Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Yellow Fever

The Brexit Thread (reprise)

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Prorogation was to end one of the longest parliamentary sessions in modern times. It is the Queen that prorogates Parliament so the supreme court were actually trying to put themselves above the Monarch. for that reason alone, they need to go.

trying ?

I think you will find that the advice given to the Queen was ruled unlawful - so fatboy was told to obey the law

which shows clearly you haven't the slightest idea what the roles and powers of the executive, the legislative and the judiciary are

...................never mind the crown

so back to lying about your time as a Senior Manager in the NHS (as you once claimed) - or maybe you could tell us how your 'mate' bagster is getting on ūü§£

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Labour promised free broadband for all, at point of use. The country said 'no thanks, Mr. Corbyn'

I think the country rejected Mr. Corbyn for reasons other than free broadband 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

I think the country rejected Mr. Corbyn for reasons other than free broadband 

makes you long for the return of Swindo, another righty liar

but at least he doesn't pretend to know what he is talking about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stand by

RTB has logged out and Barbie Blue has logged in a minute after ūüėõ

I expect that it will be hand crank though as he logged in as well  just before

so place your bets.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Herman said:

The Queen does it under advice from the PM. The court found the PMs actions unlawful. It had nothing to do with the courts putting themselves above the Queen but upholding the law of the land. 

Did Johnson ever apologise to Her Majesty? 

You lot still debating this!? Neither of you two can win, you do know that, right ?  There are two equally valid ways of looking at this.

Truth likely is that the government tried to stretch convention to avoid the scrutiny of Parliament, but there was never a law against what they did. No statute has been passed to further limit the prerogative of prorogation and it has never been the subject of a challenge.   The lack of any law against the prorogation and the political nature of the action meant the government won in the High Court. To suggest that the actions were clearly and unambiguously unlawful is to demean the judge.

But that is not to say that the government's actions were acceptable.

The supreme Court identified the lacuna and thought it offended parliamentary democracy. They then, in effect, created new law to fill the gap.  You could claim that the supreme Court cannot invent law so this cannot possibly be right,  in which case you can use the phrase 'extrapolated existing common  law principles to decide a novel issue'.   Either way you look at it we started at a point when there was nothing specific in the common law that specifically prevented prorogation in the circumstances as they then were and now there is.

In a forum so split between black and white shades of grey retreat to the safer ground of Delia out banners and away from the odd man bill and his overwritten trolling 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

You lot still debating this!? Neither of you two can win, you do know that, right ?  There are two equally valid ways of looking at this.

Truth likely is that the government tried to stretch convention to avoid the scrutiny of Parliament, but there was never a law against what they did. No statute has been passed to further limit the prerogative of prorogation and it has never been the subject of a challenge.   The lack of any law against the prorogation and the political nature of the action meant the government won in the High Court. To suggest that the actions were clearly and unambiguously unlawful is to demean the judge.

But that is not to say that the government's actions were acceptable.

The supreme Court identified the lacuna and thought it offended parliamentary democracy. They then, in effect, created new law to fill the gap.  You could claim that the supreme Court cannot invent law so this cannot possibly be right,  in which case you can use the phrase 'extrapolated existing common  law principles to decide a novel issue'.   Either way you look at it we started at a point when there was nothing specific in the common law that specifically prevented prorogation in the circumstances as they then were and now there is.

In a forum so split between black and white shades of grey retreat to the safer ground of Delia out banners and away from the odd man bill and his overwritten trolling

that is fcking priceless hand crank !

you have spent the last half hour trying to gen up on this and have served up a pile of confused nonsenseūüôĄ

there was no new law created, and if you really understood this you would have put it in your own words instead of cobbling together sentences and phases from elsewhere

 as in basically ...... in lay mans language -

Fatboy acted unlawfully in trying to close Parliament as it meant Parliament could not function, as far as sovereignty and it being accountable ie it was being blocked from fulfilling its purpose

the ruling by the Supreme court meant that there are not 'two valid ways of looking at this' as anyone with even the most rudimentary grasp of law would understand - that is why there was a ruling ..... to decide which side was valid

so once again hand crank you have made an ars of yourself, as anyone reading your confused mumbo jumbo can see - anyone understanding their brief is able to put over something like this, concisely and clearly

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

What was proposed by Labour at the last election was FREE broadband for all. As was noted at the time, water, electricity, gas and sewerage all have to be paid for by consumers, so there is no case to be made for free national broadband.

