Rebirth of England

It is precisely because there are too many members of the House of Lords in the UK, and they are not elected, that the composition and words and deeds of the members cannot reflect public opinion, but they enjoy generous subsidies, so they are often criticized for wasting public funds.

With the current number of members of the House of Lords, if there are several committees meeting on the same day, the meeting room cannot accommodate all the members present, let alone all the members attending together...

Not only that, it is said that Cameron will nominate several more members in the near future-because according to tradition, the ruling party has the right to increase its seats in the House of Lords.

Hughes, vice president of the Electoral Reform Society, a group that advocates parliamentary democracy, said bluntly:

"The expansion of the House of Lords has gotten out of control!"

The society recently published a report pointing out that the House of Lords is an "outdated and unrepresentative institution", with more than half of the members over the age of 70, and only two under the age of 39-yes, since entering the House of Lords, Barron has always been the youngest member of the House of Lords.

In fact, the current members of the House of Lords in the UK are rarely descendants of aristocrats. Most of them are politicians, consultants and supporters who have made contributions to the election and are nominated as members as rewards.

After all, although members of the House of Lords do not have a salary, they can receive a subsidy of 300 pounds for each day they attend the meeting, and they do not have to give up their positions outside the House of Lords - those who hold positions in the House of Lords can receive additional salary for their positions.

Some members of the House of Lords have never attended meetings in certain years, but have received a total of more than 300,000 pounds in subsidies in four or five years...

Once all members of the House of Lords refused to co-host a banquet with the House of Commons in order to save expenses because they were worried about the decline in the quality of champagne...

The performance of some members is even out of touch with public opinion. Last month, the Sunday Sun released a video exposing that Lord Sewell, the 67-year-old deputy speaker of the House of Lords and chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, used a rolled-up banknote to suck contraband from the breasts of a prostitute. Sewell also resigned as deputy speaker and chairman of the Disciplinary Committee.

But no matter what, the existence of the House of Lords is still necessary - apart from the duties of the House of Lords, the House of Lords, known as the "House of Lords", is one of the few places where the current British aristocracy can show their status.

If the House of Lords is abolished, it is no exaggeration to say that the entire British aristocracy system will face a shock.

Then once the aristocracy as a group becomes dispensable, the British royal family will also lose the biggest foundation for its rational existence.

Therefore, even as a means to maintain the current British state system, the House of Lords needs to continue to exist.

"By the way, didn't the Speaker say what will be discussed at next week's meeting?"

Hearing Barron's casual question, Talulah Riley looked a little strange and said:

"It is said that the discussion will be about the security of British communications and the communications headquarters and intelligence agencies involved in the "Prism Gate"..."

"Okay, I see, reply to the Speaker, I will be there at that time, and I need detailed information on these aspects."

"Okay, Your Highness."

As early as the beginning of this month, the Intelligence and Security Committee of the British Parliament had issued a report accusing the government of being too lax in its review of foreign investment in the communications field.

The report requires strict review of telecommunications products of companies such as Huawei in China.

But it also admitted that no misconduct was found in Huawei.

In fact, not only in Britain, but also within the EU, there have always been relevant responsibilities for Huawei's growing market share in Europe.

Of course, Barron knows very well that behind these accusations are the figures of relevant European and American communications companies, which are nothing more than attacking competitors in the name of "national security". These are all old routines.

This is also the main reason why Barron reached an agreement with his former boss to use the joint venture of Huawei and Marconi as a supplier to the British and even EU markets.

After all, European capital accounts for more than half of the shares of this company, so they have more reason to launch lobbying to ensure that Huawei and Marconi are treated equally in the supply of communication equipment and technology.

As for another topic of the House of Lords, it is also related to communications - the "Prism Gate" involved in the British side.

Don't think that when it comes to the "Prism" plan, it is just the American intelligence agencies that monitor the world.

In fact, in Europe, Britain and the United States have the closest alliance relationship, and the two sides have a shared agreement on intelligence.

Therefore, the British intelligence agency is also part of the "Prism" plan, participating in the monitoring of the global network.

At the beginning of this month, the British "Guardian" reported that the British Government Communications Headquarters can directly obtain personal information from mainstream Internet companies in Europe and the United States.

In response, the British Government Communications Headquarters responded that "their behavior is strictly controlled within the legal and policy framework."

As public opinion fermented, Cameron had to ask for an investigation into the "Prism Gate" monitoring plan of the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).

On the 17th of this month, the two-day G8 summit opened at Lough Erne in western Northern Ireland, England, and the global economy and counter-terrorism were included in the important topics of the summit.

But on the eve of the opening of the G8 summit, it was also the Guardian that exclusively disclosed the secret documents released by Snowden on the front page.

The documents show that during the 2009 G20 summit, the British secret intelligence agency monitored the phone calls of the participating dignitaries and monitored their computers to obtain the content of email exchanges.

It has to be said that after obtaining the relevant information about Snowden, the Guardian has been crazy for a while...

On June 21, following the uproar caused by the report that the British intelligence agency eavesdropped on the G20 summit, The Guardian broke the news again, saying that according to the information revealed by Snowden, the British intelligence agency Government Communications Headquarters also intercepted a large amount of data information intelligence from the optical fiber cables that transmit global communications.

Snowden said that the monitoring behavior of the British intelligence agency was "even worse than that of the United States."

That is why the House of Lords will take two issues as topics this time. In terms of communication security, the CEO of Huawei Marconi will submit relevant materials to the British Parliament at the end of the month, including the shareholding of Huawei Marconi shareholders, their expansion of production and R\u0026D bases in the UK, and the employment provided to the UK, etc., and ask the British government to provide them with a fair business environment.

And given Barron's relationship with those "noble lords", this communication-related meeting of the House of Lords is also an additional "petition" opportunity for Huawei Marconi.

It seems that the key issue this time is the Prism Project involving the British side.

The current director of MI6 is still Alex Young, who has a close relationship with Nigel Inkster.

It can be said that with such a relationship, the Prism Project they participated in was almost "open" to Barron.

And just as American telecommunications companies need to open communication records to their intelligence agencies, British telecommunications companies including O2 Telecom also need to cooperate with their intelligence agencies.

However, in these collaborations, the communication records and contents of some people related to Barron are "hidden", and no one except Barron has the right to view them.

If the British intelligence agency or police needs to query the records of the people on this list, they need to obtain Barron's consent.