Does the Brexit deal have to be agreed by both Houses?What are the roles of the two Houses of Parliament in the UK?Brexit vote passes through The CommonsWhat happens if Parliament rejects the Brexit deal?Brexit: Is a 'No deal' worse than a 'Bad Deal' for the UK, from a strictly economics based argumentIs the Brexit implementation period predicated on a deal with the EU?Brexit deal 'Meaningful vote' battle between House of Lords and House of CommonsVolume of UK law originating in the House of LordsWhat does Nicholas Watt mean that May has “enough tellers for her Brexit vote”?What will happen if Parliament votes “no” on each of the Brexit-related votes to be held on the 12th, 13th and 14th of March?Why didn't Theresa May consult with Parliament before negotiating a deal with the EU?

How to replace the "space symbol" (squat-u) in listings?

Is it possible to measure lightning discharges as Nikola Tesla?

Any examples of headwear for races with animal ears?

Counterexample: a pair of linearly ordered sets that are isomorphic to subsets of the other, but not isomorphic between them

Why is current rating for multicore cable lower than single core with the same cross section?

How can I place the product on a social media post better?

Why do Ichisongas hate elephants and hippos?

Single Colour Mastermind Problem

Can my Warlock be invisible and attack with its familiar?

Is there a way to get a compiler for the original B programming language?

What's the polite way to say "I need to urinate"?

Why didn't this hurt this character as badly?

gnu parallel how to use with ffmpeg

Why is the origin of “threshold” uncertain?

Can someone publish a story that happened to you?

Do I have an "anti-research" personality?

Transfer over $10k

Help, my Death Star suffers from Kessler syndrome!

When India mathematicians did know Euclid's Elements?

How to creep the reader out with what seems like a normal person?

Packing rectangles: Does rotation ever help?

Why does nature favour the Laplacian?

How can I record the screen and the rear camera on an iPhone simultaneously?

Why was the Spitfire's elliptical wing almost uncopied by other aircraft of World War 2?



Does the Brexit deal have to be agreed by both Houses?


What are the roles of the two Houses of Parliament in the UK?Brexit vote passes through The CommonsWhat happens if Parliament rejects the Brexit deal?Brexit: Is a 'No deal' worse than a 'Bad Deal' for the UK, from a strictly economics based argumentIs the Brexit implementation period predicated on a deal with the EU?Brexit deal 'Meaningful vote' battle between House of Lords and House of CommonsVolume of UK law originating in the House of LordsWhat does Nicholas Watt mean that May has “enough tellers for her Brexit vote”?What will happen if Parliament votes “no” on each of the Brexit-related votes to be held on the 12th, 13th and 14th of March?Why didn't Theresa May consult with Parliament before negotiating a deal with the EU?













14















Does the "divorce deal" have to be agreed by both the Commons and the Lords? If it does and the Lords reject it, what happens then?










share|improve this question




























    14















    Does the "divorce deal" have to be agreed by both the Commons and the Lords? If it does and the Lords reject it, what happens then?










    share|improve this question


























      14












      14








      14


      1






      Does the "divorce deal" have to be agreed by both the Commons and the Lords? If it does and the Lords reject it, what happens then?










      share|improve this question
















      Does the "divorce deal" have to be agreed by both the Commons and the Lords? If it does and the Lords reject it, what happens then?







      united-kingdom brexit house-of-commons house-of-lords






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Mar 28 at 23:32









      JJJ

      7,93832965




      7,93832965










      asked Mar 28 at 7:12









      SpacePhoenixSpacePhoenix

      23015




      23015




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          15














          It must. And the House of Commons can basically overrule the House of Lords if the latter gets in its way.



          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords#Legislative_functions




          The House of Lords debates legislation, and has power to amend or reject bills. However, the power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts. Under those Acts, certain types of bills may be presented for the Royal Assent without the consent of the House of Lords (i.e. the Commons can override the Lords' veto). The House of Lords cannot delay a money bill (a bill that, in the view of the Speaker of the House of Commons, solely concerns national taxation or public funds) for more than one month.



          Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of Lords for more than two parliamentary sessions, or one calendar year. These provisions, however, only apply to public bills that originate in the House of Commons, and cannot have the effect of extending a parliamentary term beyond five years. A further restriction is a constitutional convention known as the Salisbury Convention, which means that the House of Lords does not oppose legislation promised in the Government's election manifesto.







          share|improve this answer


















          • 1





            It might be worth adding (1) that the reason both Houses' approval is needed is because the Withdrawal Agreement requires an Act of Parliament to implement; and (2) why an Act is needed.

            – Steve Melnikoff
            Mar 28 at 9:12











          • In fact an Act isn't needed to ratify the treaty, only to implement whatever the treaty says the UK will do.

            – Steve Jessop
            Mar 28 at 23:09


















          23














          Denis has given the formal answer, but there is also a political reason why the House of Lords will not block a deal.



          The House of Lords is unelected, and the Lords are aware that the existence of their institution is controversial. If, after years of Brexit drama, the House of Commons were to finally pass a Withdrawal Agreement, only to be rejected by the House of Lords, there would be a major uproar, potentially to the level that the existence of the House of Lords may be under threat, but at least to the level that their powers may be severely curtailed further. For that reason alone, for such an important and controversial piece of legislation, the House of Lords will not block it when it has passed the House of Commons. It would be suicidal.






          share|improve this answer


















          • 8





            Doesn't that observation make the Lords obsolete anyway? Being a check on the Commons but only if it's not too controversialand they don't upset many people. That's like a military defending a country but only during peace time, if the stakes get too high we won't stabd in anyone's way. (actually reminds me of)

            – JJJ
            Mar 28 at 9:55






          • 1





            The House of Lords, which has had a variety of rôles over the centuries, has not been a check on the Commons since 1911, and was not really primarily such before then.

            – JdeBP
            Mar 28 at 10:14






          • 21





            @JJJ: no. The Lords' main job these days is to spend more time looking at the detail, and ask the Commons (well, the Government), "are you sure"? Sometimes the Commons will reply with, "ah, I see, that's a good point"; other times it will say, "yes, we're sure". The Lords has more time to scrutinise legislation than the Commons, more expertise in a wide variety of areas, and a lot less politics to get in the way of things. So (IMHO) it still has considerable value.

            – Steve Melnikoff
            Mar 28 at 10:37











          • "It would be suicidal." Isn't the whole thing?

            – Azor Ahai
            Mar 28 at 16:22






          • 5





            The Lords gain massively from being unelected - they are not as beholden to the short term whims and vageries of the general populace, and thus can perform a vital checks

            – Orangesandlemons
            Mar 28 at 17:50


















          2














          No. Only the House of Commons needs to agree the deal. The Lords has to debate it, but does not have to vote in favour of it.



          The Brexit deal is not legislation, it is an international treaty between the UK and the EU. Therefore the process for bills is irrelevant. That said, following the Brexit deal (if any) there will be legislation needed in order to actually enact the various things it says the UK will do, and that legislation will need to be passed in the usual way. This is why the government and the EU agreed that in the event of the deal being approved, Brexit will be delayed until the 22nd of May. It gives Parliament some time to prevent a harmful legal gap in which what the UK has agreed to do is not actually legislated for. But those votes are to find out whether (and with what details) the UK keeps to its treaty obligations, not to find out whether the UK signs and ratifies the treaty and leaves the EU.



          Ordinarily, treaties do not have to be voted for by both Houses, they merely need to not be voted against by either House. You can decide for yourself whether failing to vote against something counts as "agreeing" it. There are various circumstances under which a treaty might never be voted on at all (the most likely being that neither government nor opposition considers it to be worth spending their parliamentary time on, which of course would not apply in this case!). If there's no vote, the treaty is ratified.



          However, specifically for the Brexit deal, Section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (as amended by Grieve's business motion in November 2018) requires that the government places an amendable motion, the so-called "meaningful vote", before the House of Commons, and that the motion is passed by the House of Commons. It also requires that the government places a motion before the House of Lords, but that only has to be debated (on government time), not passed. You might ask what's the point of only requiring it's debated, but basically this is using the Lords in its role as an advisory body. It's up to the Commons to decide whether or not to take note of what the Lords say in their debate. But at the very least, the EU Withdrawal Act means the opposition doesn't need to find time for that debate, because it has to be a government motion.






          share|improve this answer

























          • neither government nor opposition considers it to be worth spending their parliamentary time on, which of course would not apply in this case, actually, it's only due to the Miller case ruling that Parliament gets a “meaningful vote” at all.

