Johnson's Brexit Plan Rejected by the House of Lords: Internal Market Bill Amended - TLDR News

[@christopherg2347]

What Boris thinks he is saying: "I altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further." What other people actually say: "Be carefull not to choke on your aspirations."

[@buskergirl]

Still waiting for Boris to tell me "the Empire will compensate you" if his plans go wrong.

[@connordarragh1068]

Was that a robot chicken joke

[@danielwebb8402]

👏👏👏

[@manuelromero8007]

@@danielwebb8402 uk out of the eu now

[@manuelromero8007]

@@buskergirl no more

[@samwebb5648]

That bill was a joke and a shameful display of the incompetence of Boris and his cabinet. How can anyone trust the UK's future agreements if this were to pass?

[@astrumespanol]

As a non British person, I can tell you that if that bill passes, it would ruin your country's credibility. Who would sign any agreement with a rogue country with no regard for international law?

[@samwebb5648]

@@astrumespanol Exactly! It's insane, and I'm glad the Lords shot the bill dead. All brexit has done to date is destroy our credibility and it's on track to destroy our economy too.

[@AldTar]

The problem is even greater than that. The existance of this bill inimicates the EU and the US and the relations between the UK and China are at their lowest. Being in bad relations with the two biggest single markets and with the first developing country is all but good for the UK (considering also that the US, most of the EU and the UK are also military allies)

[@georgesdelatour]

@@AldTar Could you imagine the US signing and honouring an international treaty which gave the other signatory the right to impose an economic blockade between two parts of US sovereign territory? Even if, somehow, the US did wind up signing such a treaty, it’s 100% certain the Supreme Court would overturn it.

[@mrid5850]

@@georgesdelatour Then Johnson shouldn't have signed the deal.

[@lexslate2476]

"This bill, if passed, would damage our international reputation. Given that we are already the world's leading exporter of independence days, I don't think we want to go there."

[@undertone2472]

😂

[@szuegyigabriel3159]

Fuckin Gold

[@tygonmaster]

See, now you are just driving home a case for the UK to get into the fireworks market. :^)

[@venkataramansomasundaram5905]

So what? Who cares? EU can't give a shit about our reputations nor do the geriatrics!

[@steveaustin2686]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@spoopytime9928]

TL;DR: House of Lords: Wait, that's illegal.

[@stoobydootoo4098]

Where did you see a semicolon??

[@frankeinfish]

@@stoobydootoo4098 Semicolon has been the standard way of shortening 'Too long didn't read' for as long as the abbreviation has been used...

[@Rig0r_M0rtis]

@@frankeinfish lol burned

[@OberstStein]

Unelected Lords, better for the country than elected politicians. What does this tell us about the voters...

[@Marcusjnmc]

the MPs of the conservatives ran on contradictory mandates, to get brexit done as fast as possible and to ensure the integrity of the union, so this mess is precisely what people voted for being enacted, and better for the country is subjective, though likely not in the total mahjority a very large number of voters voted with the full expectation of being worse off while getting brexit faster & prioritised brexit over wellbeing, if that sentiment is correct this mess would be considered 'better for the country' while being worse for the individual.

[@InsanitiesBrother]

All you mean in this situation is. Unelected people agree with me. So good. It's scary that you don't see the danger of this. Now imagine they didn't agree with you... Would they suddenly then be a problem but not now?

[@peterebel7899]

What does this tells us about the last decades education politics and media politics? The Lords are simply too old to be infringed by this stack to sanity.

[@innocento.1552]

@@InsanitiesBrother please learn from @Peter Ebel 's comment. The point you were trying to respond to flew past your head faster than a supersonic jet.

[@InsanitiesBrother]

@@innocento.1552 Why don't you read and realise what I said in no way conflates with what he said. What I said is pointing out first and foremost that democracy is more important the overall progression. The person I replied to was trying to imply that a good democratic system would or should produce better results than a less democratic system. I was pointing out that if the only reason they are coming to this conclusion is because they agree with the house of lords then it's bad. Nothing flew over my head here. It's a simple case of reality. As a whole, a dictatorship can do better things than a democracy. However, that isn't a complete argument in favour of a dictatorship. Why don't you read hmm.

[@tepesobrejac4360]

The House of Lords. That one voice of reason nobody likes.

[@olsenfernandes3634]

Indeed

[@shanehull6235]

The lords shouldn’t even exist they make a mockery of an already weak democracy they only seem useful atm because the government is probably the worst in history and they a the only ones with any power against them

[@olsenfernandes3634]

@@shanehull6235 Did you ever read the law? The UK wasn't meant to be a complete democracy.

