Debates between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb during the 2017-2019 Parliament

Mon 15th Jul 2019
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill
Lords Chamber

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
Wednesday 4th September 2019

(5 years, 2 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Does the noble Lord accept that a guillotine would not be necessary if noble Lords undertook not to filibuster?

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 15th July 2019

(5 years, 4 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 190-I(Rev)(a)(Manuscript) Amendment for Committee, supplementary to the revised marshalled list (PDF) - (15 Jul 2019)
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am so sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he may know that I voted to leave the EU—and, if asked again, I would do the same thing—but I did not vote to leave with no deal. There are thousands and thousands of people like me, so it is only right that Parliament gets another say on this. A no-deal option is not what a lot of us voted for.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Portrait Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
- Hansard - -

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the support she has given to what the majority of people in this country wanted to see happen, but I point her to the opinion polls, which show that hers is a minority view. Most people in our country now want this matter finished, so that we can get on with attending to the biggest issues we face—whether social care, education, taxation or anything else—and that is what we should be getting on with.

I make one last point, which arises from what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said when he wrongly implied that my noble friend was attacking a particular individual; he mentioned Gina Miller. I pay tribute to Gina Miller; she has done a brilliant job. Had it not been for Gina Miller, we would not have been forced into passing the legislation that, by law, requires us to leave on 31 October. I say to the noble Lord moving this amendment: beware of Gina Miller and the law of unintended consequences. By seeking to frustrate the wishes of the people, you will put the reputation of Parliament and the standing of this House in jeopardy.