British Politics

[SoulMonster]

31 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well I have already given my reasons, such as the small matter of our entire legal system being different, but you opted to ignore this, instead opting for gibberish about Nazis - such is your Intellect.

I didn't ignore it, I pointed out that there are equally large or larger differences between other EU states so there is nothing special about the UK. And the difference in legal systems is a small matter. That is not an insurmountable complexity that makes EU membership for UK impossible.  I deal with both the civil law and the common in my profession, and it is quite trivial. Arguing as that makes the British people too different to continental European people is laughable, really. And if it was such a big problem a much more tight union, like USA, wouldn't be able to deal with diverging legal systems within its member states. Nor would Cyprus be able to continue to be a EU member.

So no, this is one of the more singularly original arguments you have made, and really just made up to mask your less savoury underlying reasons. Different legal systems? Haha.  

[Len Cnut]

31 minutes ago, Dazey said:

My gran had a right fit when they took the gollies off the jam jars.

Did she ever explain why?

[Dazey]

14 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Did she ever explain why?

Just a general annoyance at change from a person of a certain age I assume. I do know that back in the 60's she and my grandad took Mother and my uncle to London and she wasn't impressed at the darkies working on the buses. "Ey Kathryn, look at all these bloody n!ggers! What's he doing over here taking our jobs?"  

[Len Cnut]

12 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Just a general annoyance at change from a person of a certain age I assume. I do know that back in the 60's she and my grandad took Mother and my uncle to London and she wasn't impressed at the darkies working on the buses. "Ey Kathryn, look at all these bloody n!ggers! What's he doing over here taking our jobs?"  

If On the Buses had been true to life in the 60s it would've been all pakis and indians

[spunko12345]

59 minutes ago, lukepowell1988 said:

My nan still has a load of them stored away in a cupboard she swears there going to be worth something one day ... Yeah Nan don't see it myself 

Quite collectable it seems. If you keep mentioning how much you like them you never know you might get them in the will.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lep.co.uk/retro/golly-gosh-they-re-worth-money-1-6523071/amp

[DieselDaisy]

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I didn't ignore it, I pointed out that there are equally large or larger differences between other EU states so there is nothing special about the UK. And the difference in legal systems is a small matter. That is not an insurmountable complexity that makes EU membership for UK impossible.  I deal with both the civil law and the common in my profession, and it is quite trivial. Arguing as that makes the British people too different to continental European people is laughable, really. And if it was such a big problem a much more tight union, like USA, wouldn't be able to deal with diverging legal systems within its member states. Nor would Cyprus be able to continue to be a EU member.

So no, this is one of the more singularly original arguments you have made, and really just made up to mask your less savoury underlying reasons. Different legal systems? Haha.  

It is rare I am rendered speechless but this is one of those occasion. I have merely contented myself with highlighted the more offending passages. Your ignorance, not only on European legal-political history but American also, is breathtaking. 

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is rare I am rendered speechless but this is one of those occasion. I have merely contented myself with highlighted the more offending passages. Your ignorance, not only on European legal-political history but American also, is breathtaking. 

Yes, hide your ignorance through fake indignation  I conclude that you weren't aware that Louisiana use the civil law while Cyprus use the common law, yet it doesn't seem to make Louisianas a "different people" who can't get along with the rest of USA nor Cyprus wanting to get out of the EU because of insurmountable conflicts between their legal systems and the rest of the EU. Again, if you want to create new reasons for why UK has to leave the EU, after having uttered the remarkable statement that Brits are a different people to continental Europeans, you'd better research the topic a bit more before making a fool of yourself.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, hide your ignorance through fake indignation  I conclude that you weren't aware that Louisiana use the civil law while Cyprus use the common law, yet it doesn't seem to make Louisianas a "different people" who can't get along with the rest of USA nor Cyprus wanting to get out of the EU because of insurmountable conflicts between their legal systems and the rest of the EU. Again, if you want to create new reasons for why UK has to leave the EU, after having uttered the remarkable statement that Brits are a different people to continental Europeans, you'd better research the topic a bit more before making a fool of yourself.