[@Cheesblenders4all]

@@olsenfernandes3634 just because it was "meant to be that way" by the toffs who have been in charge of the UK since God knows when, doesnt make it OK

[@tacticalidiots2340]

@@shanehull6235 They put up the most legislative resistance against the Iraq War. I feel most animosity towards the Lords comes from the name, if it was much more mundanely named people wouldn't care.

[@Croz89]

I must admit, I do like listening to the house of lords. It's like listening to guests at a posh dinner party, while the commons are at the kids table yelling and jeering.

[@ea4966]

Lord Judge:" We must not be supine" What I heard:"Great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jellies"

[@buskergirl]

Me, as a sports therapist: why would they want to go face down

[@DucksCourage]

I hope they double insist... Come on Lords, be useful

[@micoanzing2524]

It is nice to know that the Lords uphold the rule of law, but it won't change anything. The government has already announced that they will reinstate the clauses. This will not happen before the deadline of agreeing to a deal is reached. So, this basically means no deal, because the EU is not agreeing to a deal as long as the thread to the withdrawal agreement is hovering above their heads. Even if Barnier would bring such a deal, the EU parliament won't sign it. And the commission neither. To say it with the words of Michael Jackson "This is it"!

[@zerto111]

​@@micoanzing2524 It however might protect the UK of EU sanctions. When the UK actually breaks international law through this bill then it's not unthinkable the EU will apply economic sanctions upon the UK. That's not just a no deal outcome. It's worse...

[@micoanzing2524]

@@zerto111 In case of the UK breaking the withdrawal agreement by invoking the §45 of the internal market bill, it is only at the first appearance a softening of the situation. Then the EU will have to put the boarder on the island of Ireland, plus sanctions in place. This means no deal with the US as well. And which country (Australia?) will send a ship around the globe to the UK under WTO terms? All profit then gone... The alternative would of course be high inflation in the UK! Very gloomy outlook. But wait, this is only project fear...

[@ruedelta]

@@micoanzing2524 Japan, apparently.

[@micoanzing2524]

@@ruedelta Oh yes, the famous Japan deal, where Liss Truss deluded the UK and MPs that they would have benefits... But in the real world.... Japan has quite a number of automotive plants in the UK, which would all render unprofitable without a deal. So, it is to protect the Japanese companies.

[@earthman6700]

Good, good. House of Lords doing a fine job of keeping some small degree of sanity in our politics.

[@julienboyer]

Seems Johnson wants a hard border in ireland but put the blame on the EU for that.

[@tonyb9735]

Johnson still thinks he can bully the EU into a situation where we can have our cake and eat it. He believes he can force the EU into a position where they allow us to be both in and out of the EU. He wants the benefits of the single market but doesn't want to pay the price. I think it is unlikely that he can push the EU that far but if he does then it will have been a political master-stroke. The problem is that the odds are long and he's betting more than we can afford to lose.

[@YouD0ntSay]

Well he can't because the WA is effective with or without a trade deal.

[@mikepost8965]

Winston Churchill should have removed the border as he promised he would do when he signed the Anglo Irish Treaty in 1922. The sins of the fathers etc

[@theagg]

Redwood'worm sent a letter to Biden recently effectively saying that, trying to blame the EU if a hard border ensues. I don't think Biden will buy that

[@physiocrat7143]

@@tonyb9735 What is the cake and who is eating it?

[@calvin3798]

BoJo’s Bizarre Adventure: Parliamentary PingPong saga

[@ldno3747]

The irony of this whole thing... In their attempt to leave the control of what they called the unelected they are now being told what to do by the unelected...

[@miguellopes7627]

China already said that if the UK breaks international law then their deal with China about Hong Kong is also going to be ignored

[@MalloonTarka]

To be fair, that was already happening.

[@Marcusjnmc]

^ they were going to do that anyway, it was already a stated goal that was gradually being acted upon, this is just a reaction to an opportunity for political point scoring the PRC took advantage of to retroactively justify it.

[@tonyb9735]

@@Marcusjnmc Which is exactly the point; if we ourselves do not observe international law how can we complain when others do the same thing? It's a race to the bottom.

[@yc-tai]

UK has already broken international law; just to make it clear, there was no democracy in Hong Kopng under UK rule.

[@Marcusjnmc]

@@yc-tai 'things were bad for hong kong before so doing more bad things to them is fine and of course doesn't make us just as bad or worse'

[@themartianway]

Brexit at this point reminds me of that South Park episode where Canada go's on strike.

[@VivaChandles]

So how could this “end very very badly” for the House of Lords if they reject it?

[@ea4966]

Commons can pass bills that further limit ability of the Lord's, as they have done slowly over the last century

[@ea4966]

@@gorkym8864 yup, it takes our system from the absolute monarchy, to one of parliament acting as a body to exercise legaslative authority, to one where The Executive as a part of the commons uses parliamentary sovereignty to effectively have damn near total powers

[@darrell2322]

It's times like these that old governmental institutions with strong principles are needed.

