Baroness Wheatcroft: “The House of Lords could delay Brexit”


A Conservative peer named Baroness Wheatcroft, has come out and claimed that the House of Lords could ‘withhold’ the approval of Article 50, the vital mechanism that once triggered will start the process of the UK leaving the European Union.

However, there is still currently some disagreement over whether Article 50 would need to come before Parliament.

But former political journalist Baroness Wheatcroft said if it did, “the Lords might actually delay things”.

It’s said that the government has previously stated that Article 50 could be triggered through use of the royal prerogative.

Speaking to The Times, the former editor in chief of the Wall Street Journal Europe and the Sunday Telegraph said that she “hoped delays in the Lords of any potential Brexit legislation would lead to a second referendum.”

Furthermore, the BBC state that a legal challenge on whether the government can trigger Article 50 without the authorisation of Parliament will be heard in the High Court in the autumn.

Lady Wheatcroft has also said that she ‘did not want the Lords to stand in the way of the UK leaving the EU’ at the moment, but added: “However, if it comes to a bill, I think the Lords might actually delay things. I think there’s a majority in the Lords for remaining.”

Another question asked was whether she would support peers delaying Brexit legislation she said: “Yes I would”.

– “And I would hope, while we delayed things, that there would be sufficient movement in the EU to justify putting it to the electorate, either through a general election or a second referendum.”

What do you make of Baroness Wheatcroft’s claims?

Would the Lords delay or block the triggering of Article 50? Could a delay or block lead onto a 2nd Referendum? Would you like to see a 2nd referendum occur?

Comment below your views of Baroness Wheatcroft’s claims and Brexit so far


5 thoughts on “Baroness Wheatcroft: “The House of Lords could delay Brexit”

  1. For the billionth time, we had a consultative, advisory, non-binding referendum.
    That is what parliament decided to offer the electorate. Laws are not made from the words in a party manifesto or the utterances of Prime Ministers. Laws are made by the representatives and servants of our sovereign parliament, and it is the ultimate insult to democracy for the Executive to pretend that a marginal preference expressed in an advisory referendum is an inviolate instruction for major change affecting us all. Why were we not told it was only advisory before the vote? A deliberate deception?

    I am not against direct democracy for big decisions, but I deplore the shambles of a referendum campaign we suffered, with its deliberate misrepresentations, racism, massive press distortions and the disgraceful exclusion of directly interested voters. What would be so terrible about doing the job properly? Next time, a vote for all the stakeholders: those who would be 18+ by the time an Article 50 notification would take effect, for everyone who has made a permanent home here, and all the ex pats, not just those absent for 15 years or less … and let’s be radical for once, and send all those postal votes abroad before the referendum, not after it.

    A second, genuinely binding referendum should be subject to the internationally adopted requirement in all matters of constitutional change for a minimum 2/3rds supermajority in each of the political administrations. I note that Nigel Farage himself endorsed that 2/3rds proportion as a necessarily definitive result, as opposed to the specific 52/48 ratio that he derided as ‘unfinished business’.

    No doubt the campaign leaders on both sides would dream up new lies, ignorance would be celebrated over expertise, and the tabloids would spew their xenophobic bile all over again… but this second referendum would be a huge improvement in
    democracy: it it would offer for the first time a legal mandate – not the shadow of
    one – and would enfranchise the millions of stakeholders who were unrepresented and voiceless last time.

    How better to heal the caustic divisions that the debased June referendum created?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I know 3 people who voted exit and have now changed their minds. A second referendum when we know what the conditions imposed will be doesn’t seem unreasonable.

    As for democracy – Tereasa May seems intent on circumventing it in a big way. For some reason the goverment chose not to make the referendum legally binding. Triggering Article 50 has to be done according to the member states’ constitution. We don’t have a constitution but we do have parliamentary procedures and it seems they are about to be ignored.

    The only way that Article 50 can be triggered without a parliamentary vote (which might not succeed) is to invoke the Royal Perogative – just force it through like you were Henry VIII! Appropriate really, because the only way to force the necessary legislation through within two years is by copious use of Henry VIII clauses – ignoring the democratic process again.

    Either let parliament vote on the matter or hold a legally binding second referendum. Tereasa May is only a Prime Minister, un unelected one at that, she is not a Tudor Monarch!


  3. Should we remain or leave the EU?

    The reactionaries, the loud mouths, the non-thinking members of the electrate AND the moderately well educated (with a little above average IQ) who have bothered to look, at the logic, the available information and potential outcomes regarding brexit etc. people like me, should not be asked, never mind trusted to answer, such a complex question.

    It is utterly irresponsible for Parliment to act on the answer from an ill informed public, as if this answer had been carved in stone by learned mountain trolls and brought down from Snowdon by a bearded bloke in a red, white and blue night shirt.

    It was daft to have the referendum in the first place. What the hell do we know about macro-economics, treaties, diplomacy, finance etc. I understand chemistry but that’s part of my job. I have a friend who understands plumbing and I would trust his vote on water pipes and boilers any day. The future of the country? – well that’s another matter.

    To be honest, he doesnt care about the unforgivable damage that this is doing to science in this country or the irreparable harm to our universitys international standing. He voted leave because he hates muslims and thinks that Poles have forced him to reduce his charges. I have known him since he was a child and although an excellent crosser of a football thinks pi is txt short hand for something that you eat.

    This referendum has brought to the surface aspects of his character that I previously set aside but are now reasons to question our relationship. Well done.

    It is pure cowardice on the part of MPs to now say “The public have voted etc. etc. our hands are tied”. They are not.

    Even if the vote had been to remain, the guidence given by those of us who voted Remain, should still have been discussed, debated and voted on by Parliment (you remember that thing that we had called representative government) and that vote scrutinised by the House of Lords! Resulting in action based on what is best for the country and not on toadying to the nations loudest mouths.

    When did Parliment make the decision to ignore normal procedures and return to mob rule?

    It would appear that Members of Parliment are afraid to discuss this and to openly say that which most of them are thinking – that the current situation is bloody daft.

    Why are they not saying anything. It is being left AGAIN to the public to debate (for want of a better word) the fake binding nature of this referendum or its true advisory status.

    I have not voted in General Election after General Election to suddenly be ruled by a mob.

    Members of Parliment, The House of Lords and The Civil Service – do your job and say what you really think is best for us and do it.

    Debate, consider, listen to expert opinion and stop this Brexit nonsense sooner rather than later.

    My most humble regards,

    Joe Public (my name really is Joe and I am a member of the British public)

    Liked by 1 person

  4. So the House of Lords thinks it can ignore the people?

    Some of the ruling elite may need to be re-calibrated. We have just voted to remove one set of unelected politicians. Perhaps we should get rid of another set as well.


  5. To the House of Lords. I voted and told you what I want, I don’t need another referendum to change my mind. So Shut Up and do what the Majority have told you to do. This is a Democracy and being asked to vote again because you don’t like the outcome makes a mockery of Democracy and the Democratic Process. If that’s what your going to do you might as well scrap all elections and make the U.K a Dictatorship.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s