A number of comments on my last posting (“Freedom of Choice“) asked for more information on the cross-party proposals to make the House of Lords more representative and responsive to the public.
I think it would be inappropriate to go into detail on this inevitably controversial issue here, but readers may like to look at my website www.paultyler.libdems.org where I have tried to map out the reform process. For a fuller description of the way in which we could retain the best of the present Lords in a more authoritative and influential Senate see the White Paper – An Elected Second Chamber – prepared as a result of the overwhelming vote of MPs in favour of reform. This was the product of discussions between the three major parties, the Crossbenchers and the Bishops.
Dear Lord Tyler,
Thank for your posting this link to your website.
But, if I may say, posting a new blog entry does not really address or debate with the points that some of us posted on your ‘Freedom of Choice (Mark II)’ entry.
This is not the first time this has happened. Quite a while ago I asked you if you would be willing to stand for an eleced Upper House. You did not answer that question. Instead, you posted another entry saying you thought you would be past it, or something along those lines, by the time any elections took place.
If this blog is going to be successful in encouraging direct dialogue with people surely you have to respond to the points that are made rather than simply post new material which does nothing to address what some see as weaknesses and, sometimes strengths, in the arguments you put forward? If you put advance arguments surely you should be willing to defend them in direct dialogue with people who take the time and trouble to read what you write?
Whilst I’m having a little gripe, I must also mention that some peers’ posts seem to be cut and paste jobs rather than exclusive material to this blog. This is not necessarily a bad thing but at least do us the courtesy of sorting out the formatting.
Frustratingly yours,
Howridiculous.
With the greatest respect, if you are wise, or perhaps I should say if the government are wise, they would leave the ‘upper house’ alone until it is time to empty it altogether. Surely it is understood, that if we are governed from the Continent, we cannot possibly hold on to our old way of life even in by trying to look as if we are doing so. That surely would be deceiving the people?
When the Hereditary Peers were sent packing in such an undignified way we were promised a much better “equal” upper house. It turned out to be anything but equal. Leave it for now for the Treaty of Lisbon, according to its own Rules along with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, is dead in exactly the same way the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe was dead when it was rejected by the people of two Countries.
If there is any doubt what the EU is to become I write for you this:-
Quite a few years ago now, I sent to Brussels for some of Jean Monnet’s speeches. I had already made a start on research and so could name the speeches I wanted. (1980) Here is a quote from one of the Founders of the EU and what the finished product was meant to be. This is from April 30th 1952, not all that long after the last war. This was delivered to the National Press Club D.C. Washington D.C.
“This is an opportune time for me to discuss with you the making of the new Europe. We are passing beyond the phase of proposals, drafts and texts; in a few weeks the first institutions of the new Europe will become a living reality. In this challenging time we are naturally encountering difficulties; they are the birth pangs attending the creation of a United States of Europe”.
“I shall attempt to describe to you briefly the principle milestones of the road along which we are now moving and the goal that we hope to achieve for Europe. I shall not attempt to describe all the difficulties that we know we shall have to over come at every stage.”
A year ago the Schumann Plan Treaty was signed by France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Italy. The Parliaments of France, Germany and the Netherlands, and the Senates of Belgium and Italy, have now approved the Treaty, with overwhelming support of public opinion. Ratification is about to be completed. In a few months the European Coal and Steel Community will come into being.
The Pleven Plan for a European Army is following the same course. After a year of intensive work, the Treaty establishing the European Defense Community soon will be signed by the same Governments–the rest of the line unreadable.”–I move on to a paragraph further down.
“The European Coal and Steel Community will create the beginning of a Community of Federal structure, governed by a set of common institutions, applying common rules, granting common rights and imposing common duties.”
“The Participating nations have delegated to the Community part of the powers that they exercise today as sovereign states. The High Authority will be an executive body whose members will be collectively responsible, not to national governments, but to a common Parliament, and whose actions will be subject to review by a Court which will be common to the entire Community. The Parliament and the Court will be shared also by the European Defense Community…………
The institutions created by the two Plans will make a breach in the citadel on national sovereignty which bars the way to European unity and which the familiar arrangements for international co-operation have so far left untouched”.
There is much more, and I will copy it out for you should you so wish, it will however, burst the bubble of simply “sovereign nation States working together in cooperation and friendliness”, and it will prove, without doubt, that the True Brits are correct, but more to the point, it is doubtful that the people would ever vote again for anyone other than themselves to sit in parliament.
I have looked at the comments on the ‘Freedom of Choice (Mark II)’ post and wondered which exactly asked for further information on the cross-party proposals? There were some comments asking for your position, Lord Tyler, but none, so far as I could see, that asked for the conclusions of a group of peers.
Do you actually read what people write? Or do you post comments that answer what you wish they had asked rather than what they did actually ask?
Lord Tyler: Do you seek to have a republic? If you and your closed shop of parliamentarian have your elected House of Lords you will nearly be there. Next you will seek to remove the Monarchy.
All those who swear allegiance to the Crown including the armed forces will have to swear allegiance to a president. You risk travelling the road that Oliver Cromwell once travelled.
Make sure your republican electorate are behind you 100% before you start your journey or let the British people decide by referendum the future of the House of Lords.
Ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell
It actually surprises me that readers of this blog are so in favour of maintaining the House of Lords in its current form.
Whilst i would be the first to admit the merits of the House of Lords, i think you should remember that MPs voted by a majority of 113 for an elected – rather than an appointed – House of Lords last year. What form “election” takes, of course, is another matter.
Lord Tyler, there is a general election to go through before any further changes might be made to the House of Lords for surely this Labour Government will not want to mess up yet again the House of lords.
If, as is proposed. the EU Parliamentary election is used as the referendum the people were denied on ‘Lisbon’, and as President Baroso fears, and it is has far more “Eurosceptics” in its ranks than has ever had before, it might be wise to put such plans as yours, on hold.
The people, in this present climate not only cannot afford to pay yet again for more disruption of our Parliamentary system, they might simply refuse to.
The people were deliberately ignored during the ratification process of the Treaty of Lisbon yet soon all MP’s will be begging for the people’s votes to put them into government once more under the pretence that they actually instigate this Countries Laws. Well the Charade is nearly over.
Why on earth should WE turn out to vote for anyone to sit on those GREEN benches? WE may decide to ignore future would be MP’s in the same way THEY ignored the people? When by staying at home, or putting one great CROSS through the whole ballot paper we shall be truly governed by Brussels? After all THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ALL SEEM TO WANT, isn’t it?
Appeal to popularity is a fallacious argument. Also, there are strong arguments for keeping the House of Lords as they are, whereas the arguments for having an elected upper chamber are unconvincing (even the government’s white paper on the subject was very wooly).
Liam: Just as fallacious as the argument that Peers are untouchable because, despite being directly elected, they are all experts in their given field?
The beauty of political debate is that people can take opposing views. As MPs have shown, not everyone takes your view and it’s wrong to try and label the vote by MPs as barmy.