[@NovaFrederick]

"Finally we have passed a brexit plan through the house of commons!" The lords:

[@nninjastrike2127]

Fitting profile pic

[@kgw72]

Well, I guess that "unelected officials ruling from their chairs" it is fine and alright as long as it's British chairs…

[@Mandemon1990]

It's always been most amusing to me that British complain about "unelected officials" when vast majority of their own government is build around unelectec officials.

[@user-ku3bu7se8n]

@@Mandemon1990 Tis funny. But its notable that the Lords cannot block a bill, only voice there dislike for it and get it subsequently voted on again in Parliament. There is a cap of this of 3 iterations if I recall correctly. Also the judiciary also cannot overturn law passed by Parliament. So while there are many unelected officials the source of sovereignty and power in the UK is the elected Parliament. Tho tbf Parliament has terrible representation of the UK electorate so what can you do.

[@tayetrotman]

@@Mandemon1990 Unelected officials are important. Without them, the country simply would not function

[@tayetrotman]

Not everything and everybody needs to be elected.

[@Mandemon1990]

@@tayetrotman It's more about hypocrisy of complaining about them when vast majority of the government is build around them. People can't be realistically be expected to vote people into every office, hence why we vote for representatives who then form government.

[@oak699]

The Lords basically act as "Sorry Sane Ones" covering the UK's national shame that is the ERG Junta's House of Commons. It's a political "Good Cop, Bad Cop" routine.

[@jonnyfinch1339]

Hearing Lord Clarke talk is fantastic, still fighting his corner, its a shame he is no longer an MP, Rushcliffe lost a fantastic MP for them

[@luketurner5989]

If England does not enforce a Border between Northern Ireland and the the rest of the UK, would that not force the EU to make a harder border between North and South Ireland? This feels like a dangerous game to play, as the need for an EU border is (in the eyes of the EU) a complete must. By denying the border in one place, we are forcing it to move to another. Of course, the UK would see it then as "The EU's choice to put a border between North and South Ireland", the EU would say "The UK forced us to put the border there"

[@Diovanlestat]

That's the plan, fiendishly intricate and totally stupid don't you think?

[@moveslikemacca]

9:42 DAMN

[@b3108]

versus @10:12 LOL

[@Lusitano9514]

Fantastic video yet again TLDR, thank you so much for making it so interesting and easy(ier) to understand!

[@stuartjones1298]

I dare the House of Commons to reject it, just to make 2020 more interesting

[@tonyb9735]

It's like asking Republicans to vote against Trump. Tory party tribal loyalty is more important than the law, more important even than the good of the nation. It is clear that the Tories are acting directly against the best interest of the country, there isn't even a pretence any more that brexit will be beneficial for us, but they continue anyway. This government has descended to levels of corruption and dishonesty that has never been seen before in our lifetime. They are using the Covid pandemic as cover to syphon billions of pounds into their friends' pockets and brexit will only accelerate that. They are robbing us blind.

[@pandora8478]

@@tonyb9735 check the Lincoln Project

[@ZsoltLauter]

Damaging internation reputation? This long lasting drama is damaging internation reputation.

[@nh5316]

The Lords is one of the few places English is still used to it's most eloquent extent Ya kno wot I meanz, lol? 😂👍👌✔️🍻👀

[@rare_kumiko]

As a non-native speaker, they even get hard to understand.

[@raphaelnikolaus0486]

Didn't you do another IMB update after this one? Never saw another video on it, couldn't find one searching for it today, and on Wikipedia read that it had received royal assent in December. I would've expected you do another video on that then.

[@neeneko]

It is so fascinating to watch this from the US, where there is a strong theme of breaking international law is a moral prerogative, or at minimal the idea of following international law is a sign of moral weakness.

[@LagartoPT]

It's more fascinating watching it inside EU , looks like a bunch of looneys setting mattresses on fire inside a mad house.

[@ethanedwards422]

@@LagartoPT from the point of the UK, that's exactly what's happening in the HoC

[@nickcook176]

I'm pretty sure (though someone can correct me if I'm wrong) that the House of Lords actually can completely block legislation if it's contrary to a government's manifesto on which they were elected. In this scenario, could you not argue that the government was elected on the promise of enacting the withdrawal agreement, and that this is in direct opposition to that?

[@wakey87]

Theoretically yes, But the goverment are elected and the Lords are not so they usualy back down once it gets ping ponged back.

[@beasty9525]

what's with all the cuts at 8:12 ?

[@TLDRnews]

For efficiencies sake we cut down the lord's clips quite substantially, so that you could get all the information you need from the speeches without the dramatic pauses and prose. Unfortunately the video would have been about 20 mins if we'd left the full speeches in, which while that would have allowed us to put more ads in, probably isn't the best for all you guys! - Jack

[@beasty9525]

@@TLDRnews understandable

[@djoakeydoakey1076]

understandable, have a great day.