            – gerrit
            Mar 29 at 10:02











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "475"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39916%2fdoes-the-brexit-deal-have-to-be-agreed-by-both-houses%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes








          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          15














          It must. And the House of Commons can basically overrule the House of Lords if the latter gets in its way.



          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords#Legislative_functions




          The House of Lords debates legislation, and has power to amend or reject bills. However, the power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts. Under those Acts, certain types of bills may be presented for the Royal Assent without the consent of the House of Lords (i.e. the Commons can override the Lords' veto). The House of Lords cannot delay a money bill (a bill that, in the view of the Speaker of the House of Commons, solely concerns national taxation or public funds) for more than one month.



          Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of Lords for more than two parliamentary sessions, or one calendar year. These provisions, however, only apply to public bills that originate in the House of Commons, and cannot have the effect of extending a parliamentary term beyond five years. A further restriction is a constitutional convention known as the Salisbury Convention, which means that the House of Lords does not oppose legislation promised in the Government's election manifesto.







          share|improve this answer


















          • 1





            It might be worth adding (1) that the reason both Houses' approval is needed is because the Withdrawal Agreement requires an Act of Parliament to implement; and (2) why an Act is needed.

            – Steve Melnikoff
            Mar 28 at 9:12











          • In fact an Act isn't needed to ratify the treaty, only to implement whatever the treaty says the UK will do.

            – Steve Jessop
            Mar 28 at 23:09















          15














          It must. And the House of Commons can basically overrule the House of Lords if the latter gets in its way.



          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords#Legislative_functions




          The House of Lords debates legislation, and has power to amend or reject bills. However, the power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts. Under those Acts, certain types of bills may be presented for the Royal Assent without the consent of the House of Lords (i.e. the Commons can override the Lords' veto). The House of Lords cannot delay a money bill (a bill that, in the view of the Speaker of the House of Commons, solely concerns national taxation or public funds) for more than one month.



          Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of Lords for more than two parliamentary sessions, or one calendar year. These provisions, however, only apply to public bills that originate in the House of Commons, and cannot have the effect of extending a parliamentary term beyond five years. A further restriction is a constitutional convention known as the Salisbury Convention, which means that the House of Lords does not oppose legislation promised in the Government's election manifesto.







          share|improve this answer


















          • 1





            It might be worth adding (1) that the reason both Houses' approval is needed is because the Withdrawal Agreement requires an Act of Parliament to implement; and (2) why an Act is needed.

            – Steve Melnikoff
            Mar 28 at 9:12











          • In fact an Act isn't needed to ratify the treaty, only to implement whatever the treaty says the UK will do.

            – Steve Jessop
            Mar 28 at 23:09













          15












          15








          15







          It must. And the House of Commons can basically overrule the House of Lords if the latter gets in its way.



          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords#Legislative_functions




          The House of Lords debates legislation, and has power to amend or reject bills. However, the power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts. Under those Acts, certain types of bills may be presented for the Royal Assent without the consent of the House of Lords (i.e. the Commons can override the Lords' veto). The House of Lords cannot delay a money bill (a bill that, in the view of the Speaker of the House of Commons, solely concerns national taxation or public funds) for more than one month.



          Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of Lords for more than two parliamentary sessions, or one calendar year. These provisions, however, only apply to public bills that originate in the House of Commons, and cannot have the effect of extending a parliamentary term beyond five years. A further restriction is a constitutional convention known as the Salisbury Convention, which means that the House of Lords does not oppose legislation promised in the Government's election manifesto.







          share|improve this answer













          It must. And the House of Commons can basically overrule the House of Lords if the latter gets in its way.



          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords#Legislative_functions




          The House of Lords debates legislation, and has power to amend or reject bills. However, the power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts. Under those Acts, certain types of bills may be presented for the Royal Assent without the consent of the House of Lords (i.e. the Commons can override the Lords' veto). The House of Lords cannot delay a money bill (a bill that, in the view of the Speaker of the House of Commons, solely concerns national taxation or public funds) for more than one month.



          Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of Lords for more than two parliamentary sessions, or one calendar year. These provisions, however, only apply to public bills that originate in the House of Commons, and cannot have the effect of extending a parliamentary term beyond five years. A further restriction is a constitutional convention known as the Salisbury Convention, which means that the House of Lords does not oppose legislation promised in the Government's election manifesto.








          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Mar 28 at 7:15









          Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy

          16.4k34574




          16.4k34574







          • 1





            It might be worth adding (1) that the reason both Houses' approval is needed is because the Withdrawal Agreement requires an Act of Parliament to implement; and (2) why an Act is needed.

            – Steve Melnikoff
            Mar 28 at 9:12











          • In fact an Act isn't needed to ratify the treaty, only to implement whatever the treaty says the UK will do.

            – Steve Jessop
            Mar 28 at 23:09












          • 1





            It might be worth adding (1) that the reason both Houses' approval is needed is because the Withdrawal Agreement requires an Act of Parliament to implement; and (2) why an Act is needed.

            – Steve Melnikoff
            Mar 28 at 9:12











          • In fact an Act isn't needed to ratify the treaty, only to implement whatever the treaty says the UK will do.

            – Steve Jessop
            Mar 28 at 23:09







          1




          1





          It might be worth adding (1) that the reason both Houses' approval is needed is because the Withdrawal Agreement requires an Act of Parliament to implement; and (2) why an Act is needed.

          – Steve Melnikoff
          Mar 28 at 9:12





          It might be worth adding (1) that the reason both Houses' approval is needed is because the Withdrawal Agreement requires an Act of Parliament to implement; and (2) why an Act is needed.

          – Steve Melnikoff
          Mar 28 at 9:12













          In fact an Act isn't needed to ratify the treaty, only to implement whatever the treaty says the UK will do.

          – Steve Jessop
          Mar 28 at 23:09





          In fact an Act isn't needed to ratify the treaty, only to implement whatever the treaty says the UK will do.

          – Steve Jessop
          Mar 28 at 23:09











          23














          Denis has given the formal answer, but there is also a political reason why the House of Lords will not block a deal.



          The House of Lords is unelected, and the Lords are aware that the existence of their institution is controversial. If, after years of Brexit drama, the House of Commons were to finally pass a Withdrawal Agreement, only to be rejected by the House of Lords, there would be a major uproar, potentially to the level that the existence of the House of Lords may be under threat, but at least to the level that their powers may be severely curtailed further. For that reason alone, for such an important and controversial piece of legislation, the House of Lords will not block it when it has passed the House of Commons. It would be suicidal.






          share|improve this answer


















          • 8





            Doesn't that observation make the Lords obsolete anyway? Being a check on the Commons but only if it's not too controversialand they don't upset many people. That's like a military defending a country but only during peace time, if the stakes get too high we won't stabd in anyone's way. (actually reminds me of)

            – JJJ
            Mar 28 at 9:55






          • 1





            The House of Lords, which has had a variety of rôles over the centuries, has not been a check on the Commons since 1911, and was not really primarily such before then.

            – JdeBP
            Mar 28 at 10:14






          • 21





            @JJJ: no. The Lords' main job these days is to spend more time looking at the detail, and ask the Commons (well, the Government), "are you sure"? Sometimes the Commons will reply with, "ah, I see, that's a good point"; other times it will say, "yes, we're sure". The Lords has more time to scrutinise legislation than the Commons, more expertise in a wide variety of areas, and a lot less politics to get in the way of things. So (IMHO) it still has considerable value.

            – Steve Melnikoff
            Mar 28 at 10:37











          • "It would be suicidal." Isn't the whole thing?

            – Azor Ahai
            Mar 28 at 16:22






          • 5





            The Lords gain massively from being unelected - they are not as beholden to the short term whims and vageries of the general populace, and thus can perform a vital checks

            – Orangesandlemons
            Mar 28 at 17:50















          23














          Denis has given the formal answer, but there is also a political reason why the House of Lords will not block a deal.