You are still missing an obvious point about the USA which renders your argument comically infantile but I am not even going to point it out because it amuses me seeing you dig a hole for yourself. 

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are still missing an obvious point about the USA which renders your argument comically infantile but I am not even going to point it out because it amuses me seeing you dig a hole for yourself. 

The obvious point is that member states can have their judicial systems based on different legal systems without this necessarily causing unsurmountable problems for the union, as evidenced by Louisiana and Cyprus. Hence your argument that UK is incompatible with the EU based on different legal systems is flawed. It is just a red herring thrown out after having said that the Brits are a different people than "continental Europeans".

Edited June 19, 2019 by SoulMonster

[AtariLegend]

The porn block that was supposed to be introduced next month, has been delayed for the foreseeable future. No new date. Was supposed to be happening a few times over the past few years, but they kept delaying it.

Was supposed to be happening on July 15th. Supposedly BBFC was told today it's not happening.

A shame. Wanted to see what the backlash was once people seen that the Torries were blocking internet porn, unless you registered yourself.

[DieselDaisy]

Apparently the BBC allowed a Corbynista Imam to speak on that stupid thing with the tits all on stools haha: Abdulllah of Bristol. The BBC barely even hide their biases. 

PS

And another one was an ex-Labour HQ worker, sacked today for ''Hitler tweets''.

 

Edited June 19, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[DieselDaisy]

11 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

The obvious point is that member states can have their judicial systems based on different legal systems without this necessarily causing unsurmountable problems for the union, as evidenced by Louisiana and Cyprus. Hence your argument that UK is incompatible with the EU based on different legal systems is flawed. It is just a red herring thrown out after having said that the Brits are a different people than "continental Europeans".

https://www.ft.com/content/c8e7a6ea-234e-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d

 

Quote

 

The island story that flags up Britain’s differences from Europe

A Leave vote would recognise the UK has always diverged from its neighbours, writes David Abulafia

David Abulafia

 MAY 29, 2016

If you walk down Piccadilly in London you will see one European flag — on the Maltese High Commission — whereas on the continent it seems to be everywhere: at prime ministerial press conferences, on public buildings and on car number plates.

British people do not display enthusiasm for Europe, and not just because of its very boring flag. The concept of European identity arouses puzzlement. The great variety — of languages, ethnic groups, religions and literatures — between and even within each country gives the lie to the idea that from Cyprus to Finland we all have a common identity. One of the leaders of the Italian Risorgimento, the 19th-century movement that led to a unified Italy, said: “We have made Italy; now we must make the Italians.” That statement is echoed in modern claims that, even if there is no European identity at the moment, we need to forge one in the future.

As a historian, I am more interested in trying to make sense of the past than in boldly predicting the future. I share the disappointment of many that the referendum campaign has descended to wild guesses about what might happen to the economy or national security if we leave. Surely we should be looking closely at past economic performance within the EU, which is hardly a comforting story: poor growth, a declining share of world trade and a currency that hobbles from crisis to crisis.

The British government, in the booklet it sent to every household, decided it would set out the facts, while recommending that the UK should remain inside a reformed EU. In fact, all that has been reformed is the relationship between Britain and the other member states, when it is the whole structure that needs a radical overhaul. A booklet setting out the real facts would not be a bad idea, for the facts are historical and easy to put together: economic performance; the functions of the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament; qualified majority voting; the true cost of membership (a warning to both sides to get this right); the arrangements for vetting arrivals from the border-free Schengen area; trade agreements with leading countries; and the membership and competencies, if one can call them that, of the European Court of Justice.

Without this basic information voters will be going into the booths armed with their prejudices, presumptions and (the In campaign hopes) their fears for the future. Yet there are also, even from this historical perspective, plenty of intangibles. What was meant by ever-closer union? In the minds of the creators of the common market it meant the creation of a United States of Europe in which all would become citizens of a single polity with a common president and a common defence and foreign policy, quite apart from economic integration.

Then there is the question of sovereignty. Every state compromises this to some extent. Most concessions of sovereignty are very minor: the presence of French border police at the Eurostar terminal at St Pancras, for instance. Membership of Nato certainly involves commitments that constrain our absolute freedom in foreign policy; but, as General Charles de Gaulle showed, one can walk away from Nato, though I would certainly not advise doing so.