No. The pipes that bring the water or gas to your home are free. You pay for the amount of water or gas you use. In the case of internet enabled services you should pay for the services you run on It, charging for the bandwidth used is stupid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

You lot still debating this!? Neither of you two can win, you do know that, right ?  There are two equally valid ways of looking at this.

 

I'm not sure why you always try to correct me when it was Rocky that came out with the initial nonsensical statement. 

But, yes, I have "won" already because I look at the facts and, no, there are not two equally valid ways of looking at this because of said facts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While watching the prog on TV last night called Devon and Cornwall a fishing skipper said that "a good fisherman is a greedy fisherman." That statement is a load of old bollix. I have said on here many times that the fishermen were their own worst enemies. They will rape the sea of all stock in a very short time due to greed and shortsighedness. My family were guilty of it in the past and that is why we are no longer in the fishing game.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Herman said:

I'm not sure why you always try to correct me when it was Rocky that came out with the initial nonsensical statement. 

But, yes, I have "won" already because I look at the facts and, no, there are not two equally valid ways of looking at this because of said facts. 

I just latched onto the end of the conversation. I wasn't going to scroll right back to the start of it, wherever that might be.

Besides which you told me a few weeks ago that RTB was beyond the point where a discussion could actually be had. 

You have "won" because the supreme Court agreed with you. In the long run that is all that matters, and it matters not one bit now as Boris got his way through a different, infinitely better, route.

I am still right that there was nothing inevitable about the Supreme Court decision though....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Well firstly, it won't be so straightforward joining the EU as many Scots think. It's not altogether clear that the EU wants them in, and it certainly wouldn't be on the terms that Scotland wants. What do the Scots bring to the EU table? They would be net beneficiaries rather than net contributors to the EU budget, so there is a cost to the larger EU members of the Scottish joining, so the terms of joining are likely to be onerous, such as having to accept the Euro as a currency, sharing of EU debt and as much immigration as Berlin and Paris thinks Scotland should take.

If I were Scots I would want to know whether the amount I'd be getting from the EU is equal to or greater than the amount I am getting under the Barnet formula. I would also want to know what the rest of the UK might do if we sought independence. Would there be a border imposed between Scotland and England, would industry move from a high-cost (because of SNP socialist policies) region to a lower-cost England? would Scottish nationals working in England lose their right to remain? Would there be a flight of Scottish entrepreneurs and creatives from Scotland when taxes rise?

And finally, I would ask myself as a Scots person, had I really achieved independence if all I've done is moved from an English partnership to an EU club of 28 or more?

Thank you for a considered reply. It's useful too to ask more questions in response because the question that I asked was itself quite limited (linear). Some of the very questions you've raised RTB could equally be applied to the UK leaving the EU. Certainly we are seeing firms deciding not to establish bases or main services here outside of the bloc. That is just one example.

I very much doubt Scottish nationals would lose their right to remain too. As for the worry about gaining independence from one country to another set being a potential concern I would imagine (again I'm on the remain side so this is my prism) it isn't an issue. I can still consider myself English or British quite easily and feel also European. I've never felt being part of the EU has threatened my sense of nationality. For Brexiters, it clearly has. I've never understood this and have assumed other motivations have been at play.

I read a book ("Futurewise" by Patrick Dixon) ...must have been 20 years ago. He predicted a whole range of forces, movements and events that would happen well into the future. Factionalism or tribalism was one such force. History repeats I guess.....When things coalesce, there is a natural force at some stage to its opposite. Carl Jung used a term 'enantiodromia' (hope the spelling is right) to explain how one system inevitably changes to another. We see this in elections of course as a small example.

