Jump to content
Gracii Guns

British Politics

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Dazey said:

That’s David Mellor! :lol: 

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). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :lol: 

There is a resemblance,

mellor-guy-1490871995-list-handheld-0.jp

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

70255319_10211325389408835_7795539846113

Edited by DieselDaisy
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by DieselDaisy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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,

EElL-uVWkAE_xQB?format=jpg&name=medium

(Clue, Adonis is an arch-remainer).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

But my own view was it was against the spirit but not the letter of the law - please pay attention.

And again, you seem to be wrong on that, too. I tend to trust judges' interpretation of law over you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

And again, you seem to be wrong on that, too. I tend to trust judges' interpretation of law over you.

But not the judges of the Divisional Court in London who dismissed the case against Boris' prorogation on 6th Sept? 

Not the judgement of the Belfast High Court who also dismissed the case?

Only the Judges in the Court of Session, Edinburgh? Correct?

We await your view on the Supreme Court...

PS

I suppose if they agree with the Scots you'll elevate their view to a position loftier than my own which is fair enough as I'm not a lawyer, yet if the Supreme Court agrees with the London and Belfast Courts you'll ignore the judgement of those fine custodians of British jurisprudence. I never after all saw you eulogise our judges of the United Kingdom when they upheld Boris' prorogation haha!!

Edited by DieselDaisy
Addendum post scripta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

But not the judges of the Divisional Court in London who dismissed the case against Boris' prorogation on 6th Sept? 

Not the judgement of the Belfast High Court who also dismissed the case?

Only the Judges in the Court of Session, Edinburgh? Correct?

We await your view on the Supreme Court...

Dismissal is not the same as being found not guilty. And at the very least this indicates a legal dissens, far from how you presented the case to be clear-cut constitutionally. What I am saying is simply that your attempts at coming across as some kind of constitutional expert here got torpedoed. Makes it harder to trust you on other topics regarding British legal matters. Not that I would suggest anyone should trust you on anything, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SoulMonster said:

Dismissal is not the same as being found not guilty. And at the very least this indicates a legal dissens, far from how you presented the case to be clear-cut constitutionally. What I am saying is simply that your attempts at coming across as some kind of constitutional expert here got torpedoed. Makes it harder to trust you on other topics regarding British legal matters. Not that I would suggest anyone should trust you on anything, really.

The mechanism of prorogation is legal constitutionally: this is what I referred to. I note well that you have not quoted any of my posts, as this would confirm that fact.

Your attempts and tremendous effort to find ways in which I erred are enjoyable to watch but a bit obsessive!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

The mechanism of prorogation is legal constitutionally: this is what I referred to. I note well that you have not quoted any of my posts, as this would confirm that fact.

 

33 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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

 

 

But I didn't mention that. This is your argument picking up on previous posts by me, in which you deem I erred legally because of subsequent events with more information than I possessed at the time, the posts in question being,

On 8/28/2019 at 11:29 AM, DieselDaisy said:

Prorogue, and she has to act in accordance with the advice of her government. Prorogation is actually standard, determining the end of a parliamentary session and the state opening of a new one. 

 

On 8/28/2019 at 11:42 AM, DieselDaisy said:

De jure it is only the royal prerogative which can prorogue parliament. By convention however the royal prerogative is excised at the behest of the government.

 

On 8/28/2019 at 11:53 AM, DieselDaisy said:

What is going to happen is the Queen will prorogue parliament circa 9th September, until new state opening on 14th October, acting on advice of her government. 

NB., I wasn't aware the passing of the European Withdrawal Bill in the above.

On 8/28/2019 at 12:18 PM, DieselDaisy said:

Boris can because it is perfectly constitutional. It is deft - I agree - but perfectly legal. John Major did something similar in 1997 during the cash-for-questions debacle.

 

On 8/28/2019 at 2:39 PM, DieselDaisy said:

It is perfectly constitutional: every time a parliamentary session ends, parliament is prorogued. 

 

On 8/28/2019 at 2:58 PM, DieselDaisy said:

 

Just to give your some idea of how frequent prorogation is, it always proceeds the annual state opening of parliament which has occurred since the 14th century!!

PS

Just to clarify,

- remainers don't understand how parliamentary sessions and prorogation works

 

Everything above is factually correct. Everything focuses on the simple mechanism of prorogation which was misunderstood by remainers, but you will note well I used the term ''deft'' which is in accordance with my summary that Boris has broken the ''spirit'' of parliamentarianism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

in which you deem I erred legally because of subsequent events with more information than I possessed at the time

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

:lol:

Well I couldn't for instance have known about the European Withdrawal Bill (which anyhow Boris may ignore) as it was passed after I made that post. I've never claimed to be in possession of the powers of a clairvoyance. Thanks for the laughing ball head though. Usually as good a notification as any when your attempts to discredit me have utterly failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well I couldn't for instance have known about the European Withdrawal Bill (which anyhow Boris may ignore) as it was passed after I made that post. I've never claimed to be in possession of the powers of a clairvoyance. Thanks for the laughing ball head though. Usually as good a notification as any when your attempts to discredit me have utterly failed.

Again, you were wrong in making it appear as Boris Johnson's prorogation was legally uncontroversial. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Again, you were wrong in making it appear as Boris Johnson's prorogation was legally uncontroversial. 

I said the mechanism of prorogation was legally uncontroversial. I even provided you with a little history lesson in the above quotes. This of course you have  completely ignored. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I said the mechanism of prorogation was legally uncontroversial. 

 

2 hours 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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×