[@siyabongamchunu4342]

We had hoped you folks forgot about Brexit...

[@SpectatingBystander]

Why's is bad for lords to go against the commons? What would happen to the lord's if they did?

[@Skumgummiii]

the lords are on paper the most powerful politicians in the UK, they are also unelected. If an unelected body started going against the people's government the people would not be happy and the entire house of lords could be removed.

[@olsenfernandes3634]

The thing the person above said is true and its very effective for stopping the house of Lords from becoming uncontrollable tyrants but unfortunately that just means that the House of commons don't have such restrictions and can freely do whatever the hell they want despite people that voted for them not wanting that to happen. For example the people who wanted Brexit over and gone because they didn't want to hear about it for another 5 years but still wanting a trade deal with the EU but the government they voted for being fine with a no deal.

[@ivanvoronov3871]

House of commons can push threw the legislation regardless

[@Marcusjnmc]

nothing directly right now, but there'd be increased political will to further reduce or even remove the position of the lords within government either by political mandate & policy at the next election or by acts of parliament within this term using the lords blocking acts based on existing political mandate as the reason for changes to the system under the current term of government

[@tonyb9735]

@@Skumgummiii Let's be very clear, the role of the HoL is to hold the government to account, to provide checks and balances against government power in order to prevent corruption and/or effective dictatorship. Such controls are completely necessary and similar mechanisms are designed into every functional democratic government in the world. Do not underestimate the importance of the Lords just because you are not getting your way on this issue.

[@stoobydootoo4098]

Internal Market Bill, NOT MarketS! You keep getting this wrong.

[@roland7178]

They are not elected House but it look like they are the good guys here

[@sackville_bagginsess]

1:30 "lets start off.."

[@demonvalentine1]

Just to play Devil's advocate, I think it would be hilarious if the Lords found an old piece of legislation that they could use to give themselves bogus powers that they can use to bully the Commons the way the Commons bully the plebs. Irony is simply awesome.

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

It would indeed be funny, but also democracy breaking. So not too sure where I fall

[@demonvalentine1]

@@andresmartinezramos7513 Lol, as I say, I was only playing devil's advocate. It would be a terrible thing to happen, although I am not a big fan of the way things are in the present either. I prefer a scenario where the people of this country remember that our government is mandated to protect our rights, they have never, nor will ever be the issuer of those rights. The polar division that we see today is nuts, don't you think?

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

@@demonvalentine1 In case my name didn't give it away, I'm not British. But, I still agree fully with you. Our democracies need a serious revamping and us as citizens have to realize that loosing rights and freedoms is a one way road. Also, partisan politics have forever been the scourge of democracies. Rendering them inefficient, stagnant and giving away the rule of the people. Not to be fatalistic, but I don't like where things are going in the long run.

[@demonvalentine1]

@@andresmartinezramos7513 Could not agree more with you, we are in a tenuous position. I just hope enough people oppose it before it is far too late. I try to keep the faith though, and I seriously wish you all the best in whatever is thrown our way.

[@clowncarqingdao]

@@andresmartinezramos7513 Well Johnson broke democracy when he prorogued Parliament. How did you feel then? I was pissed off.

[@GardenOfEdenHazard]

Sad how the commons always wave the constitutional reform card about in the Lords' faces to stop them doing their job. At least the unelected Lords read everything that's put in front of them PROPERLY...

[@garydunken7934]

Aussie here... Don't worry about losing free movement with Spain and Portugal. FTA and free movement with continent Australia is coming. Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Noosa..... in sunny Queensland awaits your arrival. Then there are New Zealand and Canada to join you. Plenty of new land of explore.

[@SevereMalfunction7]

Hey, I bought the coloring book, but never got the link to the exclusive video. What do I do?

[@TLDRnews]

Hey, thanks so much for your support. The link is in the back of the book - if you scan the QR code on the final page you'll get access! - Jack

[@shanehull6235]

I dont think the lords should even exist but shit at times like this I’m glad they do.

[@silversurfer7079]

Shane Hull. Every dog has it's day.

[@alfredsanders9493]

It's good to have something that isn't swayed by partisans. That's why the court has to be independent.

[@druid_zephyrus]

I am sorry that somehow I forgot about Brexit this 2020. Now that the completely ordinary week is over in the US. I am happy to hear about others' craziness

[@BewareOfTheKraut]

Now that Trump is almost gone I'm glad to see that BoJo the clown keeps on entertaining us. Would have been a pity about my popcorn.

[@michaelgreen1515]

Make this week in parliament a channel!

[@tepesobrejac4360]

I wonder if Labour will still want to abolish the House of Lords after this.

