It is perfectly proper for House of Lords to insist House of Commons think again with certain types of legislation.
This delaying power is expressly part of the Parliament Acts.
It is not an outright veto.
If Commons in their next session pass same Bill a year from now then it becomes law.
theguardian.com/politics/2024/…
Rwanda bill likely to be stalled at least till April after seven defeats in the Lords
Peers voted for numerous amendments making it improbable the legislation will return to the Commons this side of EasterRajeev Syal (The Guardian)
reshared this
Pete Alex Harris🦡🕸️🌲/∞🪐∫
in reply to d a t green • • •I see James Cleverly is still insisting that it's intended to be a deterrent to send people somewhere safe, but Lords' amendments to monitor and ensure that it's really somewhere safe are "wrecking" it.
I feel like we are owed a little more explanation there.
Mike Taylor 🦕
in reply to d a t green • • •Alexandra Lanes
in reply to Mike Taylor 🦕 • •Jacinta Is. likes this.
Mike Taylor 🦕
in reply to Alexandra Lanes • • •@ajlanes I see. I suppose the intent was that if the Lords kept sending something back over and over, the Commons would take the hint.
(I have to admit, in my Reductio Ad Absurdum, I struggled to come up with a hypothetical policy more obviously immoral than "send refugess to a country known for its genocides and human-rights abuses".)
d a t green
in reply to Mike Taylor 🦕 • • •@mike
No, there is no absolute veto is the Bill is passed by the Commons again a year later in identical terms.
You would then be looking to the monarch to not give it royal assent.
Alexandra Lanes likes this.
Mike Taylor 🦕
in reply to d a t green • • •Jonathan
in reply to d a t green • • •A fair description by the Home Secretary of the COVID PPE profiteers who benefitted so much from this government during the pandemic