It made me wonder that things like independence would naturally happen. Dixon obviously felt so in his book. We've seen all those former communist / state run eastern Europe bloc countries regain independence in the 90s so the UK and Scotland one senses are not such outliers in such a global change context. People want to feel in control and that means drawing back the frontiers (and here I mean psychological ones). 

As someone spending my whole life (work wise) trying to pull people together (city and region wide for example) socially and economically I've realised it cannot be easily achieved. When it is possible it isn't sustained. Life lessons and all that. Yet, the benefits of being part of a greater whole should never be given up. It's worth fighting for.

So it's all a bit depressing as you'd imagine for someone like me who has a more internationalist perspective. What to do oneself then? Arguing on the Pinkun is pointless mostly. It's educative but changes nothing. ...For me, I've placed more energy through my working life into individual change (for self and others) because (a) it is tangible and capable of being evidenced,  (b) it is achievable, (c) it is life affirming. That's my approach in a nutshell to all this huge societal change. It's ironic in a way. It means bringing one's attention right back to ourselves (which is just what Brexit is doing on a countrywide scale!). 

I'm convinced Scotland will become independent followed possibly by a united Ireland. Wales? I'm less sure but it's possible. Wales has had a very interesting history with the English. Wales though has a fraction of economic power compared to Scotland. The Europe project has far greater potential to provide security for individual nations to give one example. Yet, it's all like a big family isn't it. And we all know how families fall apart and squabble. 

Apologies for a rambling reply. Such a lot to talk about though.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I just latched onto the end of the conversation. I wasn't going to scroll right back to the start of it, wherever that might be.

Besides which you told me a few weeks ago that RTB was beyond the point where a discussion could actually be had. 

You have "won" because the supreme Court agreed with you. In the long run that is all that matters, and it matters not one bit now as Boris got his way through a different, infinitely better, route.

I am still right that there was nothing inevitable about the Supreme Court decision though....

Given that you and RTB are one and the same there would be no need for you to scroll back - though it does explain why you answer on behalf of each other so regularly

Herman did not 'win', you lost.

You lied in making false claims about proroguing Parliament, then swapped log ins to post some of the worst legalese it has been my misfortune to read. That being because you hadn't a clue, and your cobbled together sentences and phrases clearly demonstrated that fact.

The Supreme Court did not 'agree' with Herman, he merely pointed out the known facts of that case.

And to claim are right because a ruling was not inevitable, stretches your stupidity to Swindo levels. As, if it was inevitable, there would have been no need for it to require a judgement

So despite your usual attempts to weasel out of getting it wrong by misrepresenting other posters words you have yet again been exposed as a liar .............................. irrespective of what name you have used.

Share this post


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

it borders on parody - and his tongue is firmly in his cheek

about the level of the latter days of Punch

Think brexit, then read this guff

"They prefer stability over change. And they favour continuity over disruption and discontinuity. "

That is brexiteers he is talking about ūüėÜ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Thank you for a considered reply. It's useful too to ask more questions in response because the question that I asked was itself quite limited (linear). Some of the very questions you've raised RTB could equally be applied to the UK leaving the EU. Certainly we are seeing firms deciding not to establish bases or main services here outside of the bloc. That is just one example.

I very much doubt Scottish nationals would lose their right to remain too. As for the worry about gaining independence from one country to another set being a potential concern I would imagine (again I'm on the remain side so this is my prism) it isn't an issue. I can still consider myself English or British quite easily and feel also European. I've never felt being part of the EU has threatened my sense of nationality. For Brexiters, it clearly has. I've never understood this and have assumed other motivations have been at play.

I read a book ("Futurewise" by Patrick Dixon) ...must have been 20 years ago. He predicted a whole range of forces, movements and events that would happen well into the future. Factionalism or tribalism was one such force. History repeats I guess.....When things coalesce, there is a natural force at some stage to its opposite. Carl Jung used a term 'enantiodromia' (hope the spelling is right) to explain how one system inevitably changes to another. We see this in elections of course as a small example.