The ceding of sovereignty to the EU is of an entirely different order. Here, legislation is being imposed from outside, and, although the British government has some say in its formulation, it does not determine its final form. In matters of interpretation, it has to accede to the judgments of the ECJ.

Here is a court composed, one hopes, of worthy lawyers, mostly trained in a very different legal tradition from that of the UK. Common law is uncommon among members of the EU. It is rooted in history — it is not just a product of English history but is itself history, the creative use of precedent. It also underlies our peculiar constitutional arrangements: no written constitution and a book of parliamentary practice, Erskine May’s Treatise upon the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, that is, remarkably, merely an unofficial guide written in 1844 and then updated.

Britain has diverged from its European neighbours over the centuries. No one denies that English kings have occasionally exercised great power on the continent (though never as kings of England, but as separately constituted dukes of Normandy or electors of Hanover). David Cameron, the UK prime minister, has cited the great battles of Blenheim, Trafalgar and Waterloo as signs that Britain has played its part on the continent; but these were triumphant moments in bitter wars, not exactly an example to follow in the Europe of the future. Edmund Burke’s prescription of evolution, not revolution, set out in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, expressed the true temper of the nation.

Certainly, England has had its violent civil wars, notably in the 15th and 17th centuries, as well as unrest in the 19th century. Overall, though, an unusually stable polity evolved that defied the predictions of Marx and Engels that the first industrial nation would become the first revolutionary nation. Fascism had little purchase here, and the far left has until recently exercised little influence.

Those who argue that the EU has brought us valuable legislation governing working conditions (though the working time directive has caused as many difficulties as it has resolved) need to show more confidence in the ability of our own government to introduce such laws, better framed and more closely adapted to the needs of this particular country. We cannot let ourselves be ruled by European legislation that overrides our own laws. A vote to leave is a vote for democracy.

The writer is professor of Mediterranean history at the University of Cambridge

 

 

Common Law is not only integral to the law and order of England, but integral to the development of English constitutionalism itself. So Common Law is based on case study and historical precedent, so the English Constitution developed through case study and precedent - i.e., not codification. Until 2009 Parliament, the Law Lords, was the final Court of Appeal. 

And this was all well developed centuries before the formation of the British Empire. 

Edited June 20, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

https://www.ft.com/content/c8e7a6ea-234e-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124

Common Law is not only integral to the law and order of England, but integral to the development of English constitutionalism itself. So Common Law is based on case study and historical precedent, so the English Constitution developed through case study and precedent - i.e., not codification. Until 2009 Parliament, the Law Lords, was the final Court of Appeal. 

And this was all well developed centuries before the formation of the British Empire. 

That's your response? Just reiterating what you have said before and ignoring the fact that we have examples of other unions with various legal systems which proves this doesn't have to be a problem? The equivalent of closing your eyes, covering your ears and going, "lalalalalala!". 

[Padme]

13 hours ago, lukepowell1988 said:

Porn blocks what are we communist China?

Not yet but give it time. The UK is going back to Victorian era 

[Len Cnut]

13 minutes ago, Padme said:

Not yet but give it time. The UK is going back to Victorian era 

Some of that Victorian porn is alright y'know, bit hairy in some places but you see should see the thighs on em

Edited June 20, 2019 by Len Cnut

[Padme]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

Some of that Victorian porn is alright y'know, bit hairy in some places but you see should see the thighs on em

In Vcitorian era you don't talk about it! It is too much of a taboo 

You have to be Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde 

[DieselDaisy]

7 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

That's your response? Just reiterating what you have said before and ignoring the fact that we have examples of other unions with various legal systems which proves this doesn't have to be a problem? The equivalent of closing your eyes, covering your ears and going, "lalalalalala!". 

No. That is the historian's article extracted from the Financial Times, which I merely elaborated upon with further information on England's constitutional history. But yes, I agree with that article so I suppose you could say it is my response (of sorts).

Pertaining to your last point, you're unfortunately impossible to converse with directly for the following reasons,

- Your usage of straw men and deliberate misquoting (e.g., ''to you Europe is comprised of Nazi Germany, metrosexual Scandinavia and effeminate and weak France'').

