Donate SIGN UP

Rwanda Bill Lords Delay

Avatar Image
fender62 | 23:09 Mon 22nd Jan 2024 | News
15 Answers

i expected this from the unelected, have no interest in the uk's welfare, the people have had enough, lords say no, have more.



1 to 15 of 15rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by fender62. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.

Hardly unexpected. Ultimately, having caused trouble, it'll pass anyway.

It won't get through before the election. So it'll never happen. The problem will be continue and get worse although it will be swept under the carpet from next year or solved by turning a blind eye or quickly granting asylum if someone claims it

and people posting on here have the temerity to complain that the EU is run by a bunch of un-elected bureaucrats (which is not true), when we have more un-elected law makers than elected in our parliament.

The government’s Rwanda plan has zero chance of success – if it passes the Lords, the government will be arguing in the Supreme Court that Rwanda is a safe place (because they have passed a law that says so); despite the court previously finding of fact that it is not a safe place, and we have recently taken refugees from Rwanda because it is not a safe place.

This was always going to happen.

The Rwanda plan was always going to fail.

The Supreme Court is very keen on obeying the law.

Question Author

go over there heads under national security, use the military, i think it would send message we mean business, tory's would get my vote if they did, dump the bbc license fee while there at it get even more votes, and the legal migrant gravy train.

"The Rwanda Plan"


Oh my aching sides. Incompetent middle-managers to a man and 'woman'.


Why won't ANY government grasp the nettle & undertake radical reform or even abolition of the Lords? Is it because they hope to go there for their retirement?

There has been quite a bit of reform of the Lords over the years most notably perhaps over hereditary peers. My main objection is that there are too many. The upper house can delay Bills but can't stop them. In certain cases they can't even delay them . Personally I think the extra scrutiny is a good  thing and I'm not sure I support another elected chamber, which might create conflict 

I simply ask 'why in a democracy, we have a parliament elected by US, that can be stalled, altered or side-lined by an unelected gathering of individuals NOT elected by US?'

Don't offer up the old chestnuts of age old tradition, hot bed of experience, safeguarding position etc etc.

We choose who represents us in parliament.  If we don't like their choices or the way they act, WE get rid. Regardless of one's opinion in this matter the HofL is not representative of the elctorates views.

Maybe we should start a campaign to join the EU, after all they have a far more democratic governmental system than the UK.

Imagine if a recent election had installed a lot of Labour "senators" to an upper house. The clamour might then be for their "scrutiny" to carry more democratic weight.

I'm just presenting a counter argument 

Abolish it in it's current form (stuffed full of political cronies that turn up for expenses and to have a kip), and replace it with an elected upper chamber.

It shouldn't be too difficult for a supposedly civilised modern democracy to achieve.

All the existing members could stand to be elected. Good luck with that Baroness Mone.


1 to 15 of 15rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Rwanda Bill Lords Delay

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.