          The House of Lords is unelected, and the Lords are aware that the existence of their institution is controversial. If, after years of Brexit drama, the House of Commons were to finally pass a Withdrawal Agreement, only to be rejected by the House of Lords, there would be a major uproar, potentially to the level that the existence of the House of Lords may be under threat, but at least to the level that their powers may be severely curtailed further. For that reason alone, for such an important and controversial piece of legislation, the House of Lords will not block it when it has passed the House of Commons. It would be suicidal.






          share|improve this answer


















          • 8





            Doesn't that observation make the Lords obsolete anyway? Being a check on the Commons but only if it's not too controversialand they don't upset many people. That's like a military defending a country but only during peace time, if the stakes get too high we won't stabd in anyone's way. (actually reminds me of)

            – JJJ
            Mar 28 at 9:55






          • 1





            The House of Lords, which has had a variety of rôles over the centuries, has not been a check on the Commons since 1911, and was not really primarily such before then.

            – JdeBP
            Mar 28 at 10:14






          • 21





            @JJJ: no. The Lords' main job these days is to spend more time looking at the detail, and ask the Commons (well, the Government), "are you sure"? Sometimes the Commons will reply with, "ah, I see, that's a good point"; other times it will say, "yes, we're sure". The Lords has more time to scrutinise legislation than the Commons, more expertise in a wide variety of areas, and a lot less politics to get in the way of things. So (IMHO) it still has considerable value.

            – Steve Melnikoff
            Mar 28 at 10:37











          • "It would be suicidal." Isn't the whole thing?

            – Azor Ahai
            Mar 28 at 16:22






          • 5





            The Lords gain massively from being unelected - they are not as beholden to the short term whims and vageries of the general populace, and thus can perform a vital checks

            – Orangesandlemons
            Mar 28 at 17:50













          23












          23








          23







          Denis has given the formal answer, but there is also a political reason why the House of Lords will not block a deal.



          The House of Lords is unelected, and the Lords are aware that the existence of their institution is controversial. If, after years of Brexit drama, the House of Commons were to finally pass a Withdrawal Agreement, only to be rejected by the House of Lords, there would be a major uproar, potentially to the level that the existence of the House of Lords may be under threat, but at least to the level that their powers may be severely curtailed further. For that reason alone, for such an important and controversial piece of legislation, the House of Lords will not block it when it has passed the House of Commons. It would be suicidal.






          share|improve this answer













          Denis has given the formal answer, but there is also a political reason why the House of Lords will not block a deal.



          The House of Lords is unelected, and the Lords are aware that the existence of their institution is controversial. If, after years of Brexit drama, the House of Commons were to finally pass a Withdrawal Agreement, only to be rejected by the House of Lords, there would be a major uproar, potentially to the level that the existence of the House of Lords may be under threat, but at least to the level that their powers may be severely curtailed further. For that reason alone, for such an important and controversial piece of legislation, the House of Lords will not block it when it has passed the House of Commons. It would be suicidal.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Mar 28 at 8:38









          gerritgerrit

          21.2k1085190




          21.2k1085190







          • 8





            Doesn't that observation make the Lords obsolete anyway? Being a check on the Commons but only if it's not too controversialand they don't upset many people. That's like a military defending a country but only during peace time, if the stakes get too high we won't stabd in anyone's way. (actually reminds me of)

            – JJJ
            Mar 28 at 9:55






          • 1





            The House of Lords, which has had a variety of rôles over the centuries, has not been a check on the Commons since 1911, and was not really primarily such before then.

            – JdeBP
            Mar 28 at 10:14






          • 21





            @JJJ: no. The Lords' main job these days is to spend more time looking at the detail, and ask the Commons (well, the Government), "are you sure"? Sometimes the Commons will reply with, "ah, I see, that's a good point"; other times it will say, "yes, we're sure". The Lords has more time to scrutinise legislation than the Commons, more expertise in a wide variety of areas, and a lot less politics to get in the way of things. So (IMHO) it still has considerable value.

            – Steve Melnikoff
            Mar 28 at 10:37











          • "It would be suicidal." Isn't the whole thing?