- Your ignorance of the subject matter. You insist on having an opinion on everything, yet, by your own omission, know nothing about the subjects in the arguments you trigger. Here the subjects would be EU and English legal-constitutional history.

- Your deliberate circumnavigating and ignoring of the arguments and source material set forth. 

- Your ad hominems. 

Edited June 20, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[Len Cnut]

26 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

No. That is the historian's article extracted from the Financial Times, which I merely elaborated upon with further information on England's constitutional history. But yes, I agree with that article so I suppose you could say it is my response (of sorts).

Pertaining to your last point, you're unfortunately impossible to converse with directly for the following reasons,

- Your usage of straw men and deliberate misquoting (e.g., ''to you Europe is comprised of Nazi Germany, metrosexual Scandinavia and effeminate and weak France'').

- Your ignorance of the subject matter. You insist on having an opinion on everything, yet, by your own omission, know nothing about the subjects in the arguments you trigger. Here the subjects would be EU and English legal-constitutional history.

- Your deliberate circumnavigating and ignoring of the arguments and source material set forth. 

- Your ad hominems. 

[DieselDaisy]

His fictitious quote of mine does not even include a mention of ''sequins'' so you know he has fabricated it. 

[Dazey]

17 hours ago, AtariLegend said:

The porn block that was supposed to be introduced next month, has been delayed for the foreseeable future. No new date. Was supposed to be happening a few times over the past few years, but they kept delaying it.

Was supposed to be happening on July 15th. Supposedly BBFC was told today it's not happening.

A shame. Wanted to see what the backlash was once people seen that the Torries were blocking internet porn, unless you registered yourself.

I really don’t get the point of this. Anybody using a VPN can just bypass all of this at the click of a mouse. 

[DieselDaisy]

8 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I really don’t get the point of this. Anybody using a VPN can just bypass all of this at the click of a mouse. 

It won't happen anyway as when the MPs are faffing on their phones they're really looking at porn. 

[SoulMonster]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

No. That is the historian's article extracted from the Financial Times, which I merely elaborated upon with further information on England's constitutional history. But yes, I agree with that article so I suppose you could say it is my response (of sorts).

Pertaining to your last point, you're unfortunately impossible to converse with directly for the following reasons,

- Your usage of straw men and deliberate misquoting (e.g., ''to you Europe is comprised of Nazi Germany, metrosexual Scandinavia and effeminate and weak France'').

- Your ignorance of the subject matter. You insist on having an opinion on everything, yet, by your own omission, know nothing about the subjects in the arguments you trigger. Here the subjects would be EU and English legal-constitutional history.

- Your deliberate circumnavigating and ignoring of the arguments and source material set forth. 

- Your ad hominems. 

Look, you claimed that the British people are different than the continental European people. When asked to explain you said that the Brits have a unique history and unique institutions, especially a different legal system than the other EU states.

I have countered this by pointing out that every country has a unique history and although the history of the Britain may by some metrics by grander than most others, it doesn't matter for what is now. We are looking at whether the Brits today are so special that they are incompatible with the rest of Europe and then it is irrelevant what has happened before, only what is now. And today the UK is nothing more than an average country, really. There is nothing special about you today. Nothing elevated about you, except the elevated sense of grandeur that some of you seem afflicted with. When it comes down to the nuts and bolts of living in a union like the EU today it all comes down to what the members states are today. So I have entirely rejected your argument that Brits are incompatible with continental Europe because of your oh-so-glorious past. The only problem is this inflated sense of purpose and destiny that some Brits seem to suffer under, which may fool them into thinking they can get by just as well on their own (which is ironic considering the fact you cannot even maneuver yourself out of the union!)

