I’ve not got time or the motivation to respond in great detail or to break up this "whataboutery" into quotes, so in summary: 1. "[Leave are] driving a coach and horses through the constitution, trashing the established norms of politics and allowing the Executive free rein", is nothing to do with my personal politics. It is a statement of fact (as demonstrated by the SC ruling) and a statement of fact is true regardless of whether you agree with it or not. No idea what you mean by "personal interests" or what relevance they might have but please don't feel the need to expand on it. 2. I don't recall saying that Remain "are doing nothing of the sort". That's a clumsy straw man argument. In fact I have said the very opposite, on this very forum ie: that both sides are doing whatever they can to bring about the result they desire. If I have time I will find and link the post(s). So far, Leave have been found to have acted unlawfully in some of what they have done, but Remain haven't. Furthermore, at no point have Remain attempted to "allow the Executive free rein" (which is the really dangerous aspect). Just the opposite in fact - they took the Executive all the way to the SC, more than once, in order to rein the Executive in and hold it to account. 3. "Reasoned assessment of the situation": As I have said above, twice, to Noob, I do not know enough about the facts to pass an opinion on it. Even if I did know the facts in sufficient detail, given what is alleged, it's quite likely to involve fairly obscure perhaps even ancient and arcane matters of law and Parliamentary procedure which I probably won't know off the top of my head. What you and Noob are requesting, virtually demanding, is like turning up at a Yamaha* workshop, dropping an exotic and possibly antique Ducati race engine on the bench and expecting an instant opinion. The very fact that you demand an instant opinion shows that neither of you really grasp the potential complexity of the issues. Jumping to conclusions and gobbing off with ill-informed opinions helps nobody. Unfortunately, on this forum, that doesn't seem to stop a number of contributors doing so. 4. "Foreign power" - again, I believe I have already said, semi-rhetorically (to Markduc), that he and by extension you should go away and look up the definition of "foreign power". Again, just in case you missed it the previous 3 times I have said it - I do not have enough knowledge of the facts to determine whether what Bercow was doing was "negotiating". So, the rabid accusations of "negotiating with a foreign power" are pretty empty when bandied around people who haven't even bothered to check whether the EU is defined as a "foreign power" vis a vis the UK in international law. 4. If Remain were "burning down constitutional norms" as you claim then the courts are open to Leave supporters as well, you know. Why don't you put your money where your keyboard is and look into starting a Crowdfunding campaign to bring legal proceedings (against Bercow and/or any other person/body who attracts your ire), like Gina Miller, Joanne Cherry, John Major and Jo Maugham have done? *My practice is mainly commercial/general civil work, housing/landlord & tenant and general knockabout sex, drugs and violence crime, whereas this Bercow business seems to touch on very specialist matters of constitutional law, parliamentary procedure/custom/convention and international law.
This is worth a look as it references numerous examples of one Mr N Farage, MEP, "colluding" with the same "foreign power" as Bercow. Again, as ever with LeAve, anything is acceptable, desirable and essential even (see; ibid, "Parliamentary Sovereignty") until the other side do or take advantage of it, at which point they absolutely lose their tiny little minds and scream "treason!!!". https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/to...s-collaborated-with-a-foreign-power-1-6259106 ....don't start building the scaffold for Mr Bercow just yet
Double standards? I'll throw just one example if I can and your view on why this is not a double standard The national referendum to take us into the eec was acted upon, the national referendum to leave has been fought tooth and nail to stop it by the very same politicians who asked us the question. What standard would you consider that?
"Time is the fire in which we all burn." Sometimes we only have time to offer our opinions, but not listen to those of others. I empathise. Sigh. Whilst we are sharing our opinions in colourful, hyperbolic metaphors, allow me to return the compliment. The only "fact" in your Point No 1 is that the SC ruled against BoJob's prorogation. BoJob was said to have acted unlawfully. The balance of your offering is opinion. In my opinion, BoJob attempted a slightly longer-than-usual prorogue which was ruled "unlawful" by the SC, by means of inventing law on-the-fly in order to oppose whatever it was that BoJob sought to achieve. See? See how that works? Your emotional language to describe the situation betrays the nature of your personal politics quite adequately. The science is settled on that issue. And I am happy to drop the "personal interest" aspect, apologies for touching a nerve there. Not really a straw man there but I get your drift. I see that you have shifted the ground away from your original "driving a coach and horses through the constitution, trashing the established norms of politics and allowing the Executive free rein" and onto matters that touch upon strictly legal issues. Quite a substantial re-framing job. I also see why you did that but people paying attention to what you are trying to say recognise this kind of device. This manner of "debate" is disingenuous, dishonest if you want to accurate. By changing the basis of how you judge actions part way through a discussion, hoping no one will notice, by making specific accusations against the Leave side, and bland pronouncements touching on how "both sides are doing whatever they can ...", you are sensationalising the actions on one side of the debate whilst obscuring and minimising those of the other. Poor show. You are neither convincing nor fooling anyone employing such methods and I would have thought simple self-respect would deter you from such cheap tactics. I refuse to believe capable of stooping to this so instead, I choose interpret your post as bantz and strictly for troll value. So that's fine. Oh. And arguing that Remain has never attempted to "allow the Executive free rein" - that's a good example of a straw man. Well done. I'm afraid I am not up-to-date on what you and Noob get up to. I have other demands on my time. It sounds to me like you may be that rarest of "experts", one that refuses to give an "expert opinion" on matters where he knows no more than a layman. I respect