It made me wonder that things like independence would naturally happen. Dixon obviously felt so in his book. We've seen all those former communist / state run eastern Europe bloc countries regain independence in the 90s so the UK and Scotland one senses are not such outliers in such a global change context. People want to feel in control and that means drawing back the frontiers (and here I mean psychological ones). 

As someone spending my whole life (work wise) trying to pull people together (city and region wide for example) socially and economically I've realised it cannot be easily achieved. When it is possible it isn't sustained. Life lessons and all that. Yet, the benefits of being part of a greater whole should never be given up. It's worth fighting for.

So it's all a bit depressing as you'd imagine for someone like me who has a more internationalist perspective. What to do oneself then? Arguing on the Pinkun is pointless mostly. It's educative but changes nothing. ...For me, I've placed more energy through my working life into individual change (for self and others) because (a) it is tangible and capable of being evidenced,  (b) it is achievable, (c) it is life affirming. That's my approach in a nutshell to all this huge societal change. It's ironic in a way. It means bringing one's attention right back to ourselves (which is just what Brexit is doing on a countrywide scale!). 

I'm convinced Scotland will become independent followed possibly by a united Ireland. Wales? I'm less sure but it's possible. Wales has had a very interesting history with the English. Wales though has a fraction of economic power compared to Scotland. The Europe project has far greater potential to provide security for individual nations to give one example. Yet, it's all like a big family isn't it. And we all know how families fall apart and squabble. 

Apologies for a rambling reply. Such a lot to talk about though.

 

Thanks Sonyc.

I had very similar thoughts about the irony of RTB's comments as to 'Scottish' independence as opposed to UK (or should I say England's) Brexit.

The big difference is that Scotland knows where it wants to go - has a destination in mind knowing it's a small european country whereas England doesn't.  For England, and especially the boomers like me, the last dying flickering embers of empire live large in the memory, the empire upon which the sun never set; and coupled with a bizarre sense of unrealistic exceptionalism led to the Brexit fiasco.  

As you also note NI already has an escape prized open from the Brexit Titanic. Scotland is lowering the lifeboat and even Wales is starting to think where are the life jackets. Johnson and the Brexiters are of course already irredeemably tied to the mast/wheel and will go down with the ship in true British 'Boy's Own' style. I don't expect history will treat them kindly - the very word Brexiter rapidly joining other select words such as 'Luddite', Puritan, and Cretin in the English lexicon. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it had nothing to do with the 'fading empire - it was naked xenophobia and none too hidden racism

and putting Luddite and Puritan in the same sentence as cretin shows a distinct lack of any grasp of history, at it's most basic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bill said:

No, it had nothing to do with the 'fading empire - it was naked xenophobia and none too hidden racism

and putting Luddite and Puritan in the same sentence as cretin shows a distinct lack of any grasp of history, at it's most basic

Bill - you are arguing for the sake of arguing, missing the subtle point in an almost autistic way (and yes I do have first hand experience of that).

Luddites, Puritans,  Cretins (yes a Swiss village) and many others are simply words which identify a group that entered the English lexicon with unfavorable connotations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Bill - you are arguing for the sake of arguing, missing the subtle point in an almost autistic way (and yes I do have first hand experience of that).

Luddites, Puritans,  Cretins (yes a Swiss village) and many others are simply words which identify a group that entered the English lexicon with unfavorable connotations.

 and kept there by continuing the misrepresentation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bill said:

it borders on parody - and his tongue is firmly in his cheek

about the level of the latter days of Punch

Think brexit, then read this guff

"They prefer stability over change. And they favour continuity over disruption and discontinuity. "

That is brexiteers he is talking about ūüėÜ

They ignore the question of how flaws in their own political project contributed to the current one. They adopt a condescending if not openly hostile attitude toward their fellow citizens, who are routinely chastised for having made the ‚Äúwrong‚ÄĚ choice or been ‚Äúduped‚ÄĚ by elites.

