Wiff waff. Ping pong. Table tennis. This is the game being played between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. But it's not a game. It's a matter of great seriousness, something that people up and down this country care about.
Are our borders safe? Are they secure? Can people come in willy-nilly and then be welcomed in and claim benefits that you pay for? And human rights claims of a facetious and false kind that then allow them to stay when the law says they've come here illegally.
The House of Lords has a clear constitutional role. It is a revising chamber. It's there to say to the House of Commons, think again.
It is not a political chamber, and it's not a political chamber for very good reason. It's because it has no democratic mandate. You don't vote for it. I don't vote for it.
Jacob Rees-Mogg shared his views on the House of Lords
GB News
The only people who do vote are a few hereditary peers who vote for one another.
Oddly, the most democratic part of the House of Lords is 90 of the 92 hereditary peers who vote for each other. That's why it revises rather than forming policy.
But in this instance, it's pushing things beyond the normal limits. Normally, the House of Lords will ask the House of Commons to think again once, very rarely twice.
But three or possibly even four times is not what is supposed to happen. And the Lords should be wary of behaving in this way, because in the past, historically, when they have been dogs in the manger, they have found that the vet has come round to deal with the dog.
And I'm thinking, of course, of 1832 and 1909, when the Lord's powers were effectively limited. In 1832, the reform Bill went through the Lords back down.
In 1911, they didn't die in the ditch as they had threatened to, and the Parliament Act was passed. The Lords must respect the democratic mandate of the Commons, and if they don't, we will have a constitutional crisis upon our hands.
The House of Lords is unelectedGettyNow, I was listening to the Lords earlier today, and some of them are beginning to be reasonable. So there is hope that we will avert this crisis.
And then the issue will be, does Rwanda work? We've heard in the news that some airlines are being threatened with human rights claims. Well, if the airlines won't do it, we've got a Royal Air Force which has a plane or two.
The Prime Minister has a plane which could be used to take 1 or 2 of these illegal migrants to Rwanda. We need to make sure that it works as a deterrent because as long as people who come here end up living here for years and years, more will come. And why does this matter?
Well, it's unfair to those who try to come legally, but also it is funding the people traffickers, the snakeheads, who make a lot of money out of human misery and are bringing people into this country across the channel in dangerous boats.
Jacob Rees-Mogg said "Rwanda needs to act as a deterrent"
GB News
So dangerous that the Home Office doesn't think they're fit to send to the Ukrainians to help them in their fight against Russia because they can only possibly send safe boats through dangerous journeys, funding and helping organised crime breaking our law.
Rwanda needs to act as a deterrent and that means getting numbers going quickly. The Prime Minister's determination expressed today is exactly what we need to hear.
We will not be told what to do by a foreign court. Parliament is legislated and Parliament is the highest form of law in this country.
The sovereignty of Parliament is fundamental of our Constitution, and if the Lords let it pass, that will be the state of affairs and it must be implemented.