As for your institutions and generally being different today, I have pointed out that the Brits can't possible be more different than continental Europeans than, say, Finland and Malta or Cyprus and Luxembourg or Portugal and Lithuania, and so on. These are countries that share very little i the way of how they have come to be the diverse states they are today. This you have not commented at all, which isn't so surprising because you are much more comfortable with the "woe be me" argument where you yammer on about how you have been mistreated by others, than by actually providing precise assessments of other states. Instead you have focused on the singular fact that you have a different legal system than the EU states. As if that is some kind of dealbreaker. This point seems to have become the crux of your argument. What you are saying is that since these legal systems are so different you are incompatible with the rest of Europe. Of course this just remains a half-assed argument until you go into the specifics of why this particular difference is such an unsurmountable thing. But of course you don't have to (nor can, I speculate), because there is precedence proving that it isn't an unsurmountable difference: Cyprus also has a different legal system yet seems to be able to be part of the EU, and Louisiana, in USA which a much more demanding union than the EU, is able to handle this neatly despite having a different legal system. So no need to go into the specifics when we have evidence that it doesn't have to be a problem at all. The proof is in the pudding. But again, you have failed to be able to explain why the situation is different for the UK than for Cyprus and Louisiana (because it isn't, you have been part of the EU for a long time without the difference in legal systems being such a huge problem). As if this isn't enough, I have personal experience with both civil and common law, and having to deal with both, and I dismiss the notion you are trying to make that the differences are such a huge deal. They aren't. We deal with this regularly in global business, where you have to adhere to both legal systems and variations thereof, just like EU member states deal with their national differences. There is absolutely zero reason to assume that the case is any different for the UK.

So to summarize you aren't able to argue for your case, instead retreating to write irrelevant posts about the history of the UK ("when all you got is a hammer every problem looks like a nail") and generally disregarding my arguments for why you are wrong.

I also don't think you seriously believe that the difference in legal systems makes the UK incompatible with EU. This was just something you ended up saying. And you had to say something when asked what you meant by Brits being a different "people" to "continental Europe". And you couldn't very well explain your statement by anything resembling the xenophobic truth could you? So different legal systems it became! And you are sticking to it no matter how ridiculous it is.

 

 

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

Imagine being worried that it might become a little harder for people to access porn. 

[AtariLegend]

2 hours ago, Dazey said:

I really don’t get the point of this. Anybody using a VPN can just bypass all of this at the click of a mouse. 

They were looking at blocking vpns in the UK. The Torries were trying to suggest that chrome integrating a VPN was a danger to the countries children.

Don't remember the fuss over what's app ect?

There's been alot of silly things on the agenda over the past few years that no one talks about because of Brexit.

[DieselDaisy]

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I have countered this by pointing out that every country has a unique history and although the history of the Britain may by some metrics by grander than most others, it doesn't matter for what is now. We are looking at whether the Brits today are so special that they are incompatible with the rest of Europe and then it is irrelevant what has happened before, only what is now. And today the UK is nothing more than an average country, really. There is nothing special about you today. Nothing elevated about you, except the elevated sense of grandeur that some of you seem afflicted with. When it comes down to the nuts and bolts of living in a union like the EU today it all comes down to what the members states are today. So I have entirely rejected your argument that Brits are incompatible with continental Europe because of your oh-so-glorious past. The only problem is this inflated sense of purpose and destiny that some Brits seem to suffer under, which may fool them into thinking they can get by just as well on their own (which is ironic considering the fact you cannot even maneuver yourself out of the union!)

It is you who are using quantifiable comparatives and participles here - I have highlighted them. I have never claimed anything like this! Again, straw man, from the King of Straw Men, Soul Monster.

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

As for your institutions and generally being different today, I have pointed out that the Brits can't possible be more different than continental Europeans than, say, Finland and Malta or Cyprus and Luxembourg or Portugal and Lithuania, and so on. These are countries that share very little i the way of how they have come to be the diverse states they are today.

Finland, Malta, Luxembourg, Portugal and Lithuania share Civic Law (Cyprus has Common Law). 4/6 of them share land borders which means they have been impacted by invasion and interpolation - something Britain has avoided since 1066. Indeed Finland was invaded by the Soviets in 1939, and the Lithuanians were part of the Russian and Soviet Empires. Portugal and Spain were incorporated dynastically 1580 and 1640, and Portugal was further invaded by France in 1808. 

The USA is a Federal Constitution. Sorry but this analogy is utterly useless. 

 

Edited June 20, 2019 by DieselDaisy