Thought I'd start a new thread as this is going to be a major talking point this year...have not made up my mind yet...(unlike bucksfizz)....but thinking of voting for an exit as Europe is not doing Britain any good at all it seems....

Lords will not block the Article 50, but they may be persuaded to be more than a little obstructive further down the line

however, it should be remembered that the Lords often serves a very useful role in debating and trhen asking Parliament to reconsider many aspects of of many bills, and we should be thankful that they have that power

There's a record 191 peers due to speak on the debate .

The Lord's needs reform. It has more active members than the European Parliament which represents 28 countries. We need a second house but that bunch of non-elected requires trimming back to no more than 100 elected representatives.

Democracy is a system of government in which power is held by elected representatives of the people or the people themselves. By definition, the Lords is anti-democratic. A fringe party, the liberal democrats, has no less than 98 appointed peers. 9 in parliament, most of whom are certifiably insane.

We've had a vote , Parliament passed it now we have to wait on a bunch of selected ever increasing wealthy individuals who will spend more time protecting and concerning themselves with migrants scroungers et al , than they will with the actual people they should be concerned with that is the British working class family .

Maybe I should have said the British Tax paying public .

i'm not sure that an elected Lords is necessarily right either, for there is a danger that it would have a similar make-up to the prevailing parliament

as usual for this BB, you have a fixation with money and (fictitious) class

as it happens
1) a great many members of the Lords will not be wealthy

2) just because a member of the Lords has money, does not mean that he is self-interested, though you like to portray that image

3) the strength of this unelected Lords is that can and indeed does have very informed and lively debates on important issues, and will frequently table intelligent amendments for Parliament to consider ....... which it often does and acts upon

Look west C. They manage to have elections for both houses. Term limits are the key, so that elections are not concurrent with general elections. I don't care how wise or wealthy the unelected peer is, for me unelected is enough. Get rid.
The same goes for the justices. They are unelected and now wield more power than ever. For anyone to suggest they are totally impartial is a joke. we are all influenced by our upbringing.

Below, the view of the future as some would like to have.

I think I would prefer to have a senile second chamber governing than to be governed by a party of yobs brawling in the streets.

and i'm far from convinced that the american model works

oddly over there, the houses often (nearly always) have opposing majorities, with the result that serious and important bills and reforms are regularly blocked for purely partisan reasons, rather than for the benefit of the country as a whole

as for american judiciary, recent events show that that is or at least can be manipulated by the party in power

"we are all influenced by our upbringing"

Some are capable of challenging their imbibed "culture" and "revise" their absorbed views and behaviour when it is beneficial for themselves and others.

Some are not able to do and end up justifying their wishes.

Does Knuttall stand for the Nutter Party?

8-)

Democracy is not perfect. But it is better than governance by benign non-elected chums. We have the stupid system now whereby to keep a political balance in the House of Loons, more and more are promoted to it. Cameron alone appointed 189. Lunacy.

A great many Lords are not wealthy , a bit over the top surely can you tell me who they are .

try alf dubs for starters

I can't imagine for instance that let's say a brickie or a teacher or even a doctor has been invited to become a Lord or Lady or not many anyhow . You avin me on cynic .

suggest you do a trawl of the Lords and then find out their backgrounds etc etc

btw, lord winston was or even still is very much a doctor who has contributed hugely to society through his chosen field and research

can't envisage that any brickies have done so, nor (m)any teachers

================

of course, the late lord kagan was of inestimable value to the uk rainwear industry

The weakness of the US system is that it is bicameral. That is the two houses have equal power and deadlock is often the result as with Clinton and Obama finding it impossible to set the budget. At least we have asymmetric bicameralism, so that one chamber has primacy over the other. I hope that when we have an elected second chamber, it is subordinate to the the first.

I would expect a couple of amendments to be passed in the Lords on A50. They will return to the Commons and probably be rejected. The Lords may then accept the Bill or attempt a second try. Either way, the end of March schedule should not be in danger.

The real problems will occur during the two years or at the end. As details come out the Lord's could be quite obstructive.

Remember that the USA is a union of States and that the Senate system, and the presidential voting system, was designed to prevent populous States riding rough shod over the smaller States. I agree that in the UK, the second tier should not be subordinate to the House as is the case at present. I would prefer the second tier to be elected on a cerimonial county basis and only involve those regions which are not devolved, when English law is being debated.