[@tepesobrejac4360]

@Null Pointer You know what I don't like about elected officials? They seem to think that just because they were elected by "the people" they have the right to do whatever they want and disregard all principles the country they serve is built upon. Sometimes, they need a slap in the face to wake up and I don't believe that other elected officials would give them that slap. Also, a voice of reason is necessary from time to time and elected officials aren't known for reason. PS: Don't get me wrong. Democracy has it's many advantages too. Individual liberties, more ideas can be brought up to debate, more social mobility, you name it, but too much of anything is not desirable.

[@JD-wf2hu]

It's worth having a google of the behaviour of some elected judges in the USA and actually reading the bills that the house of lords proposes* before going strong with the unelected equals bad argument.*I sat down and did this.

[@tepesobrejac4360]

@Null Pointer 1.Well, now only 92 seats in the House of Lords are inherited. The rest of the members are appointed. 2. Most elected officials are affiliated to the party which wins the most elections and as such they are less likely to keep the government in check.

[@MrAapasuo]

@@tepesobrejac4360 But as you point out 92 seats are still just nobility. With no need to be expert in anything, or have skills other than being born. And while these seats are technically not going to support either party, nothing stops them from doing exactly that either any more than party affiliated ones. The idea is not bad of having unelected official to work as buffer, though that itself has some problems. But it can be tried to be reformed to be less lordly

[@tepesobrejac4360]

@@MrAapasuo I'd say to keep those 92 seats just for the sake of tradition, but I'm open to any other reforms that could make the House of Lords more meritocratic.

[@adarkimpurity]

For goods going GB-NI-ROI there will be checks, customs etc. depending on the next deal. The NI Protocol says we have 'unfettered access' for goods going GB-NI, deciding what is 'at risk' at going onto ROI from NI by the Joint Committee. Why have you never mentioned this important part of the text?

[@zjzjification]

365 day filibuster leggo

[@datman6266]

Shots fired!!! Damn..

[@charliecrome207]

If the UK is openly breaking international law how can they expect citizens to follow UK law

[@physiocrat7143]

It is an _opinion_ that the UK is breaking international law.

[@MrAapasuo]

@@physiocrat7143 It is also an opinion that Jim robbed an bank. He was just taking a liberal withdrawal. At gun point

[@physiocrat7143]

@@MrAapasuo Jim still has to be put on trial in court, doesn't he?

[@MrAapasuo]

@@physiocrat7143 Not according to him. As in his personal law system he acted perfectly normally. If others think it was criminal that is just their opinion

[@physiocrat7143]

@@MrAapasuo Yes of course. But he is not guilty until the case has been tested in a court trial. What point are you trying to make?

[@sidkemp4672]

Is there any possibility that parties and individuals in the House of Commons will sit up and notice that the House of Lords is saying, "This is illegal and will lead to a lot of trouble" and will then refuse to pass the Government's version of the bill?

[@getnohappy]

Not familiar with parliamentary protocol; is there any point where the Commons gives bills the scrutiny that the Lords do? It seems not to me.

[@jamesquaine6264]

What's even the point of the house of Lords if they can't do anything

[@tayetrotman]

I think personally, that the Lords needs a few more reforms (mainly, all appointments should be advised to the Queen (so in practice made) by the Appointments Commission and all such power removed from the PM) but it definitely needs to stay around. I don’t want to have a Senate like the US. I think this is an excellent example of the good work it does, and I’m pretty pleased that at least a majority of members are putting the existence of the house at some risk in order to ensure the integrity of the UK.

[@Djurre8520]

Please please please remove the midroll ads. An add on the start or end is one thing but 3 midroll ads in such a short video is a bit shit

[@joynalmiah549]

0:21 shameless plug shows a socket

[@yoyoman_blue6485]

Hey, a non-American non-British English speaker here. Just a question, Why does the EU even get a say on internal goods that travels within the UK?.. It's like The US having a say on goods traveling between Canada and Mexico, and that even makes more sense since they're in the middle of them, but yet The EU isn't in the middle of Northern Ireland and Great Britain..

[@CalSticks]

Because the UK is connected by land to Ireland; a separate EU member in its own right. Ireland and the EU do not want a ‘hard border’ between the U.K. and Ireland. The issue isn’t about goods travelling within the U.K., but how goods enter and exit the EU from the U.K. If there’s no hard border on the island of Ireland, and no checks in the Irish Sea, then goods could flow into the U.K. via Ireland without being subject to the required customs checks.

[@yoyoman_blue6485]

@@CalSticks Oh so currently, What's the situation in the border of Northern Ireland In regards to people's movement between the countries? And why is it against International law for the UK to to set checks on the Irish sea (obviously on *their* sea territory)? And why would they not set minor checks on the northern Irish border, Only for goods at least?