And they are often, though not always, narcissistic, failing to conceal their inner belief that it is they who are morally superior to their fellow citizens and more worthy of determining the future direction of the country.

Thats you in a nutshell BillyūüėČ

Edited by ricardo
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sonyc said:

Thank you for a considered reply. It's useful too to ask more questions in response because the question that I asked was itself quite limited (linear). Some of the very questions you've raised RTB could equally be applied to the UK leaving the EU. Certainly we are seeing firms deciding not to establish bases or main services here outside of the bloc. That is just one example.

I very much doubt Scottish nationals would lose their right to remain too. As for the worry about gaining independence from one country to another set being a potential concern I would imagine (again I'm on the remain side so this is my prism) it isn't an issue. I can still consider myself English or British quite easily and feel also European. I've never felt being part of the EU has threatened my sense of nationality. For Brexiters, it clearly has. I've never understood this and have assumed other motivations have been at play.

I read a book ("Futurewise" by Patrick Dixon) ...must have been 20 years ago. He predicted a whole range of forces, movements and events that would happen well into the future. Factionalism or tribalism was one such force. History repeats I guess.....When things coalesce, there is a natural force at some stage to its opposite. Carl Jung used a term 'enantiodromia' (hope the spelling is right) to explain how one system inevitably changes to another. We see this in elections of course as a small example.

It made me wonder that things like independence would naturally happen. Dixon obviously felt so in his book. We've seen all those former communist / state run eastern Europe bloc countries regain independence in the 90s so the UK and Scotland one senses are not such outliers in such a global change context. People want to feel in control and that means drawing back the frontiers (and here I mean psychological ones). 

As someone spending my whole life (work wise) trying to pull people together (city and region wide for example) socially and economically I've realised it cannot be easily achieved. When it is possible it isn't sustained. Life lessons and all that. Yet, the benefits of being part of a greater whole should never be given up. It's worth fighting for.

So it's all a bit depressing as you'd imagine for someone like me who has a more internationalist perspective. What to do oneself then? Arguing on the Pinkun is pointless mostly. It's educative but changes nothing. ...For me, I've placed more energy through my working life into individual change (for self and others) because (a) it is tangible and capable of being evidenced,  (b) it is achievable, (c) it is life affirming. That's my approach in a nutshell to all this huge societal change. It's ironic in a way. It means bringing one's attention right back to ourselves (which is just what Brexit is doing on a countrywide scale!). 

I'm convinced Scotland will become independent followed possibly by a united Ireland. Wales? I'm less sure but it's possible. Wales has had a very interesting history with the English. Wales though has a fraction of economic power compared to Scotland. The Europe project has far greater potential to provide security for individual nations to give one example. Yet, it's all like a big family isn't it. And we all know how families fall apart and squabble. 

Apologies for a rambling reply. Such a lot to talk about though.

Thanks.for a thoughtful reply and especially providing some sources for your ideas. I have found some great material by following up links.provided by posters on this forum over the past few years. I have a hunch you have some interesting sources Sonyc

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

They ignore the question of how flaws in their own political project contributed to the current one. They adopt a condescending if not openly hostile attitude toward their fellow citizens, who are routinely chastised for having made the ‚Äúwrong‚ÄĚ choice or been ‚Äúduped‚ÄĚ by elites.

And they are often, though not always, narcissistic, failing to conceal their inner belief that it is they who are morally superior to their fellow citizens and more worthy of determining the future direction of the country.

Thats you in a nutshell BillyūüėČ

 a rather roundabout way for a fellow righty to excuse their inability to either defend their own beliefs or refute others thoughts

with a hint of sneering; at the thick thrown in for good measure - but I shall heed the political geniuses words and stop laughing at Swindo, Jools and Hand Crank in all his manifestations

and chastise myself for being so foolish as to claim that the PL would be played out

why did I not listen to you ūüėČ

Share this post


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

 

Thanks Sonyc.

