So what's the effin'point?The Parliament Act 1911 also provides for the provisions should the Lords block a non-finance public bill. S.2 (1) states that if the Commons pass a bill “in three successive sessions” and it’s rejected by the Lords, then after the Lords block it for a third time, the Speaker of the Commons is then able to send the bill to the monarch for Royal Assent, without the Lords' consent.
Last night the government suffered a heavy defeat in the House of Lords over its controversial Brexit legislation.
Peers voted overwhelmingly to remove a section of the bill that would allow ministers to break international law - by 433 votes to 165.
Today, the government said, to paraphrase them, "no problem, we'll just put it back in at the next reading.
Peers also voted to remove another clause, allowing ministers to override parts of the Brexit withdrawal agreement relating to Northern Ireland, by 407 votes to 148. Other clauses in the controversial section of the bill were removed without a vote.
Same answer, a government spokesman said in a statement: "We will re-table these clauses when the bill returns to the Commons."
The people of this country have indicated that, in the main, they disagree with the UK breaking international law, as reflected by a large number of articles in news organs of all political stripes.
The House of Lords has now made it very clear that they are in complete agreement with the people.
The government's reply seems to be, "but we might not be able to make this mess we've created work without breaking the law, so please fuck off and kindly keep your opinions to yourselves. We're in charge."
The problem with that is, they really aren't in charge, not even of their own party when you count the Lords' votes up.
As of 29 November 2019, the composition of the actual Lords membership, in terms of party and group affiliation, is shown in the chart below: before the Conservatives started stuffing it with even more of their chums, and Brexit-buddies, earlier this year.