British Politics

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No need to hide it, sounds like a great idea. 

Utterly abhorrent politics and confirmatory of everything Tony Benn said about the EU. 

 

[Dazey]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Verhofstadt made a speech at the Lib Dems conference discussing the need to have a ''EU Empire''! 

It isn't as if these Eurocrats hide the fact they desire an empire! Truly revolting politics. 

I don't see the problem. Given the ever present threat of Russia and the fact that the US seems to have gone AWOL I think that a stronger Europe (including a Euro army) is not only a good idea but absolutely necessary. 

Edited September 15, 2019 by Dazey

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Utterly abhorrent politics and confirmatory of everything Tony Benn said about the EU. 

 

The opinion of one EU politician isn't representative of the opinions of all EU politicians and hence cannot be indicative of what the EU is, but I know from before that this is beyond you. 

That being said, we need more collaboration, more harmonisation, less borders, more free movement, more pan-european systems, less vats, etc, to effectively deal with international issues like climate change, cross-border crime and immigration, so on the face of it going in the direction of a more comprehensive and involving European Union, or empire if you will, makes a lot of sense. 

[DieselDaisy]

2 hours ago, Dazey said:

I don't see the problem. Given the ever present threat of Russia and the fact that the US seems to have gone AWOL I think that a stronger Europe (including a Euro army) is not only a good idea but absolutely necessary. 

Nothing I would want to see us involved in: we have a completely different brand of politics. 

But let's just focus on his rhetoric: ''empire'' though? Just the usage of the term - isn't it Brexiteers who are obsessed with empire? Isn't it the more EU-attuned Guardianistas who lecture us on the ''sins of empire'' - our sins? Yet here we have a Eurocrat espousing a EU Empire with no ambiguity in England. And then he waded through ''empires'' with some incredibly flawed logic and historic oversight? India, whilst not realising the depth of ''national'' sentiment (trust me, I'm a cricket fan!); China, whilst ignoring persecuted minorities within that Chinese ''Empire''. 

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

That being said, we need more collaboration, more harmonisation, less borders, more free movement, more pan-european systems, less vats, etc, to effectively deal with international issues like climate change, cross-border crime and immigration, so on the face of it going in the direction of a more comprehensive and involving European Union, or empire if you will, makes a lot of sense. 

No. He talked of ''empires''. He actually dispensed with the wishy-washy stuff. He doesn't even lie - Verhofstadt.

Edited September 15, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[DieselDaisy]

Quote

In the world order of tomorrow, the world order of tomorrow is not a world order based on nation states or countries, it’s a world order that is based on Empires, China is not a nation, it’s a civilisation. India, you know it better than I do, is not a nation, there are two thousands nations in India, there are twenty different languages that are used there, there are four big religions at the same time. It is the biggest democracy worldwide.

NB., India actually has 29 languages with more than one million native speakers, and 79.80% Hindu and 14.23% Muslims, meaning just under 6% represent other religions (Sikhism 1.72%, Christianity 2.30%). It would have been better if he got stuff like this correct beforehand, but regardless,

Quote

The US is also an Empire, more than a nation, maybe tomorrow they will speak more Spanish than English, I don’t know what will happen. And then finally, the Russian Federation, the world of tomorrow is a world of Empires, in which we Europeans and you British can only defend your interests, your way of life by doing it together in a European framework and a European Union.

 

[DieselDaisy]

On 9/11/2019 at 3:51 PM, SoulMonster said:

So our Constitutional expert was wrong.

What have I been wrong about exactly? The mechanism of prorogation is as routine as the State Opening of Parliament which succeeds it, and generally happens yearly. You certainly don't trust anything I say but listen to your British-remain chums (Dazey, Graeme) and they will confirm this mechanism is very normal and constitutional. If however Boris has been misleading the Queen in order to prorogue, how was I to know what advice Boris has delivered up to Her Majesty? I desire Brexit like him (seemingly) but I wouldn't trust Boris as far as I could swing him and never have. 

- There is also the question that, if it is unlawful for prorogation to occur because ''it had the purpose of stymying parliament'' (Scottish Courts), then surely also Major's prorogation in 1997, or Attlee's was also unlawful? Surely?

Edited September 15, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[soon]

Fuck empire. Also, there is only one Queen Majesty who ever deserved anything. Long live the Queen.

[AtariLegend]

My fear at the minute is that the Lib Dems will form a coalition with the Tories if Boris losses his seat and there's a hung parliament.

It's a party of pro austerity cameroons with a few ex-labour right mps. 

Edited September 15, 2019 by AtariLegend

[DieselDaisy]

It is ironic that Verhofstadt is actively supporting a (foreign) political party who campaigned for a Europe referendum, 

He is also supporting a party who coalesced with the Tories on austerity, but that is perhaps not so ironic given the EU's views on austerity.

 

[DieselDaisy]

Pertaining to Nicholas Soames' dismissal, I have never seen so many remaining lefties obsessing over Winston Churchill's bloodline haha? Every time a Lib Dem, SNP or Labour MP is interviewed - Diane Abbot for crying out loud - they immediately start mentioning Soames's blue-blooded pedigree, incorporating as it does Britain's great war time leader and proponent of empire haha.

It is also ironic that Soames is now a revered figure of the remaining-left given this is the same Soames who become famous for making ''woofing noises'' and ''breast gestures'' in the Commons whenever female MPs speak, and was guilty of inheritance tax avoidance. Chum of Robert Mugabe also. 

Edited September 15, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, soon said:

Fuck empire. Also, there is only one Queen Majesty who ever deserved anything. Long live the Queen.

Then you haven't be listening to Guy recently as he thinks empire is back in vogue,

Don't know who the housewife is.