I had very similar thoughts about the irony of RTB's comments as to 'Scottish' independence as opposed to UK (or should I say England's) Brexit.

The big difference is that Scotland knows where it wants to go - has a destination in mind knowing it's a small european country whereas England doesn't.  For England, and especially the boomers like me, the last dying flickering embers of empire live large in the memory, the empire upon which the sun never set; and coupled with a bizarre sense of unrealistic exceptionalism led to the Brexit fiasco.  

As you also note NI already has an escape prized open from the Brexit Titanic. Scotland is lowering the lifeboat and even Wales is starting to think where are the life jackets. Johnson and the Brexiters are of course already irredeemably tied to the mast/wheel and will go down with the ship in true British 'Boy's Own' style. I don't expect history will treat them kindly - the very word Brexiter rapidly joining other select words such as 'Luddite', Puritan, and Cretin in the English lexicon. 

Do have a read of the unherd link provided by Ricardo because it answers your points. You seem to conflate a sense of pride in the nation with an idea that we hunger for days of empire, whereas most Brexiteers see it as a realignment with the 21st century. 

Here is a quote from the article. 

And they favour continuity over disruption and discontinuity. This is why they cherish Britain’s history, heritage and collective memory and are more sensitive to attempts to deconstruct them. And while they acknowledge that this history is complex, they believe that, on the whole, it was positive and that Britain has been a force for good in the world. In short, they believe in their country. They are proud of it. And they are proud of their fellow citizens.

The article makes a good point that the Conservatives quickly realigned the party along Brexit lines which represents the majority viewpoint in the country. Hence their success in the GE and continued high polling. Labour are way behind in the game. I keep prodding in the New Labour Leader thread to see if there is any evidence of a realignment within that party but posters seem to have their head stuck in the sand. Starmer is realigning but it looks like he is taking the party back to Blair 2.0. It is Labour who is stuck in the past, unable to pick up on a viable narrative, tiptoeing through a woke agenda while the Tories romp ahead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bill said:

 a rather roundabout way for a fellow righty to excuse their inability to either defend their own beliefs or refute others thoughts

with a hint of sneering; at the thick thrown in for good measure - but I shall heed the political geniuses words and stop laughing at Swindo, Jools and Hand Crank in all his manifestations

and chastise myself for being so foolish as to claim that the PL would be played out

why did I not listen to you ūüėČ

No-one listened when you said Brexit wouldn't happen because we were too busy laughing at you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Bill said:

 a rather roundabout way for a fellow righty to excuse their inability to either defend their own beliefs or refute others thoughts

with a hint of sneering; at the thick thrown in for good measure - but I shall heed the political geniuses words and stop laughing at Swindo, Jools and Hand Crank in all his manifestations

and chastise myself for being so foolish as to claim that the PL would be played out

why did I not listen to you ūüėČ

Confirmed in spadesūüėČ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Do have a read of the unherd link provided by Ricardo because it answers your points. You seem to conflate a sense of pride in the nation with an idea that we hunger for days of empire, whereas most Brexiteers see it as a realignment with the 21st century. 

Here is a quote from the article. 

And they favour continuity over disruption and discontinuity. This is why they cherish Britain’s history, heritage and collective memory and are more sensitive to attempts to deconstruct them. And while they acknowledge that this history is complex, they believe that, on the whole, it was positive and that Britain has been a force for good in the world. In short, they believe in their country. They are proud of it. And they are proud of their fellow citizens.

 

Really?? Cummings and crew are ripping the backside out of anything that was once classed as quintessentially British. Anything is up for burning in their bout of rabid arson. 

Do any of you brexiters pay the slightest bit of attention to what is going on? It's sad and frankly embarrassing that some of you are still cheering the trashing of your own country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ricardo said:

I stopped at this sentence, which happens to be the intro:

Boris Johnson has consistently been underestimated.

