Fifty Labour amendments to kill Bill for EU referendum

[Chippiewill]

David Cameron's plan to give the public a vote on membership of the European Union could be defeated within weeks after Labour peers tabled dozens of outlandish amendments that could halt its progress in Parliament.
More than 50 amendments were tabled for the committee stage of the EU Referendum Bill, including holding a petition of a million voters, posing the questions in Cornish and giving prisoners the vote, the Telegraph has learnt.
As a private member’s Bill, it has a limited time to pass through Parliament. It can only be debated on Fridays and must be approved by both houses by February 28.
Conservatives said the amendments amounted to a plot conducted on behalf of Ed Miliband to “talk the Bill to death”.
The Bill sets in law a commitment to hold an in/out referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU by 2017. It sailed through the Commons before reaching the Lords.
Fifty-six amendments have been tabled so far, and more are expected before Friday’s committee stage. Forty have been tabled by a single Labour peer – Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, who served as a Scotland minister under Tony Blair.
They include requiring a petition of a million people before the referendum can be held, moving the deadline to May this year, inserting a minimum turnout threshold and giving the Scottish First Minister – Europhile Alex Salmond - a veto.
Lord Foulkes also proposes extending the vote to 16-year-olds, prisoners and EU citizens, and asking the questions in Gaelic, Doric (a Scottish dialect) and Cornish.
Lord Foulkes has tabled amendments to insert the word “consultative” in the Bill and change “must” to “may” – making any referendum optional and non-binding.
Lord Foulkes told The Telegraph he opposes a referendum and admitted he does not support “most” of the amendments.
But he insisted: “I can guarantee you there will be no filibustering. There are serious matters that need to be considered. It’s a classic operation of backbenchers doing their job of testing a Bill.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...eferendum.html

Lord Foulkes can go suck a ****. Most of the other guys' amendments make sense (Such as publishing the intended EU relationship prior to referendum), he's just being an ********.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Labour don't want a referendum, neither do the Liberal Democrats (despite an explicit promise of an in/out vote in their last manifesto) nor to the Conservatives. Indeed if you ask me, the Tories are very happy about the bill being blocked. It's all theatre for 2015, none of them mean it.

Peter Hitchens wrote a great blog the other day which you might fancy reading on how he believes the Tories and Liberal Democrats will engineer a false argument after the European Elections which will result in the Coalition being disbanded, Clegg off to Brussels and a 'supply and demand' deal being struck whereby both parties can appeal to their core voters to return before 2015: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....overnment.html

I’m going to repeat here my prediction of what will happen after May 22nd, when the Euro-elections seem likely to leave both the Coalition Parties severely bruised.

A pretext will be found for the Liberal Democrats to walk out of the Coalition – they may well get rid of their leader, Nick Clegg, and replace him with Vince Cable. Mr Clegg would then be available to fill the post of UK EU Commissioner, which Baroness Ashton will vacate later this year.

But, thanks to the Fixed Term law, their walk-out will not trigger an election. A ‘confidence and supply’ deal, under which the Lib Dems will continue to vote with the Tories on absolutely basic issues, will be struck. Labour (which is in no hurry to hold an election, and is very likely to need the Lib Dems for a working majority after May 2015) will stand by and let this happen.

There’ll then be a sort of Lynton Crosby era, during which the Australian alleged genius will feed UKIP-style legislation on Human Rights, immigration and the EU into the Tory Parliamentary Party. They will adopt this stuff in the certainty that it will fail to pass, but in the hope that the dimmer type of Tory voter will be fooled by it into returning from UKIP or abstention. Anyone who is bamboozled by this deserves anything he or she gets.

[Chippiewill]

To be honest, I'm not too fussed about the context. I know the situation, what infuriates me is that it's a single unelected person subverting the democratic process with ridiculous notions like 'give alex salmond a veto'. Frankly, even if it were a bill promoting killing kittens I'd be pissed off.

[dbgtz]

I know it's probably just to see the bill killed but what on Earth kind of proposal is the one allowing Salmond a veto? I could say so many things wrong with that idea, honest to god that guy sounds like a right arse. And what's the point in 1 million petition votes for a referendum? Surely the point of the referendum is to find out if people want something or not. Perhaps the only one that does make sense is extending it to 16 year olds, but even then it's a push.

[The Don]

I know it's probably just to see the bill killed but what on Earth kind of proposal is the one allowing Salmond a veto? I could say so many things wrong with that idea, honest to god that guy sounds like a right arse. And what's the point in 1 million petition votes for a referendum? Surely the point of the referendum is to find out if people want something or not. Perhaps the only one that does make sense is extending it to 16 year olds, but even then it's a push.

There should definitely be a minimum petition vote required for a referendum on such an important issue if not just to show that there's sufficient public desire to warrant it.

[Chippiewill]

And what's the point in 1 million petition votes for a referendum?

Referendum's are expensive to run. It makes sense to have a reasonable petition restriction to see if people actually care enough to warrant the cost. Especially since petitions are basically free.

[FlyingJesus]

Aren't there already petitions with millions of signatures though idk and this whole process seems ridiculous, it's the same as filibustering in that it's a loophole for angry opposition to hold up progress. Then of course they'll probably make a campaign saying that Cameron didn't get his bill through despite promises or whatever...

[The Don]

Aren't there already petitions with millions of signatures though idk and this whole process seems ridiculous, it's the same as filibustering in that it's a loophole for angry opposition to hold up progress. Then of course they'll probably make a campaign saying that Cameron didn't get his bill through despite promises or whatever...

I just had a brief search but couldn't see any topping 100,000 which isn't much when you consider the top petition at the moment is called "Stop Holiday companies charging extra in school holidays" and also has over 100,000.

If there have been past petitions with a large number of signatures then I agree that doing another poll would be a bit pointless, although I don't see what damage one final petition could do.

[FlyingJesus]

lmao what a great petition to have at the top, but yeah they do expire really quickly for some reason

[-:Undertaker:-]

Aren't there already petitions with millions of signatures though idk and this whole process seems ridiculous, it's the same as filibustering in that it's a loophole for angry opposition to hold up progress. Then of course they'll probably make a campaign saying that Cameron didn't get his bill through despite promises or whatever...

Or that Cameron/the Conservatives don't want the bill to get through so that he can turn around and beg for a parliamentary majority in 2015. After all, Cameron said he didn't want a referendum only a couple of years ago -

"We will put [the EU constitutional Treaty] to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a ‘Yes’ vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe."

Lies lies lies lies lies lies LIES. A shower of lying *******s the lot of them.