations is remainers and forecasters coming up with even exaggerated doom and gloom project fear in the hope of the deal being rejected.

    “I am sure you had a view of the future that would bring.”

    I do have a view that has not changed one iota, my view is that the EU is a failed project that is destined to ruin a lot of countries economically. The EU’s share of Global GDP is due to shrink to just 15% of world gross domestic profit, what is the EU’s answer to this? more protectionist policies that are in my opinion a detriment to the UK’s prosperity.
    The youth unemployment rate in Europe is horrendous nearing on 50% in some countries, you can not just put the blame for this on member states, it is because of the EU and the shared currency that was never going to work.
    Italy is perilously close to crashing, it’s economy has not really grown since adopting the Euro, its banks have some of the worse bad loans.
    The situation in Greece is never going to be resolved.

    Germany has thrived on wages being suppressed / cut. Germany encouraged the migrant crisis because Germany has a problem with a shrinking population and an increased ageing population, even with the influx of migrants Germany can not keep up with the decrease in the indigenous population. All of Germany’s actions have had a negative effect on it’s neighbours.

    My opinion is the UK needs to get well away from this failed European project and be free to negotiate it’s own trade agreements with the rest of world and adopt trade deals and policies that are flexible to adapt to changing world circumstances rather than being shackled to the EU’s protectionism mentality.

  • Roland is absolutely right about the Lords’ amendment. It simply ensures that Theresa May keeps her word. Would you trust her? She promised to oppose the 3rd runway “tooth 7 nail.” She may not be PM in 2 years time.
    Secondly why is it that an opinion poll on one day in June last year trumps all other votes before & afterwards?
    If there were a general election & parties who want to remain in the EU win then are they still bound by a referendum result last year? What about the referendum result in 1975?
    The electorate are entitled to change their minds. That is democracy.
    Finally I get sick & tired of leavers talking about the will of the people. 51.9% of those entitled to vote chose to leave. Many have subsequently changed their minds. Millions of 16-18 year olds were denied a vote. Hundreds of thousands of people who have a British partner, had lived here for 50 years, have British children & British grandchildren were denied a vote. I know because I met so many on the doorstep. Then there are the millions of British people living on the continent. Many of these were denied a vote or found it too difficult to vote.
    The country was divided. Probably more than half now wish to remain. This proportion will grow as the consequences of leaving become clearer. In a democracy the people should have the chance to change their minds. It happens at every general election. We do not elect a government for all time.

  • nvelope2003 8th Mar '17 - 10:05pm

    For the third world countries to prosper it was inevitable that the mature economies of Western Europe would lose some of their share in the world’s domestic product. There are quite a lot of Chinese people and Indians compared to Europeans and they are prospering, especially the Chinese. In places like the Philippines the change is notable every time I go there and rightly so. It seems that the Brexiteers think the world should be as it was in the 1950s where the foreigners would be grateful for a trade deal with Great Britain. What a sad and pathetic delusion. I understand Mrs May was sent home with a flea in her ear by the Indians so I guess she will not be going to China to be humiliated. Even New Zealand seems to be affronted by our approach. They sell butter to China and the Chinese eat Australian beef.

  • Thank God (and Allah) for Kishwer Falner and Dave Goddard

  • @Nvelope2003

    “It seems that the Brexiteers think the world should be as it was in the 1950s where the foreigners would be grateful for a trade deal with Great Britain.”

    No that is not the impression that I have at all, it is not about turning back the clock as you put it, its about moving forward with the times, being outwardly looking on an international scale, rather than an inward looking European Union.
    It is about being free to adapt to changing markets and climates, The Eu has never taken the UK into consideration when it conducts its flimsy few trade agreements that it has managed to hobble together over the years.
    The EU is becoming more and more inward and will become even more so as it share of global GDP continues to fall. That is not good for the UK.

    We need to unshackle from this doomed European project and be the true internationalists on a global scale.

    Through our own trade agreements and outside the ridiculousness of the CAP and CFP, Farmers will be free to grow what they want and export what they want, reducing prices domestically and increasing exports.
    We will also be free to remove some of the ridiculously high tariffs that the Eu imposes on us on some imports.
    All this is good for the consumer, which will put real money back in the pockets of those that most need it, which increases disposable income, which in turn gets spent back into local economies.