[@CalSticks]

@@yoyoman_blue6485 There is no border because they’re both EU members. It’s not the checks on goods that are against the law, it’s the violation of the previously signed Withdrawal Agreement which confirmed there would be no hard border w/ Ireland. As for why a hard border is a problem at all, I’d recommend doing your own research into the Troubles and Good Friday Agreement.

[@yoyoman_blue6485]

@@CalSticks No yea I know about the agreement and the history of that border, (I'm aware that there isnt a border ever since Ireland's Independence and their joining to the EU). I was asking about the No Deal situation.. but nvm I got my answer

[@matthewwong6204]

It is international agreement that is a house of cards suscept to integrity by players of cards not but worse than themselves ?

[@RanTutorials]

12:14 any one going to shout out the fact the union jack is in place of the northern island flag?

[@buskergirl]

I think it's because the NI flag is not official.

[@Lorre982]

a simple resurch on wikipipedia shows: Union Jack is the official Nord Ireland's official flag

[@RanTutorials]

@@Lorre982 Thanks that is why i don't make political videos

[@dwansbo]

If the House of Lords is only able to debate potential legislation, but is ultimately unable to influence its acceptance or rejection then surely it's purpose is nothing more than a hot air factory!

[@georgecromarty5372]

Because this is a non-trivial matter of principle, it would seem unlikely that the Lords would willingly assent to being steamrollered by the Commons if they insist (disrespectfully) in resubmitting the objectionable part of the bill. Rather than doing so, the Commons would be much more well advised to revise the bill as necessary before resubmitting it to the Lords. Otherwise, the majority in the Commons would be running the risk of being perceived as insolent fools by the people of the UK.

[@laurentdrozin812]

No law stretches further than the strength to uphold it.

[@TiaanKruger]

As bad as I think it would be if the original bill was passed, I think even worse would be if this situation is used to diminish the House of Lords even further. I know people will say that the Lords are not elected by the people, etc, etc. But it actually a body of people whose job it is to have knowledge of things (like law, economy, science,etc) and not just a bunch of politicians that are more worried about re-election

[@sallynewey9675]

Going back to Blair didn't they try to increase dentention without charge from 28 days and have to stop it because of the house of lord's voting against it, including many labour and Tory peers. This might not be something Tldr would remember, before their time.

[@givemeakidney]

How come cassette boy edited Lord Howard's speech?

[@TLDRnews]

For efficiencies sake we cut down the lord's clips quite substantially, so that you could get all the information you need from the speeches without the dramatic pauses and prose. Unfortunately the video would have been about 20 mins if we'd left the full speeches in, which while that would have allowed us to put more ads in, probably isn't the best for all you guys! - Jack

[@givemeakidney]

@@TLDRnews of only someone could have done this when he was in parliament too..

[@nienke7713]

If it does eventually pass, can't the EU declare the agreement void as the UK violates it? Normally in contracts if one party doesn't uphold their end of it, then either the contract will become void, the contract-breaking party can be sued, and/or the contract-breaking party needs to pay damages.

[@thorpepark1997]

This is gonna crash us out with this Brexit. Our reputation at an international level will be contested by many more trading nations needed to secure deal's. Argh!!!!

[@grantmalone]

What is that annoying clicking sound when you stop speaking? Bad noise gate settings or something? Suggest sorting it out. First time here and content seems good but bad audio quality makes a channel seem cheap.

[@andrewpaulhart]

A huge disincentive to independence is the uncertainty surrounding consequences. If Scotland ever became independent and demonstrated a successful economy I suspect that it will become far easier to persuade people to the independence cause. Far more so than simply posing the hypothetical scenario ... “if Scotland were independent and part of the EU ...”. Without Scotland the U.K. would likely be permanently conservative, further accentuating the divide between Wales and the rest of the country. In that environment I can see popularity for welsh independence growing very quickly. IMO if Scotland goes independent then it is game over for the U.K.

[@stuartschaffner9744]

I am more concerned about process here than legal statements. Independent of whatever is said, suppose on or after Jan 1 the EU discovers that the UK is not, in fact, adequately ensuring that Northern Ireland is following tbe rules of its special customs zone. Then, the EU customs border will indeed have a huge hole in it. This is intolerable for any country or trading group. The EU certainly wouldn't install a hard customs barrier between it and Northern Ireland. Must it set up a naval blockade along NI's coastline?

[@physiocrat7143]

They will also need to set up a naval blockade to stop goods from the UK getting into Dublin and Rosslare.