The point about Johnson is the opposite - that he has been consistently over-estimated - by voters. In London and in the whole country over Brexit and in the general election.

A bit of bluff clubability and some over-used Latin tags kept on convincing people he was both clever and to be trusted, when neither was remotely true.

Now, too late, because the damage has been done, are people starting to realise they were conned, or allowed themselves to be conned, into backing a lying charlatan.

Witness the latest poll on whether the UK should rejoin the EU, and the numbers for Johnson's government and Johnson versus Starmer for trust on the pandemic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bill said:

Given that you and RTB are one and the same there would be no need for you to scroll back - though it does explain why you answer on behalf of each other so regularly

Herman did not 'win', you lost.

You lied in making false claims about proroguing Parliament, then swapped log ins to post some of the worst legalese it has been my misfortune to read. That being because you hadn't a clue, and your cobbled together sentences and phrases clearly demonstrated that fact.

The Supreme Court did not 'agree' with Herman, he merely pointed out the known facts of that case.

And to claim are right because a ruling was not inevitable, stretches your stupidity to Swindo levels. As, if it was inevitable, there would have been no need for it to require a judgement

So despite your usual attempts to weasel out of getting it wrong by misrepresenting other posters words you have yet again been exposed as a liar .............................. irrespective of what name you have used.

I have no idea why I read this post but since I did I will respond.

I am not a liar (look up the definition in a dictionary as I fear you are misapplied the term).  The law was not clear and now it is clearer. If it was clear the government would have lost in the High Court.  As they did not there must be something in what I am saying.

 Of course with your well developed sense for effective legalese I have no doubt that you believe yourself to be a better judge than the learned denizens of the Royal Courts of Justice (who are probably also liars who don't have a clue and cobble together judgments)

However, you are not here for a discussion. You are here, as always, for a fight. Go and have it with someone else you sad little man as I'm putting you back on mute (although I might read your response to this...)

Personal insults demean you and demean everyone that shares this board with you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Herman said:

Really?? Cummings and crew are ripping the backside out of anything that was once classed as quintessentially British. Anything is up for burning in their bout of rabid arson. 

Do any of you brexiters pay the slightest bit of attention to what is going on? It's sad and frankly embarrassing that some of you are still cheering the trashing of your own country. 

I think the problem is that Boris is able to appeal to the moderates in a way that others cannot.  It is not because he has any traits they actually like or respect they simply prefer him to what they see as the arrogant alternative .

If starmer wants to win he must appeal to hearts and well as minds.

He must distance himself from the toxicity that is now inherent in the likes of Miller and Maughan and strike a conciliatory note with the fair minded and mildly patriotic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I have no idea why I read this post but since I did I will respond.

I am not a liar (look up the definition in a dictionary as I fear you are misapplied the term).  The law was not clear and now it is clearer. If it was clear the government would have lost in the High Court.  As they did not there must be something in what I am saying.

 Of course with your well developed sense for effective legalese I have no doubt that you believe yourself to be a better judge than the learned denizens of the Royal Courts of Justice (who are probably also liars who don't have a clue and cobble together judgments)

However, you are not here for a discussion. You are here, as always, for a fight. Go and have it with someone else you sad little man as I'm putting you back on mute (although I might read your response to this...)

Personal insults demean you and demean everyone that shares this board with you.

 

stilly lying - whatever bame you post under

both RTB and BB in this case

unfortunately, the evidence of what you wrote is there for all to see

both in your lies and how you regularly get confused who posted what

you or your altered ego RTB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I think the problem is that Boris is able to appeal to the moderates in a way that others cannot.  It is not because he has any traits they actually like or respect they simply prefer him to what they see as the arrogant alternative .

If starmer wants to win he must appeal to hearts and well as minds.

He must distance himself from the toxicity that is now inherent in the likes of Miller and Maughan and strike a conciliatory note with the fair minded and mildly patriotic. 

not your best hand crank

perhaps Rennes is still in lock down ūü§£

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...