  • nvelope2003 9th Mar '17 - 8:32pm

    From the repeal of the Corn Laws in the 1840s until 1931 Britain had a policy of Free Trade which was fine for industrialists and factory owners because Britain was dominant in trade and cheap food enabled them to pay lower wages which kept their prices down. It also brought British agriculture to its knees and with it the great landowners who had to marry rich women, either from America or from the families of our wealthy industrialists, if they wished to keep their estates. Naturally they were not supporters of Free Trade and even the Whig landowners gradually went over to the Tories, with a few exceptions such as Viscount Portman, although it was not until Joseph Chamberlain left the Liberals and allied himself to the Tories that they started to consider Protection. In 1923 Stanley Baldwin, Conservative Prime Minister, called an election on the issue of Protection because we could not compete with other nations. The Liberals and Labour opposed this and they won 159 and 194 seats respectively. Mr Baldwin resigned but the Labour Government soon collapsed and Baldwin returned to power. In 1931 the second Labour Government collapsed and the Liberals resigned from the National Government when it implemented protection.

    The problem with Free Trade is that unless your country is very powerful, has very cheap materials and food and a low paid workforce you cannot compete with others like Germany who are very efficient or Asian countries who have very low wages. Even China cannot compete with Cambodia, Bangladesh etc. You can only benefit from
    free trade with countries who have common standards as in the original Six of the Common Market plus Britain and Ireland, Denmark etc. In order to have common standards you have to have a bureaucracy and courts to enforce the rules, hence all the complaints about EU nit picking etc which are latched onto by the Mail, Express, Sun, Telegraph etc to maintain the interest of their bored readers. But these arguments are entirely specious.
    The Brexiteer leaders hope to benefit from a low wage economy with minimal standards for workers and massive immigration from non European countries to keep wages as low as possible. There will be little or no manufacturing except possibly for a few luxury good. I hope that is the sort of country you want because that is what you are going to get.

  • @ nvelope2003
    It is 2017 not 1840 anymore 177 years have passed, the world is a very different place to what it was
    back then, nobody wants to go back to those times, it is all past history and irrelevant to today’s modern world economies / economics
    “The Brexiteer leaders hope to benefit from a low wage economy with minimal standards for workers and massive immigration from non European countries to keep wages as low as possible. “
    Evidence to support your claims please, because my recollection is that we have promised to keep workers rights on par with the same rights and protections we currently receive under EU law. Where have any leading Brexiters said they want massive non EU immigration? Wages are already been kept low by EU immigration, so to say that they would be kept lower by non eu migrants is just silly has no basis.
    “There will be little or no manufacturing except possibly for a few luxury good. I hope that is the sort of country you want because that is what you are going to get.” Manufacturing has been in decline in the Uk, since we joined the single market, so again to blame that on leaving the EU is just nonsense. There will be a whole new world of opportunities for us once we have left the EU and able to strike up our own trade agreements with the rest of the world. The world does not start in Ireland and end in Cyprus.
    Free trade agreements will allow us to get rid of some ridiculous high tariffs that we pay on goods from outside the EU, due the EU’s protectionist policies, this will see cheaper prices in the supermarkets, putting real money back in the pockets of the consumer, money that will increase peoples disposable income, money which in turn will get spent on goods and services in local economies and help grow local economies / communities.

  • nvelope2003 10th Mar '17 - 9:17am

    Matt: I think you are living in a dream world. Human nature or economic facts have not changed and the Leave campaign’s chief economist, Professor Mynford, says manufacturing will almost disappear in Britain if we leave the EU. However, I believe the wishes of the voters as expressed in the Referendum must be accepted and we should now leave the EU

  • Matt: Both Davis and Fox have stated that there will be a continuing needs for mass immigration, something which Leave seemed to deny during the campaign. Promises by Governments are like pie crusts – made to be broken – so I would not put any faith in any Government promise to maintain workers’ employment rights in the longer term, if at all.
    Manufacturing has been in decline but it might have declined even further without the EU. We must not put all our eggs in one basket and it is essential to retain a diverse economic base, including manufacturing and agriculture, though the CAP should have been reformed years ago. Before we joined the EU the UK Government subsidised farmers and maybe the Conservatives will have to continue to do so as they mostly vote for them but seeing how they are looking after the self employed that must be in doubt now as there are many more self employed than farmers.