            – Azor Ahai
            Mar 28 at 16:22






          • 5





            The Lords gain massively from being unelected - they are not as beholden to the short term whims and vageries of the general populace, and thus can perform a vital checks

            – Orangesandlemons
            Mar 28 at 17:50












          • 8





            Doesn't that observation make the Lords obsolete anyway? Being a check on the Commons but only if it's not too controversialand they don't upset many people. That's like a military defending a country but only during peace time, if the stakes get too high we won't stabd in anyone's way. (actually reminds me of)

            – JJJ
            Mar 28 at 9:55






          • 1





            The House of Lords, which has had a variety of rôles over the centuries, has not been a check on the Commons since 1911, and was not really primarily such before then.

            – JdeBP
            Mar 28 at 10:14






          • 21





            @JJJ: no. The Lords' main job these days is to spend more time looking at the detail, and ask the Commons (well, the Government), "are you sure"? Sometimes the Commons will reply with, "ah, I see, that's a good point"; other times it will say, "yes, we're sure". The Lords has more time to scrutinise legislation than the Commons, more expertise in a wide variety of areas, and a lot less politics to get in the way of things. So (IMHO) it still has considerable value.

            – Steve Melnikoff
            Mar 28 at 10:37











          • "It would be suicidal." Isn't the whole thing?

            – Azor Ahai
            Mar 28 at 16:22






          • 5





            The Lords gain massively from being unelected - they are not as beholden to the short term whims and vageries of the general populace, and thus can perform a vital checks

            – Orangesandlemons
            Mar 28 at 17:50







          8




          8





          Doesn't that observation make the Lords obsolete anyway? Being a check on the Commons but only if it's not too controversialand they don't upset many people. That's like a military defending a country but only during peace time, if the stakes get too high we won't stabd in anyone's way. (actually reminds me of)

          – JJJ
          Mar 28 at 9:55





          Doesn't that observation make the Lords obsolete anyway? Being a check on the Commons but only if it's not too controversialand they don't upset many people. That's like a military defending a country but only during peace time, if the stakes get too high we won't stabd in anyone's way. (actually reminds me of)

          – JJJ
          Mar 28 at 9:55




          1




          1





          The House of Lords, which has had a variety of rôles over the centuries, has not been a check on the Commons since 1911, and was not really primarily such before then.

          – JdeBP
          Mar 28 at 10:14





          The House of Lords, which has had a variety of rôles over the centuries, has not been a check on the Commons since 1911, and was not really primarily such before then.

          – JdeBP
          Mar 28 at 10:14




          21




          21





          @JJJ: no. The Lords' main job these days is to spend more time looking at the detail, and ask the Commons (well, the Government), "are you sure"? Sometimes the Commons will reply with, "ah, I see, that's a good point"; other times it will say, "yes, we're sure". The Lords has more time to scrutinise legislation than the Commons, more expertise in a wide variety of areas, and a lot less politics to get in the way of things. So (IMHO) it still has considerable value.

          – Steve Melnikoff
          Mar 28 at 10:37





          @JJJ: no. The Lords' main job these days is to spend more time looking at the detail, and ask the Commons (well, the Government), "are you sure"? Sometimes the Commons will reply with, "ah, I see, that's a good point"; other times it will say, "yes, we're sure". The Lords has more time to scrutinise legislation than the Commons, more expertise in a wide variety of areas, and a lot less politics to get in the way of things. So (IMHO) it still has considerable value.

          – Steve Melnikoff
          Mar 28 at 10:37













          "It would be suicidal." Isn't the whole thing?

          – Azor Ahai
          Mar 28 at 16:22





          "It would be suicidal." Isn't the whole thing?

          – Azor Ahai
          Mar 28 at 16:22




          5




          5





          The Lords gain massively from being unelected - they are not as beholden to the short term whims and vageries of the general populace, and thus can perform a vital checks

          – Orangesandlemons
          Mar 28 at 17:50





          The Lords gain massively from being unelected - they are not as beholden to the short term whims and vageries of the general populace, and thus can perform a vital checks

          – Orangesandlemons
          Mar 28 at 17:50











          2














          No. Only the House of Commons needs to agree the deal. The Lords has to debate it, but does not have to vote in favour of it.



