Can the Lords deliver?

anon

Slight correction. The Parliament Act can be used to pass any piece of legislation except a money bill. It doesn't matter whether it was part of the manifesto. So the Government could use the Parliament Act to bypass the Lords. It's the Salisbury Convention which says that the Lords shouldn't vote against the Commons on something at appeared in the government's manifesto. But, as you point out, that clearly doesn't apply.

john problem

Too late, too late! We are members of the EU, like it or not, and the other members don't give a twopenny toss for our writhing uncertainty. We could join Sarkozy's Mediterranean Club, or stay cuddled up to the White House, but, darn it, in both cases we are too far away to be influential. Yo! So we must grin and bear it and -as they used to say - think of England.....

Teesbridge

Expecting a bunch of unelected legislators to force an elected Administration to consult its own electorate has the period charm of an Ealing Comedy ("Passport to Salisbury" perhaps?). And about the same relationship with reality (particularly since most "Crossbenchers" are recent creatures of Nulab). Nice idea though.

TGF UKIP

Teesbridge's cynicism about the real nature of the "crossbenchers" is probably justified. Even more so when you consider the blandishments of the Big Tent Quangocracy that will be trailed before them. The stakes for the Lords are huge, defying Gordon would resonate with the public like no other issue but if they roll over, it would be pointless to even mention them in future, Fraser.

Fraser Nelson

You may be right, TGF - a senior Tory peer told me a few weeks ago that he thinks the Lords would not overrule, simply because he felt there is not (a clamour outside for it. As Teesbridge says, would be hilarious to see the Lords force MPs to honour their own maifesto, a kind of reverse Salisbury Convention (thanks, anon).

Denis Cooper

As the first commentator points out, it's irrelevant whether the Bill is intended to fulfil a manifesto pledge, or to override one. That's the subject of the Salisbury Convention. There's a March 2007 House of Commons Library Standard Note about the Parliament Acts here: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-00675.pdf And a note about the Salisbury Convention here: http://www.parliament.uk/about/glossary.cfm?ref=salisbu_7642 "The Convention ensures that major Government Bills can get through the Lords when the Government of the day has no majority in the Lords. In practice, it means that the Lords does not try to vote down at second or third reading, a Government Bill mentioned in an election manifesto." The Government argues that the referendum pledge does not apply because the 2005 Labour manifesto referred to the Constitutional Treaty, not to the Lisbon Treaty. So the Government cannot also argue that it would breach the Salisbury Convention if the Lords voted down the Bill to ratify that utterly different, nothing-at-all-to-do-with-the-Constitution, very minor amending treaty.

ben

I have heard it said that there are some very influential Lib Dem members of the House of Lords who will go Back to Labour if The Lib Dems support a referendum

K Kearney

On this pivotal issue, the House of Lords has a chance to prove its worth. If they did vote for a referendum I would support leaving the House of Lords as it is, otherwise they would not be worth saving and should be abolished.

EyeSee

Is it ironic that a vote on the EU is being denied, when the EU itself relies wholeheartedly on ignoring the people? The EU is in fact based on anti-democratic principles inasmuch that it seeks to override elected politicians and push aside democracy. The bureaucrats run the show and anything they propose must be agreed by the 'elected' politicians, or they go on 'voting' until they get it right. Sound familiar?

K Kearney

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/HLLSalisburyDoctrine.pdf Quoting from the above, House of Lords link relating to the Salisbury Doctrine. It appears that the House of Lords may well have an obligation, to the electorate, to reject the Lisbon Treaty Bill that does not contain a requirement to hold a referendum, as promised by all parties at the last election. “Introduction (page 5) ..... the House of Lords has an obligation to reject, and hence refer to the electorate, particularly contentious Bills, usually involving a revision of the constitutional settlement, which have been passed by the Commons.”

TGF UKIP

There are some exceptionally well made arguments here, but there is one major problem. They may well excite political anoraks like us but what about "the man on the Clapham omnibus"? Politicos arguing the toss on constitutional finer points are distinctly yawn- making. If, and it's a huge "if", The Lords do vote against the Government, expect Gordon's spin and news management machine to go into overdrive to smear the Lords and bury the issue. The BBC will co-operate, the Tories won't say "boo" (in case Hilton deems them to be appearing too eurosceptic) the LibDems will be supine but it will be interesting to see Rupert's reaction - or has he already been "taken care of"? One thing is certain though - there ain't gonna be no referendum.

T.Marshfield

How ironic! Brown sends soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan to die attempting establishment of democracy in thses regions and at home denies the electorate a referendum as was promised, what a hypocrite !!!

M.R. Hutchins

Every sitting member of the Commons or the Lords must pledge their allegiance, either by Oath or by Affirmation. Part of that pledge reads "I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law." Membership of the EU, and especially this new Treaty, seriously undermines the position of the Monarch. Therefore, any member of the Lords or Commons not actively seeking Britains withdrawal from the EU is breaking their pledge of allegiance.