    I hope that Britain will prosper outside the EU but it is a risky strategy so why take risks if it is not necessary ? In case you have not noticed we are not in the Euro Zone. Before we joined the EU Britain was in decline so why should it prosper if it leaves ? We do not seem to have the right people to run anything here and when visiting the Continent things seem to look nicer than they do here despite all the current problems.

  • @ nvelope2003
    “there will be a continuing needs for mass immigration,”
    Why do you feel the need to exaggerate? They have not said “mass immigration” at all, they said there would be a continued need for immigration which I would have thought would be obvious to all, the difference is it would be an immigration policy that does not discriminate against non EU citizens, it will be an immigration policy that allows us to control the numbers where there are a skills shortage, it will be an immigration policy that does not entitle the person to in / out of work benefits / social housing, until the person has been here for a number of years and been granted indefinite leave to remain or permanent residency status. That is a sensible immigration policy

    “I would not put any faith in any Government promise to maintain workers’ employment rights in the longer term, if at all.”
    If the Tory party attempted to erode workers rights after we leave the EU, do you think they would win the following election? I doubt that, they would be kicked out of office quick sharp and we would see a rise to power of Labour, something the Tories are very conscious of and will do everything to avoid.

    “We must not put all our eggs in one basket and it is essential to retain a diverse economic base, including manufacturing and agriculture, “And yet by staying in the EU that is exactly what your wanting to do, put all our eggs in one basket and hope that by some chance of a miracle the EU will come good.

    “I hope that Britain will prosper outside the EU but it is a risky strategy so why take risks if it is not necessary ? In case you have not noticed we are not in the Euro Zone. Before we joined the EU Britain was in decline so why should it prosper if it leaves ?”
    There are risks, huge risks of staying in the EU, but you do not want to seem to admit that. No we are not in the Eurozone, but are you suggesting that we are not affected by it? Of course we are, what is happening in the EZ is having a devastating effect on it’s members, it causes the EU to become more protectionist when it comes to trading with countries outside the EU which has a knock of effect for us and pushes up prices for goods and services outside the EU.

  • nvelope2003 11th Mar '17 - 2:59pm

    Well your leaders are not going to frighten their supporters by saying mass immigration but what other kind is there going to be. Because of the poor education system and the snobbery of many parents and teachers young people are not encouraged to study useful things so we need to import large numbers of people from abroad to do the sort of jobs which are essential to keep the economy running. When I speak to people from abroad they say they are shocked by the ignorance of so many people here. The British have a culture which is inimical to knowledge or studying. Anyone who is interested in study is stigmatized as a swot or nerd and who wants to be like that.

  • @nvelope2003
    “Well your leaders are not going to frighten their supporters by saying mass immigration”

    First of all, they are not my leaders, Secondly, so are you going to apologise for your misleading claims that they said something that they did not not?

    “young people are not encouraged to study useful things so we need to import large numbers of people from abroad to do the sort of jobs which are essential to keep the economy running.” What sort of jobs are you referring to?

  • Quite frankly almost any kind of job, even sweeping and cleaning is done better by immigrants who are often employed by UKIP supporters. Some people here seem to have no inclination to even try to do a good job but are simply anxious to shuffle through the day doing as little as possible. This attitude seems to have infected even the children of immigrants in some cases.
    If you are right that the Leave leaders did not actually say mass immigration, even though they should have known that is what was needed, then I am sorry but it does not say much for the quality of their research. No marks for homework then.
    I thought you were a convinced opponent of the EU and wanted us to be out, out, out, as you so delicately put it a few posts ago so how can you say the people who led the Leave campaign are not your leaders ?

    We are going to leave the EU and I am relaxed about that so all these debates seem a bit pointless but I always did my homework hey ho !