          The Brexit deal is not legislation, it is an international treaty between the UK and the EU. Therefore the process for bills is irrelevant. That said, following the Brexit deal (if any) there will be legislation needed in order to actually enact the various things it says the UK will do, and that legislation will need to be passed in the usual way. This is why the government and the EU agreed that in the event of the deal being approved, Brexit will be delayed until the 22nd of May. It gives Parliament some time to prevent a harmful legal gap in which what the UK has agreed to do is not actually legislated for. But those votes are to find out whether (and with what details) the UK keeps to its treaty obligations, not to find out whether the UK signs and ratifies the treaty and leaves the EU.



          Ordinarily, treaties do not have to be voted for by both Houses, they merely need to not be voted against by either House. You can decide for yourself whether failing to vote against something counts as "agreeing" it. There are various circumstances under which a treaty might never be voted on at all (the most likely being that neither government nor opposition considers it to be worth spending their parliamentary time on, which of course would not apply in this case!). If there's no vote, the treaty is ratified.



          However, specifically for the Brexit deal, Section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (as amended by Grieve's business motion in November 2018) requires that the government places an amendable motion, the so-called "meaningful vote", before the House of Commons, and that the motion is passed by the House of Commons. It also requires that the government places a motion before the House of Lords, but that only has to be debated (on government time), not passed. You might ask what's the point of only requiring it's debated, but basically this is using the Lords in its role as an advisory body. It's up to the Commons to decide whether or not to take note of what the Lords say in their debate. But at the very least, the EU Withdrawal Act means the opposition doesn't need to find time for that debate, because it has to be a government motion.






          share|improve this answer

























          • neither government nor opposition considers it to be worth spending their parliamentary time on, which of course would not apply in this case, actually, it's only due to the Miller case ruling that Parliament gets a “meaningful vote” at all.

            – gerrit
            Mar 29 at 10:02















          2














          No. Only the House of Commons needs to agree the deal. The Lords has to debate it, but does not have to vote in favour of it.



          The Brexit deal is not legislation, it is an international treaty between the UK and the EU. Therefore the process for bills is irrelevant. That said, following the Brexit deal (if any) there will be legislation needed in order to actually enact the various things it says the UK will do, and that legislation will need to be passed in the usual way. This is why the government and the EU agreed that in the event of the deal being approved, Brexit will be delayed until the 22nd of May. It gives Parliament some time to prevent a harmful legal gap in which what the UK has agreed to do is not actually legislated for. But those votes are to find out whether (and with what details) the UK keeps to its treaty obligations, not to find out whether the UK signs and ratifies the treaty and leaves the EU.



          Ordinarily, treaties do not have to be voted for by both Houses, they merely need to not be voted against by either House. You can decide for yourself whether failing to vote against something counts as "agreeing" it. There are various circumstances under which a treaty might never be voted on at all (the most likely being that neither government nor opposition considers it to be worth spending their parliamentary time on, which of course would not apply in this case!). If there's no vote, the treaty is ratified.



          However, specifically for the Brexit deal, Section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (as amended by Grieve's business motion in November 2018) requires that the government places an amendable motion, the so-called "meaningful vote", before the House of Commons, and that the motion is passed by the House of Commons. It also requires that the government places a motion before the House of Lords, but that only has to be debated (on government time), not passed. You might ask what's the point of only requiring it's debated, but basically this is using the Lords in its role as an advisory body. It's up to the Commons to decide whether or not to take note of what the Lords say in their debate. But at the very least, the EU Withdrawal Act means the opposition doesn't need to find time for that debate, because it has to be a government motion.






          share|improve this answer

























          • neither government nor opposition considers it to be worth spending their parliamentary time on, which of course would not apply in this case, actually, it's only due to the Miller case ruling that Parliament gets a “meaningful vote” at all.

            – gerrit
            Mar 29 at 10:02













          2












          2








          2







          No. Only the House of Commons needs to agree the deal. The Lords has to debate it, but does not have to vote in favour of it.



          The Brexit deal is not legislation, it is an international treaty between the UK and the EU. Therefore the process for bills is irrelevant. That said, following the Brexit deal (if any) there will be legislation needed in order to actually enact the various things it says the UK will do, and that legislation will need to be passed in the usual way. This is why the government and the EU agreed that in the event of the deal being approved, Brexit will be delayed until the 22nd of May. It gives Parliament some time to prevent a harmful legal gap in which what the UK has agreed to do is not actually legislated for. But those votes are to find out whether (and with what details) the UK keeps to its treaty obligations, not to find out whether the UK signs and ratifies the treaty and leaves the EU.



