This is one of dozens of amendments proposed by members, so it's more accurate to say "three members of the House of Lords attempting to ban the use of VPNs".

▲

TSiege 2 days ago | parent [-]

I'm not from the UK but I thought the house of lords is largely a vestigial legislative body and has no serious power. Am I wrong there?

▲

andyjohnson0 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Brit here. The HoL's role is to review and scrutinise legislation as part of the parliamentary process of turning bills into acts (laws). Most legislation originates in the (directly elected) House of Commons. But all parliamentary bills pass through the Lords, and they can propose ammendments, but those ammendments have to be approved by the Commons. Those that aren't are sent back to the Lords for reconsideration. In the event of deadlock, the Commons has primacy and can overrule the Lords.

▲

chihuahua 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Good Lord, Jeeves! Do you mean to tell me that a gaggle of elected coves can simply override the peers in the Upper House? It seems a distinct inversion of the natural order, what? Rather like the oyster overruling the walrus! It makes one feel the foundations of the Empire are trembling a bit, like a jelly in a high wind.

	▲	niggertopia a day ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

mjmas 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Are there any limitations on what can be proposed in one of the houses? For example in Australia our upper house (senate) can't adjust or propose bills to do with money.

	▲	chippiewill 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There are the parliament acts which restrict the length of the delay the HoL can inflict (including to just 1 month for money bills). They also cannot amend money bills. There is however the Salisbury convention which is that the HoL shouldn't block legislation that was a manifesto commitment of the governing party. That doesn't meant they can't amend it at all, but they can't substantively change it. It's also just a convention, not a rule.
	▲	TazeTSchnitzel 2 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_bill#United_Kingdom > In the United Kingdom, section 1(1) of the Parliament Act 1911 provides that the House of Lords may not delay a money bill more than a month. This is the closest thing the UK has to that.
	▲	blibble 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		no

▲

OJFord 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I suppose it depends what you call 'serious power', but yes, stuff gets rejected and sent back down all the time.

It's generally fine-tuning rather than another massive hurdle after getting it through the Commons that the Lords might not pass it at all, though.

You might be thinking of 'royal assent' which is pretty much just a rubber stamp, yes, post-Lords.

▲

notahacker 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They can propose amendments to legislation, and delay some legislation from passing if they don't like it or don't get their amendments approved.

▲

chriswarbo 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Legislation often bounces back and forth between the Commons and the Lords a few times. The Lords won't block things which have a strong mandate, e.g. things promised in an election manifesto; but they can at least stall and amend things.