Even the House of Lords had no stomach for backing calls for another Brexit Referendum.
One positive Brexit development that many may have missed, is that the House of Lords yesterday rejected calls for another EU Referendum by voting against an amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill put forward by Lord Newby.
That amendment would have made both houses vote on a motion to hold a referendum on whether to accept the withdrawal agreement before they could implement it – but not now, it's been rejected!
But what they did do was to vote for an amendment laid down by Viscount Hailsham that would, if the Commons chooses to accept it, effectively take the executive power to negotiate away from the government and hand it to parliament as well as removing the no-deal Brexit option, both of which would of course undermine the government's position in the UK/EU Brexit talks, giving the EU a massive advantage.
Their Lordships understand this completely and know it is akin to walking into a showroom and saying to the salesman up front "I've got loads of money and I'm not leaving without something!" By removing the option of walking away, you will of course end up being offered the shabbiest of products at the highest possible price by a beaming salesperson!
And that is exactly what these unelected Lords wants to see happen – they want to see the EU confidently offering a captive UK government something that is so much worse than current EU membership, so that we can then somehow be shoehorned back into the EU, as I talked about in yesterday's video.
But at least a few Lords do have a conscience. Green Party peer Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, who had planned on voting for the amendment said that:
"The speeches in favour of them have turned me against the amendment. There is clearly more of an agenda than just allowing more of the people's will, more of the people's say, and allowing more parliamentary control of the process so I personally will not vote for this amendment now."
And for her part, the Prime Minister, Theresa May, has promised a robust response to the defeat in the House of Lords.
According to the BBC, Number Ten said that the cabinet had 'strong disappointment' with the way the Upper House had voted and added:
"We wish for the bill to go through in the same way it left the Commons."
And the International Trade Secretary, Liam Fox, said:
"It is not acceptable for an unelected house to try to block the democratic will of the British people."
He also went on to say that the House of Lords amendment could end up with Brexit being delayed indefinitely, also that the no-deal Brexit option must be kept on the table and he also categorically ruled out remaining in a customs union with the EU, saying that he didn't think there was a customs union that could ever be acceptable.
And, on his views of the House of Lords the BBC reports:
"He said there was a 'big debate' to be had about whether an 'unelected House' could 'thwart the view of the British electorate'."
I say no debate, just scrap it and replace it with a properly constituted chamber of those elected under proportional representation.
But the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn has surfaced and, possibly smelling some political blood, has said that parliament must be given the final say.
He said that the house of Lords vote was a 'hugely significant moment' in the fight to get parliament a 'proper role' in the Brexit negotiations and that a no-deal scenario was avoided.
"Parliament must be sovereign on this matter and make the final decision." he said.
My message for him is that it is the people of the UK that are sovereign and the people lent parliament that sovereignty on the promises made about the referendum result and the Brexit based manifestos of the two main parties that attracted 80% of the vote in the last general election! So why isn't parliament doing as it has been instructed?
And back to the Lords rejection of giving a referendum on the deal
This does thankfully seriously weaken the hand of those supporting Remain campaigns such The People's Vote, which desperately wants another EU referendum with the option of staying in the EU.
After all, what's the point of trying to get parliament to agree with something that the Lords has already rejected? And surely all those Remainers who are so pleased that the Upper House has intervened and accepted a clause to manipulate Brexit into failure, will now accept and support the decision of that same house voting on the same bill on the same day to reject a second referendum?
But, somehow I think they'll keep going, don't you? But while they're concentrating on that now hopeless cause, at least they're not getting up to any real mischief.