Lords revolt ‘would be extremely foolish’

Pro-Remain Lord Blunkett warns fellow peers against ‘confrontation with the British people’

THE House of Lords was warned by its own members last night not to ‘confront’ the will of the people over Brexit.

Lord Blunkett, Labour’s former Home Secretary and vocal Remain backer, said it would be ‘foolish in the extreme’ for peers to vote down a bill to trigger Article 50.

And Lord Lamont, a Leave-supporting former Tory Chancellor, warned there would be an ‘enormous awakening of bitterness’ if peers did anything the thwart attempts to leave the EU.

One peer even threatened to take to the streets and start ‘ breaking things’ if Parliament failed to respect the referendum result.

The row came after dozens of peers – mainly Liberal Democrats – said they would vote against the triggering of Article 50, which starts the two-year process of exit negotiations.

As the Government does not have a majority in the Upper House, it means a significant rebellion could scupper the Prime Minister’s plans.

But peers lined up to warn that to ignore the will of the people in June’s referendum would be particularly wrong for

‘Extraordinarily delicate situation’

the Lords to do, as its members were unelected. Many of them fear that a vote against Article 50 could hasten moves towards the scrapping of the upper chamber entirely.

During a debate, Brexit minister Lord Bridges urged pro-Remain peers: ‘We in this House, as an unelected Chamber, need to tread with considerable care on this issue as we proceed.’

Lord Blunkett said British politics was in an ‘extraordinarily delicate situation in terms of the way the British people see politicians of all ilks and in terms of the establishment’. He added: ‘Would it not be foolish in the extreme if this House placed itself, as an unelected body, in confrontation with the bulk of the British people, many of whom will have voted to stay in the European Union but would find it inexplicable if this House blocked in any way the forthcoming single-clause bill to implement and allow the Government to implement Article 50.

‘It would be unthinkable to do so, and I just appeal to your lordships’ House not to place itself in confrontation with the British people.’

Conservative peer Lord Cormack, another Remain campaigner, said peers must accept that the ‘consti- tutional position of this House is inferior to that of the elected House’. He added: ‘It is therefore important that we do not take action in this House that seeks to frustrate the will of the elected House.’

Lord Hamilton, a former Tory defence minister, said that if Parliament decided the referendum was merely advisory, ‘there would be no option for those of us who were in the majority in voting to leave other than to take to the streets and probably start breaking things’. Former chairman of the Tory backbench 1922 committee, Lord Spicer, said: ‘It would be unthinkable for us to frustrate the will of the people at whatever stage.’

Lord Bridges said: ‘I am delighted that consensus is breaking out between this side of the House and the benches opposite on this point. I do hope that other noble Lords will bear that in mind.’

But former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Ashdown accused the Government of pushing a ‘ hard Brexit’ agenda. Lord Bridges replied by saying: ‘When the British people have spoken, you do what they command’, adding: ‘I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, agrees with that because those were his own words on the night of the referendum.’

Speaking to the Mail, Lord Lamont said: ‘ The verdict of the Supreme Court has to be accepted, although the split verdict shows that the law is not unambiguous. The ruling is no excuse for delaying triggering Article 50.

‘We are about to discover which MPs and which peers are sincere in saying they respect the outcome of the referendum. Any delay in Parliament will lead to an enormous awakening of bitterness. The House, as an unelected body, needs to tread very carefully to ensure it does not trigger a constitutional crisis.’