  • @nvelope2003

    “Quite frankly almost any kind of job, even sweeping and cleaning is done better by immigrants who are often employed by UKIP supporters.”
    Firstly, we need some evidence to support your claim that UKIP supporters often employ immigrants to do cleaning jobs etc. I thought the common perception is that UKIP supporters / Leave voters are mainly made up of working class, less educated people, these people must be doing very well for themselves if they are able to employ cleaners don’t you think? Somehow I don’t think that fits the demographics
    Second, in your previous post you said “poor education system and the snobbery of many parents and teachers young people are not encouraged to study useful things so we need to import large numbers of people from abroad to do the sort of jobs which are essential to keep the economy running” I asked for an example of type of jobs you are referring to, your reply to this is “cleaners”, What part of our education system is lacking a formal qualification for this? Please tell.

    “If you are right that the Leave leaders did not actually say mass immigration, even though they should have known that is what was needed”
    There you go again, using the term “mass immigration” where is your evidence to support that we need uncontrolled mass immigration? Yes we need immigration, we need skilled migrants to fill roles where we have skill shortages and we may or may not need some level of unskilled migrants to fill posts in Factories / Farms / Hospitality, though I am not totally convinced that we do, however, if we did, we would be able to access these workers through “temporary seasonal Visas” point being it is temporary and they are not entitled to in / out of work benefits or social housing which is in short supply.
    I am still of the opinion that UK Citizens are more than happy to do these jobs as they were in the past, we were a nation of factory / farm , hospitality workers before freedom of movement came in and I do not believe the propaganda that UK nationals will not do the jobs. I was brought up in the Hospitality industry and I know exactly how things were before and after the EU freedom of movement came in.

  • Glad that the commons rejected the Lords amendments and rightly so.

    The lords now need to get on with it tonight and approve the bill.

    Theresa May should then get on with it and trigger article 50 first thing and certainly before the EU 60th Anniversary celebrations of the treaty of Rome.

    Get it triggered and get round the negotiating table.

  • nvelope2003 14th Mar '17 - 2:54pm

    Well I am not in favour of substantial immigration but that is what all the employers I speak to want because they tell me that immigrants have a better work ethic than local people. We have an education system which is inimical to hard work because attitudes are all wrong and we need to change it if the nation is to prosper. Perhaps Brexit might help but I am not sure – these attitudes were common before 1975. I did not say anything about uncontrolled immigration but I am not in favour of it.

    Pleass show me where I have said that Leave/UKIP supporters are all poor and/or uneducated. The only people I am sure voted Leave are university graduates with good incomes and one of them employs a cleaner who is an immigrant as do others I am informed. The owner of Wetherspoon’s pub chain is a prominent Leave supporter who employs quite a lot of immigrants. The most prominent Leave campaigners are very wealthy men such as Boris Johnson who called his fee of £250,000 per annum for writing for the Daily Telegraph “chickenfeed”, and Jacob Rees-Mogg who has made a fortune from investments.
    In answer to your question about “what sort of jobs are you referring to” in order to keep the economy running, I said almost any, including sweeping and cleaning, NOT just cleaners. I meant skilled workers mainly but also committed people who do not walk off the job if they do not feel like coming in. If you do not believe that UK citizens will not do hospitality and other jobs why is it that employers say they will not ? Of course wages and benefits can be a factor.
    In my town factories and other employment opportunities were created to use those people unemployed when the local industry closed but many of the workers come from Portugal and Poland.

  • nvelope2003 14th Mar '17 - 3:06pm

    Matt: Curious that Leave campaigners made so much of the Sovereignty of Parliament and now it is just a formality there to do whatever the Prime Minister tells them to do. Hundreds of years of a free Parliament for a free people, almost unique in the world and swept away in just a few months and for what ? So a few rich men can become even richer ? I see one of them has not even bothered to renew his subscription to the so called United Kingdom Independence Party

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • David Le Grice
    Why the hell do we only get two questions? We got more than half the seats and votes that the Tories got, if they get a whopping six then we should get at least...
  • Peter Davies
    @Paul Yes. Most organised areas do tallying....
  • Peter Davies
    "even in London we have no councillors (and so no councillor tithes) in 19 of the 32 Boroughs" it's not really 'even'. London Boroughs have the highest proporti...
  • Paul Culloty
    Is there much tradition of "tallying" in UK constituencies - generally, when an Irish GE or local election occurs, the boxes in the constituency (each one accou...
  • Ruth Bright
    Are there rules on hugs at polling stations? On "my" polling station in East Hants hugged a nun who taught me 40 years ago, a friend whose daughter's graduat...