you for that. If only more experts followed your lead. I cannot speak for Noob but I don't demand anything from you. I don't particularly want your expert legal opinion on things, especially when they seem to be opinionated rather than factual, and a means of stamping authority where none exists ... that's for sure. How you, and others, feel about issues is far more interesting. This is the Speakers Corner of a motorbike forum. The members generally want to share opinions, learn things and rip the piss out of each other. If someone says, "I want the UK out of the EU", they generally want a rant, to listen to like minded souls, mix it up with people with different opinions, that sort of thing. "Legal experts" offering "expert opinions" which, when you boil them down amount to no more than, "You cannot have what you voted for and and you are stupid to have voted for it" ... well, I guess it is strictly speaking still banter but it's not a lot of fun, you know? Maybe jazz it up with pics of attractive women sometimes? I guess that sort of thing doesn't come up in chambers much. If it does - you can tell us, we won't blab. I will say this, for myself and on behalf of others. There is a tendency (which actually predates your appearance in the forum) for "experts" to poo-poo people's thoughts on the basis that these thoughts are ill-conceived ... simply because the language is "incorrect". I'll give you a hypothetical example. Say an intelligent but not completely informed individual expresses his utter rage over, oh say, "the Benn Surrender Bill". Said individual states, "Before now, Government determined what Governments actions would be and the only thing Parliament could do is vote against it. Now, suddenly, Parliament can instruct Government on the specific actions it must take, contravening countless decades or centuries of Parliamentary norms. Furthermore, Government, no longer owning a majority in the Commons, cannot ask for a General Election nor can it persuade the Opposition parties to seek one. The Opposition are acting in a deeply unconstitutional, anti-democratic way for deeply cynical purposes". How does the "legal expert" respond to this individual's (arguably) justifiable outrage? First thing is, he will "correct" the individual - "It isn't the 'Benn Surrender Bill', it is an Act and commonly referred to as the 'Benn Act'. As if this "correction" could both invalidate the reasons for the outrage and somehow mollify it. "Oh, I see! It's an Act, not a Bill. It all makes sense now". The "legal expert" will then explain exactly why the FTPA legally prevents Government from unilaterally calling a GE and furthermore, it is entirely within the Opposition's legal rights to oppose a GE, something I cannot ever remember happening in all my adult life. Again, this explanation is somehow meant as a useful, helpful contribution to a discussion in Speakers Corner on a motorbike forum when in reality, it is a device meant for "shutting down the discussion". Apologies, I have not been able to follow your chats with Markduc to any great extent. Stupid time constraints. I know that you understand the term "spirit of the law". It's that thing you call upon if it will help you in a legal case or discussion and the thing you discount when you believe "the letter of the law" suits your position better. And I trust you when you tell me that the letter of the law means that Bercow is not acting unlawfully. Similarly, you may believe me when I tell you that Bercow is trampling on the spirit of the law. The EU is a foreign power, it's just that the statutes have not yet been updated. If it walks like an empire, talks like an empire and shits on nation states like an empire - it's a fucking empire. Treating it as if it isn't, will only lead to tears. I already support the efforts being made to challenge the Benn Surrender Act and the legal action being taken to overturn May's 29 March Art50 extension. The problem is - anything Leaver-related sits in the Courts gathering dust and anything fronted by Miller and bankrolled by Soros ... they go though the Courts like shit through a goose. You may now regale me with reasons why this apparent discrepancy of treatment in the legal system is fair and just. They will be utterly persuasive, I have no doubt. As aside, are you able to offer a personal opinion as to how and why Miller & Co qualified for legal aid? It's just that the one time I claimed legal aid, I was awarded nil point and I have never been as rich as Gina Miller. In fact, at the time, I was eating beans on toast three-four nights of the week as my evening meal. You can understand how an ignorant chap such as myself is scratching his head over this. So we can take your analyses and opinions on the legality of certain Remainer tactics with a pinch of salt. Thank you for the health-warning, I am genuinely grateful.
I want to know how much you would have written if you had time.... Does the universe have enough 1's and 0's? Would the internet crash?
I’m not going to respond to this For one thing you clearly have way more time on your hands than I do, particularly today when I’m in court rather than “in the internet trenches”. I’m also on my phone and the amount of scrolling back and forth which would be involved simply isn’t worth it, particularly as it would merely trigger another multi-page multi-quote word salad. Additionally, although yesterday you seemed to have dialled things down a little and were capable of holding a mature and polite discussion involving a difference of opinion and I was willing to give you a third chance, your last few posts on this issue are backsliding into the same rhetorical idiom that resulted in unpleasantness on previous occasions (which others also pull you up about repeatedly). Also, to repeat a phrase I used yesterday, you’ve already ended up “getting your bottom spanked” more than once and so in a way, I’m saving you from yourself
Unfortunately, a bit like the universe, this thread is not only expanding, the rate of its acceleration is also expanding. But anyhoo as you can see from Loz’s post above, your champion is busily engaged generating vast amounts of information and energy from the vacuum at at exponential rate.
aye, one or two of you exe and loz have been diagnosed by my good self. free of charge. Split personality: Multiple personality disorder, a neurosis in which the personality becomes dissociated into two or more distinct parts each of which becomes dominant and controls behavior from time to time to the exclusion of the other parts. A modern name for this condition is dissociative identity disorder.
OK, Zhed. I think it's clear to all what you mean here. Come back recharged and ready to edjacate us plebs and ruffians when you're feeling better. You'll be missed.
