The House Of Lords - Indisputable Evidence
•
by Dishmcds
While on vacation in Spain, I received a call from a good friend of mine in the UK. He was a bit distressed at the current debate going on about the House of Lords, which came to fruition under my time in the eUK. It was legislation I wrote, along with the debating procedures for Commons. When I wrote them, very little was said then, and most of them were accepted without question.
Recently, an opinion was released from someone who would know very little on the House of Lords, and it has been used to try and drive public opinion against it.
In response to one persons "personal views", I'll post my own, along with what the House of Lords is, and isn't. All of what is posted is pure fact, based on legislation from the UK Commons and Lords, passed through majority non-partisan vote by every party which had a seat in Commons.
What the House of Lords Is
The House of Lords, much like it's RL counterpart, is for experienced members who have "earned their stripes" through the development of the UK, through Military, political, or economical excellence. In order to be accepted, you must be accepted by a majority vote between the Top 3 Party President's and Prime Minister.
The logic behind the selection process is simple: The more people you need "approval" from, the longer and more beaurocratic it takes to accomplish anything. The more "political" selection you require, the easier it is to make the House of Lords partisan in it's beliefs. Currently, the members involved in the House of Lords are, without a doubt, dedicated to the UK, both historically and in it's present form. We work to aide in the improvement of things, and to ensure that the "younger" generation have a guide in their journey through politics. In short, we ensure, judicially, that the legislation that's written is done so correctly.
Yes, the House of Lords has no "removal" process. If you'd like to add one, fair enough. Personally, I've never disputed that point. BUT, remember these are people that have bled for the UK in many ways, and to spit in their face to remove them for any reason is to deny the rich tradition we have here, both in the eUK and UK itself.
Lack of True Power
Seriously, the Lords do not have "Power" over ANY legislative process. We can examine legislation that's passed, to ensure it's written correctly, and with good purpose. We ensure there are no loopholes in the legislation. Any and all debates within the House of Lords are available any time to anyone who wishes to see them (for sensitive matters Commons is more than welcome), if you have any idea that we sit in our room each day trying to block legislation purposely. Commons is free to propose and write anything they'd like, and if a Lord wishes to join in the writing of proposals, he must follow the same process as any Normal Citizen of the UK, posting it in the Public Discussion area.
In short, the only thing we can do is review legislation in the eUK. We cannot write, change, amend, or purposely disqualify without providing a good reason. That IS clearly stated within the process for debating proposals, listed here:
http://uker.forumotion.com/government-policies-f84/house-of-lords-t6212.htm in bold letters.
So to sum it up, for those who have had recent questions, we review things and make sure they are done correctly.
An Obvious Need
Many of you may not know how this all came about, or why the discussion even began.
Initially, there was a proposal put forth Sat, Dec 27th by Tommy Tomassino, who was then the Party President of the MDU to allow out-of-Congress Ministers. It was passed through Commons, but returned by the Lords on January 12th, because of a flaw in the requirement.
In the original legislation, it was very basic and said "some Ministries" should require Commons or Lords to run them. In the actual proposal, it listed the Minister of Foreign Affairs (National Security), Minister of Defence (amount of Cash, National Security), and Minister of Finance (Amount of Cash) as positions that it could not cover with an out of Congress Minister.
But it completely left out the Minister of Health, who handles the equivalent of 800 G each month. No one will deny this, no one will dispute this flaw, and absolutely no one will criticise the Lords for vetoing this proposal based on this.
So, if now, you're completely for "abolishing the House of Lords" (quote from HazzN in the article on the Lords), were you OK with giving an out of Congress Minister 800 G? Do you feel that the legislative Branch of the eUK is so "flawless" that it can run thoroughly without the experience that has driven this country for more than a year?
Once this proposal was returned, there were polls started and all of a sudden a group of people who were behind the proposal started clammoring for our dismissal based on "democratic unfairness".
There is a need for the House of Lords, which is obvious. There is a need to keep it seperate from an elected body of Commons, because we're not beaurocratic nor partisan in any way. We're judges, plain and simple.
