Wednesday, December 21, 2011

The Bill goes through to the Commons

Today saw the Third Reading of Lord Pearson's Bill, which seems to have been something of a non-event [scroll to Column 1784]. As to how it got to this stage so quickly, this is what I wrote but decided not to publish a few days ago:

 The Committee stage debate of Lord Pearson's Bill did not take place as there were no amendments. Lord Pearson moved as the rules say:
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to the Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless any noble Lord objects, therefore, I beg to move.
There were no objections and the motion was agreed to.

What next? According to the House of Lords Companion to the Standing Orders:
8.94 If no amendments have been set down to a bill and it appears that no member wishes to move a manuscript amendment or to speak to any clause or Schedule, the Lord in charge of the bill may move that the order of commitment (or recommitment) be discharged.[310] This motion may be moved only on the day the committee stage is set down for and notice must be given on the order paper.

8.95 The Lord in charge of the bill says:

"My Lords,

I understand that no amendments have been set down to this bill, and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee.

Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment [or recommitment] be discharged."

8.96 The Question is then put "That the order of commitment [or recommitment] be discharged." If this Question is agreed to, the next stage of the bill is third reading.
There can be amendments at the Third Reading, which is scheduled for December 21 and the Government and Opposition Front Benches may well decide to defeat the Bill. We shall see. It is entirely possible that nobody wanted this debate now just in case the truth about the non-veto of the phantom treaty might come out.

It seems, there were no amendments. So the Bill is, perhaps unexpectedly, through the House of Lords and goes to the Commons in the new year. The First Reading, not yet scheduled, will be, as ever a formality. But, unlike in the Lords, the Commons divide at Second Reading as well as later on. We shall see what those much-praised, much-vaunted Tory eurosceptics will do. HMG is unhappy with the  idea of a establishing "a Committee of Inquiry into the economic implications for the United Kingdom of membership of the European Union". Who will rebel and say that it is, in fact, a very good idea, indeed?

In the meantime, I cannot help being somewhat surprised by the carefully phrased rudeness exhibited by the Lord Strathclyde, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster [just above the Third Reading].

As a number of Orders to do with mayoral referendums in various cities were referred to the Grand Committee, Lord Pearson asked:
My Lords, why are the Government so keen on all these referendums on the comparatively minor matter of who becomes the mayor in these cities while they refuse a referendum on the far greater issue of whether we stay in the clutches of the corrupt octopus in Brussels or leave them?
Well, as far as I can see, as readers of this blog know, a referendum of that kind would be a disaster as people, who were easily bamboozled by the Boy-King's phony veto of a non-existent treaty would undoubtedly vote to stay in but reform the unreformable. However, that cannot be HMG's argument. So what did Lord Strathclyde reply, having disposed of another objection:
As for the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, in the spirit of Christmas, it is always good to hear him. I hope he has a very quiet and restful time over the next two or three weeks, and if he wishes to have an even longer restful and quiet time, I am sure that would be appreciated by most of us, particularly those who work on European business.
A period of silence, eh? So we can get on with our business of handing over whatever remains of this country's sovereignty.


  1. It would be a wonderful new year if people like Mr Galbraith (aka strathclyde) were to keep their stupid mouth shut for a change.

  2. As he is the Chancellor of the Duchy or Lancaster and the Leader of the House, your wish is unlikely to be granted.

  3. Lord Strathclyde seems like a very arrogant man. I hope that Lord Pearson puts him back in his box. Like Clegg, Lord Strathclyde does of course have a "European" wife from Belgium (Simone) and is half-Belgian himself; so maybe that is why he is such a europhile. He also had an affair with a blonde Green Party activist who works for the Ecologist magazine, owned by Zac Goldsmith.

  4. "In the meantime, I cannot help being somewhat surprised by the carefully phrased rudeness exhibited by the Lord Strathclyde, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster [just above the Third Reading]."

    I am very surprised that you find yourself somewhat surprised by this rudeness. It is a constant accompaniment to whatever Lord Pearson may care to say in the House of Lords. I have followed his words for a very long time using the facility "They Work For You" and Lord Pearson seldom receives valid replies to the very pertinent points he often raises in that place. Indeed, the [ig]noble "Lords" seem to go out of their way in their efforts to be the rudest of all respondents when Lord Pearson speaks.

    I often wonder if the [ig]noble Lords realise just how big an audience their ignorance has these days? I rather suspect most of them have never heard of "They Work For You" and such other sources, and no doubt they are comfortable in their own little mind bubble that if their ignorant and nasty remarks are not heard on the state broadcasting station then they can all have a smallminded chuckle over their "wit" and "wisdom" at denigrating any opposition to their Europhile views. Carry on, dear Lords, it is all being noted.

    They should beware. Lampposts have not only been earmarked, some of them have been tested.

  5. WitteringsfromWitneyDecember 21, 2011 at 9:31 PM

    Have commented, Helen, and linked!

  6. Henry Wood, I hate to teach any commenter on this blog basic skills but I do wonder whether you have heard of the term "irony". Perhaps you should look it up before you respond. They Work For You? Oh my, what a novel idea. I mean nobody apart from you would have heard of it.

    As for Lord Strathclyde's bloodline or marital affairs, I do not consider either to be relevant, for obvious reason.

    WfW, thanks as ever.

  7. Lord Strathclyde is working on European business. In the House of Lords?

    No question of conflict of interest? Sovereignty?

    Do the EU-collaborators not understand what happens once they are no longer required by the Burssels-based tyranny? Surplus to requirements? Perhaps even a danger to the State with their insider knowledge?

  8. Actually, the way things stand Parliament does work on European business. That is how the EU is structured: the legislation is implemented in the member states, sometimes by their legislature, sometimes by other bodies. If we want to defeat the EU we need to understand how it works and how it is structured. Emotional outbursts are tempting but not much use in the battle.

  9. I am also linked in to "They work for you" and the attemps at arrogant brush-off's by Govenment Ministers of all sides to Lord Pearsoin is well documented