          Ordinarily, treaties do not have to be voted for by both Houses, they merely need to not be voted against by either House. You can decide for yourself whether failing to vote against something counts as "agreeing" it. There are various circumstances under which a treaty might never be voted on at all (the most likely being that neither government nor opposition considers it to be worth spending their parliamentary time on, which of course would not apply in this case!). If there's no vote, the treaty is ratified.



          However, specifically for the Brexit deal, Section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (as amended by Grieve's business motion in November 2018) requires that the government places an amendable motion, the so-called "meaningful vote", before the House of Commons, and that the motion is passed by the House of Commons. It also requires that the government places a motion before the House of Lords, but that only has to be debated (on government time), not passed. You might ask what's the point of only requiring it's debated, but basically this is using the Lords in its role as an advisory body. It's up to the Commons to decide whether or not to take note of what the Lords say in their debate. But at the very least, the EU Withdrawal Act means the opposition doesn't need to find time for that debate, because it has to be a government motion.






          share|improve this answer















          No. Only the House of Commons needs to agree the deal. The Lords has to debate it, but does not have to vote in favour of it.



          The Brexit deal is not legislation, it is an international treaty between the UK and the EU. Therefore the process for bills is irrelevant. That said, following the Brexit deal (if any) there will be legislation needed in order to actually enact the various things it says the UK will do, and that legislation will need to be passed in the usual way. This is why the government and the EU agreed that in the event of the deal being approved, Brexit will be delayed until the 22nd of May. It gives Parliament some time to prevent a harmful legal gap in which what the UK has agreed to do is not actually legislated for. But those votes are to find out whether (and with what details) the UK keeps to its treaty obligations, not to find out whether the UK signs and ratifies the treaty and leaves the EU.



          Ordinarily, treaties do not have to be voted for by both Houses, they merely need to not be voted against by either House. You can decide for yourself whether failing to vote against something counts as "agreeing" it. There are various circumstances under which a treaty might never be voted on at all (the most likely being that neither government nor opposition considers it to be worth spending their parliamentary time on, which of course would not apply in this case!). If there's no vote, the treaty is ratified.



          However, specifically for the Brexit deal, Section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (as amended by Grieve's business motion in November 2018) requires that the government places an amendable motion, the so-called "meaningful vote", before the House of Commons, and that the motion is passed by the House of Commons. It also requires that the government places a motion before the House of Lords, but that only has to be debated (on government time), not passed. You might ask what's the point of only requiring it's debated, but basically this is using the Lords in its role as an advisory body. It's up to the Commons to decide whether or not to take note of what the Lords say in their debate. But at the very least, the EU Withdrawal Act means the opposition doesn't need to find time for that debate, because it has to be a government motion.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Mar 28 at 23:23

























          answered Mar 28 at 23:05









          Steve JessopSteve Jessop

          67059




          67059












          • neither government nor opposition considers it to be worth spending their parliamentary time on, which of course would not apply in this case, actually, it's only due to the Miller case ruling that Parliament gets a “meaningful vote” at all.

            – gerrit
            Mar 29 at 10:02

















          • neither government nor opposition considers it to be worth spending their parliamentary time on, which of course would not apply in this case, actually, it's only due to the Miller case ruling that Parliament gets a “meaningful vote” at all.

            – gerrit
            Mar 29 at 10:02
















          neither government nor opposition considers it to be worth spending their parliamentary time on, which of course would not apply in this case, actually, it's only due to the Miller case ruling that Parliament gets a “meaningful vote” at all.

          – gerrit
          Mar 29 at 10:02





          neither government nor opposition considers it to be worth spending their parliamentary time on, which of course would not apply in this case, actually, it's only due to the Miller case ruling that Parliament gets a “meaningful vote” at all.

          – gerrit
          Mar 29 at 10:02

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39916%2fdoes-the-brexit-deal-have-to-be-agreed-by-both-houses%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Bruad Bilen | Luke uk diar | NawigatsjuunCommonskategorii: BruadCommonskategorii: RunstükenWikiquote: Bruad

          What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?

          Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029