[Dazey]

14 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Then you haven't be listening to Guy recently as he thinks empire is back in vogue,

Don't know who the housewife is.

That’s David Mellor!  

[DieselDaisy]

10 minutes ago, Dazey said:

That’s David Mellor!  

It is Guy (pronounced ''ghee'') Verhofstadt, floppy head Reichsführer of the EU Parliament. You should know him as he is basically the god of all you stand for (abolishing nation-states and replacing them with an ''empire'' with an army etc etc). 

[Dazey]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is Guy (pronounced ''ghee'') Verhofstadt, floppy head Reichsführer of the EU Parliament. You should know him as he is basically the god of all you stand for (abolishing nation-states and replacing them with an ''empire'' with an army etc etc). 

Nah, it’s David Mellor. Stick him in a Chelsea strip with some tart’s trotters in his gob and he’s the spitting image.  

[DieselDaisy]

22 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Nah, it’s David Mellor. Stick him in a Chelsea strip with some tart’s trotters in his gob and he’s the spitting image.  

There is a resemblance,

Incidentally, in the Imperial War Museum, North Lambeth, they have Margaret Thatcher's Spitting Image puppet,

Edited September 16, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

17 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

No. He talked of ''empires''. 

So it is the term "empire" that triggers you. Okay

16 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

What have I been wrong about exactly? 

Claiming that Boris Johnson's specific prorogation wasn't unconstitutional.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Claiming that Boris Johnson's specific prorogation wasn't unconstitutional.

I said that prorogation in toto was not constitutional (as remainers were saying). I don't believe I referred to Boris's specific prorogation.

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

So it is the term "empire" that triggers you. Okay

Well it is quite an emotive and powerful word! But in actual fact I find Verhofstadt's entire brand of politics utterly abhorrent. 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I said that prorogation in toto was not constitutional (as remainers were saying). I don't believe I referred to Boris's specific prorogation.

I am pretty certain you agued that what Johnson did was entirely fine and constitutional. 

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well it is quite an emotive and powerful word! But in actual fact I find Verhofstadt's entire brand of politics utterly abhorrent. 

Yeah, you do seem to live on the edge of emotional breakdown.

[DieselDaisy]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I am pretty certain you agued that what Johnson did was entirely fine and constitutional. 

Then you should have no problem quoting me on this then...

At the time I found Boris' usage of prorogation somewhat against the spirit but not the letter of the law (of the constitution), in that it aimed to shut down parliamentary discourse, but then, in this regard he is not unique either: John Major did it also in 1997! You see we have an unwritten constitution which means the exploitation of such legal loopholes are possible. (I also found it a huge tactical blunder, as is the case with everything that has transpired. Leave was arguably on the front foot again before he made that decision.)

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yeah, you do seem to live on the edge of emotional breakdown.

I do not believe I have ever displayed symptoms of such tendencies. Ad hominem.

Edited September 16, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Then you should have no problem quoting me on this then...

At the time I found Boris' usage of prorogation somewhat against the spirit but not the letter of the law (of the constitution)

Exactly. Now it seems it was illegal, so you were wrong.

As for quoting, you posted twice on the issue of prorogation, both times pointing out how common and unproblematic the procedure is, not pointing out that Boris' type pf prorogation is entirely different than the usual type of prorogation that takes place regularly. I mean, not all prorogations are the same, yet you didn't make that distinction and argued that it was fine because it happens all the time.

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I do not believe I have ever displayed symptoms of such tendencies. Ad hominem.

This whole thread is indicative of your decent into hysteria. And now you get flustered just because some guy uses the word "empire" instead of "tighter union" or whatever, as if you actually think he intends to invoke the Third Reich or something. Just more and more off the hinges. It's like radicalization just about the EU. 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Exactly. Now it seems it was illegal, so you were wrong.

But I never referred to the specifics of Boris' prorogation. I referred to prorogation itself, which was being depicted by remainers as this ''weird, unprecedented'' event, when in reality it is a regular mechanism which ends a parliamentary session.

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

This whole thread is indicative of your decent into hysteria. And now you get flustered just because some guy uses the word "empire" instead of "tighter union" or whatever, as if you actually think he intends to invoke the Third Reich or something. Just more and more off the hinges. It's like radicalization just about the EU. 

Even Adonis is appalled at the speech,

(Clue, Adonis is an arch-remainer).

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

But I never referred to the specifics of Boris' prorogation. I referred to prorogation itself, which was being depicted by remainers as this ''weird, unprecedented'' event, when in reality it is a regular mechanism which ends a parliamentary session.

It is entirely irrelevant to discuss prorogation as a phenomenon when everybody else is discussing Boris Johnson's particular misuse of prorogation to advance his political goals. But maybe you were just so apoplectic about something you had read on twitter that you decided to respond to that here on mygnrforum? You tend to do that more and more also. Like you are losing the ability to keep discussions separate.

[DieselDaisy]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It is entirely irrelevant to discuss prorogation as a phenomenon when everybody else is discussing Boris Johnson's particular misuse of prorogation to advance his political goals. But maybe you were just so apoplectic about something you had read on twitter that you decided to respond to that here on mygnrforum? You tend to do that more and more also. Like you are losing the ability to keep discussions separate.

But my own view was it was against the spirit but not the letter of the law - please pay attention. My discussions on prorogation on mygnr were mostly about remainer misunderstanding of the mechanism, and John Major's hypocrisy - please pay attention. The specifics of Boris' prorogation are topical and transpiring as we speak; people (including myself) are not privy to the advice Boris' has rendered up to the Queen - please pay attention.

You will do better in future if you pay attention (and cease your customary ad hominems and straw men).