[@stuartschaffner9744]

@@physiocrat7143 , interesting point but Northern Ireland is special. The port of Dublin already has a customs barrier because it is an external port for the Republic of Ireland and thereby the EU. The Republic of Ireland already controls that barrier. The port of, say, Belfast also has a customs barrier, but it is managed by the UK. After Jan 1 the UK will not be part of the EU. The border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is unfortified by treaty. Thus, after Jan 1, the EU would have to hope that the UK would enforce the special trade zone rules for any goods that might later pass through Northern Ireland into The Republic of Ireland. What does the EU do if it thinks that the UK isn't doing an adequate job? This is even more complex than I have explained here, but it's a very practical concern.

[@physiocrat7143]

@@stuartschaffner9744 The underlying difficulty is that the Single Market is a bad, irrational and long outdated concept. The current row highlights the need for reform but the EU leaders are deaf and blind. As an EU citizen and resident, I have to point out that we are the losers from the EU's trade and economic policies. They were discredited about 250 years ago. It is zombie economics.

[@spamwisegamer4044]

The internal market bill is for if the eu act in bad faith and break there agreements and can only be implementedd if the eu break international law this is sensible.

[@ahmedhosny2412]

Love your videos guys!

[@NACLGames]

Really don't get the issue with them being "unelected". Seems like most people are simply focusing on the fact that the masses did not vote them into their seats in the House of Lords, and totally ignoring any other reason they are there. That premise is based upon the assumption that elected officials are somehow better. It's based upon further assumptions that they 1. Actually truthfully or competently represent the will of the people who voted for them, 2. Unlikely to change this stance while they are in office, 3. Morally and intellectually competent, as supposedly analyzed and judged upon by the people, and finally the best 4. the people as a voting mass support and maintain the desired level of morality and intellectual competency. I can think of a lot of levels where that argument breaks down. On my own part, as a non-British citizen, I do find that the House of Lords to be the more competent chamber and more representative of the will of the people. It's likely because that between upbringing and cultural instillation, even hereditary seats are respectable. There are less internal political drivers, as even the Lords affiliated with a party ethos often break from them, having almost no obligation to them. And for appointed seats, such appointment has been more described by evaluation of ability and as a reward for accomplishments, by peers who already hold the highest office and therefore have some ability themselves, as opposed to a likely uninformed and disparate public. Just because they were elected by the people, doesn't mean they are incapable of representing the will of the people. In fact I find the opposite to generally be the more untrue... Of course, perhaps the real answer may be that people are opposed to them being unelected because that implies that as an individual, you as a voter don't appear to have a hand in your own fate. A historically universal human conceit and display of ego. In any case, even for the most purist of elected democracy supporters, the House of Lords is not capable of passing law or enacting it. It maintains a check upon laws before they come into effect, a sort of "common sense" sniffer, if you will. One that the bill in question here is failing, badly. Think of it as an army of expert lawyers who specialize in constitutional law. And you don't elect most of your lawyers, do you? (yes some, but not all) As the video states, its very unlikely the House of Lords will even be able to block the bill in any shape or form. What they're telling you is, hey citizens and peers, the elected government is doing this stupid thing, please take note. We're not happy and we've had our say on it. Don't say we didn't warn you.

[@alexlaza5301]

Gotta love the monarchy!!!

[@old_grey_cat]

Chaos admirer wonders - what if the Queen quietly advised Mr Johnson that she would find it difficult to find an opportunity to sign her royal assent to the Bill? She is certainly due some long service leave...

[@yangj08]

Well, it would certainly be a very 2020 way to end the year.

[@JD-wf2hu]

Won't happen, the Queen is just a mascot at this point.

[@simonhopkins3867]

What's with all the cutting of the Lords?

[@TLDRnews]

For efficiencies sake we cut down the lord's clips quite substantially, so that you could get all the information you need from the speeches without the dramatic pauses and prose. Unfortunately the video would have been about 20 mins if we'd left the full speeches in, which while that would have allowed us to put more ads in, probably isn't the best for all you guys! - Jack

[@TheBaconWizard]

Cutting stuff makes it shorter.

[@simonhopkins3867]

@@TLDRnews Thanks for the reply Jack. Simon

[@jemdragons3120]

Never thought I'd bee rooting for the house of lords XD

[@eleanor4839]

Good lads the House of Lords

[@aaronjay4118]

-Keep freedom of movement in island of Ireland -Keep freedom of movement in the entire Kingdom -Not freedom of goods movement for rest of UK and EU -Cargo begins to pass through N. Irish roads and ports due to no tax/ tariffs (don’t know what its called) -Same with Scottish roads and ports -Those areas become developed -N. Ireland is now clearly better off in the UK -Scottish development makes them happy -This put both N. Ireland and Scotland in a position which its better off to stay in the union

[@peterebel7899]

Sanity never won in recent Britain.

[@NativesofUtopia]

Double insist please.