What the House of Lords Is Not
The House of Lords is not an elected body. If it were, we'd simply be duplicating the House of Commons, which would only serve to further slow the legislative process down more. More "elected" people means more "rights". We don't have the right to say exactly what can and can't be done in the eUK. We have the right to oversee legislation to make sure it doesn't allow a "Lakrisal" to come from another country and swipe half our treasury. It's oversights and mistakes like this, which will happen to anyone, that makes the judicial required. And to be judicial, you have to be experienced, and accepted as dedicated to the eUK.
I challenge anyone to show me a piece of perfect legislation in the eUK. Show me, and I'll show you the holes in it. If you choose to accept the challenge, and I win, then you must then in turn accept that the House of Lords, as it stands. I personally wrote a large majority of the things that were passed in my time as PM, and I could STILL find holes. If you're man (or woman) enough to take the challenge, I always love a good debate.
Sincerely,
Dishmcds
Former PM of the UK
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
lol very nice 🙂
I've stayed out of the debate on this mostly because it ran in circles. Dish here speaks the truth. The Lords has no real power other than to REVIEW legislation. In the Lords we are experianced individuals. Myself a former President and a Party President in more than one country.
Commons can easily bypass the Lords if it doesn't agree with us.
Only once a month though
Interesting viewpoint, I dispute your claim that the reason this debate was instigated was because of irritation at the HoL rejecting a piece of legislation however.
Dispute it or not.
The fact that none of this was an issue until:
A) The MDU was told they were not needed to accept Lords
and
😎 This proposal was not drafted until after an MDU proposal was returned to HoC
still seems awful coincidental. Not to mention there are only two non-MDU members that have outwardly supported any kind of reform.
I support Dish and the HoL completely
I never thought I'd say this but... GO DISH!
@Dish: The issue of the Lords did indeed first arise after I read a post in the Lords that irritatingly read "we don't need the MDU's permission btw 😛". I questioned this within the party and I then brought the issue of the MDU within the Lords to the public attention.
After we started questioning this, other questions regarding the Lords were brought up, and as far as I'm concerned thats how this debate was started, and continues to be the fuel behind this debate
the Lords can be bypassed ONCE A MONTH. this is too much power. you still don't answer the arguments put up against the Lords, and I genuinely believe the people who continue to argue in support of the current set up of the Lords are either blind, kidding themselves or simply holding on to power with all means possible.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the way I understand it, the HoL has almost full control on any laws that are passed in the eUK. Also as far as I am aware the body is not governed by anyone other then itself. So we have an unelected/uncontrolled group of people that decide what the laws are. I think that the technicle term for that would be a dictatorship.
I do think that people who know what they are doing should have some say in laws. Mearly just for the experence and insight they provide. However I do think that more control is needed over this body, or more power returned to the HoC.
Now I know everyone is going to say that this will only slow the process down, however that is why emergency protocol should be in place so if fast desicions need to be made they can be.
'holding on to power with all means possible.'
Get a grip Tommy, really do, the only reason you're pissing and moaning about the HoL is because the MDU aren't involved and you're not a member, you're the only one out for power here, the only people who have a problem with the HoL are the ones not involved which = MDU, coincidence much?
"simply holding on to power with all means possible."
Meh e-Power is not all that great. I'd gladly give it up if people believe I'm doing a poor job and Congress calls for my head. You'll see a very quick resignation.
People have been removed from the HoL through common sense. Myself included.
And Deilos has been removed through common sense - he effectively stood down. Why? Because he's a great member of the eUK and worthy of the title: LORD.
I have no problem with the HoL reviewing legislation but I think that that the Parliament Act (which allows the commons to bypass the Lords) should not be limited to one veto per month. If people don't like the HoL put it to the vote. Make it an issue at the Congress elections and see what the public have to say. Do we still want it or don't we. Let's face it, if the majority of citizens of the eUK didn't want the HoL it wouldn't exist.
rule eBrittania!
voted