[@danielwebb8402]

Agree we shouldn't be back-tracking. Is bad manners. Whilst the government technically can implement this law. It is morally bad. Almost like not implementing the referendum result in the first place. In March 2019. And arguing "was only advisory". Technically, yes. Morally, no it wasn't.

[@benedictosamosir9109]

This actually an exciting shitshow to watch

[@imogenbespokesewing2968]

I love these old school real house of Lords people

[@madsbrandt598]

Playing for time

With this bill because it's fulfilling the Tory party manifesto for the UK to regain full control from EU authority, the House of Lords can be ignored. It will pass into law regardless of the House of Lords objections via the Parliaments Act. It does not break International Law, because it can only be triggered with a parliamentary majority vote, after the EU has broken International Law by attempting to annex N. Ireland. Failing to protect the UK's internal market with N. Ireland, will breach the Good Friday Agreement.

[@ewan.cartwright]

Imagine if the lords effectively stopped this legislation and abolished themselves in the process. Talk about killing two birds with one stone!

[@fireforger9192]

How does this bill break international law when Ulster (NI) is part of the UK, please can you explain.

[@pf5895]

I think it's because of the the Good Friday Agreement. Which is an international treaty.

[@M.M.83-U]

Oversemplifiyng: the bill will break the agreement, the agreement is an international treaty, unilateraly breaking a treaty is against the international law.

[@guss77]

There is a concept in international law (well, actually, in any law system) that if you sign an agreement in good faith, you aren't to unilaterally change its terms. During so - which is what the IMB does with the British Withdrawal Agreement - is considered flouting the rule of law.

[@guss77]

In more details: in the British Withdrawal Agreement, the UK government had committed to implement some beurocracy about goods traveling from the UK into NI to ensure that customs are paid on exports from NI to Ireland, in exchange for leaving the NI-Ireland open without customs checks (see Good Friday Agreement), basically a bunch of paperwork and paying some dues that will be refunded if goods are not exported. The IMB says "nuts to that - if the minister decides to forego all that beurocracy, he could".

[@tonyquigley8274]

NI is not Ulster

[@frankbucciantini388]

This season finale is getting better and better... xD

[@iuliangheorghe6857]

In one of your next videos , can you talk about how much the UK debt has risen during the pandemic? It's percentage regarding GDP? And how much is likely to borrow in case of NO DEAL? thank you

[@John-lh1qx]

Plot twist: The HoL lets it pass then the Queen refuses royal consent. Now that would make a great show

[@jogennotsuki]

Cool it with the jump cuts.

[@robkemp598]

It is really werid that these old rich men have more scruples than the MP's... Like being in the twilight zone

[@patricklucey8850]

This has to play out. Pride may come before a fall or may not but it has to play out to the lowest denominator.

[@matthewwong6204]

Leave means leave after leaving stipulate post of? Agreements are by defintion without territory by other countries so a borderless ship of non why it is not that is why it is a bill to be law because international framework is mere thus . An agreement

[@claudiafigueiredo4979]

Wish other countries made a comments about this and refuse doing deals with uk unfortunately not happening but we can dream

[@caldie4338]

can someone explain why it breaks international law?

[@kennethbain4290]

Because the UK has agreed internationally to do one thing, and is now saying internally that it will break that agreement, by doing another.

[@caldie4338]

@@kennethbain4290 what did we promise? And why would having an open border with Ireland contradict that?

[@ethanedwards422]

The good Friday agreement was a international treaty. It's against international law to break those treaty's without good reason. If the good friday agreement wasn't a international treaty, it would be perfectly legal

[@caldie4338]

@@ethanedwards422 whats the good friday agreement?

[@swmike]

Considering the difference in the use of "to table something" (meaning exact opposites) in the english language continuum (and also in other languages), I think you should start videos with what definition you're using. I know the difference but I'm not sure everybody else does.

[@jeffreyvanschouwen3637]

Breaking any law is never a good thing.

[@physiocrat7143]

Would you obey bad law?

[@jeffreyvanschouwen3637]

@@physiocrat7143 on this lvl its more than only breaking the law. It's about trust.

[@cfehunter]

What's with all of the, incredibly obvious, cuts during Lord Howards speech?

[@philpem]

I'm guessing he speaks... quite... slowly... and... pauses... for... dramatic... effect... quite... often...

[@wilbobaggins1048]

Who the hell is gonna buy "brexit the colouring book" 😂😂 (Edit: My bad it's for 3-7 year olds who feel strongly about brexit, my apologies)

[@tonyb9735]

If it is soft, strong and very long then I may have an idea about how to colour it in.

[@wilbobaggins1048]

@@tonyb9735 I dont know what you think I ment but I definitely didnt say I dont know how to colour in. 😂 Maybe the reason why there reducing the price is because no one wants it xo

[@mk1st]

It'll be good therapy to scribble furiously on each page then rip it out and slam into the bin.