to levy war against the sovereign "in order by force or constraint to compel her to change her measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament", your welcome francis
Hardly, we were discussing why the speaker of the house was going outside of his remit and visually any way, appearing to bypass parliament by attempting to negotiate an extension in advance with the eu. IF that was the case, it might be his last hurrah before leaving, let's see what happens.
Unfortunately I don’t have a “drama queen” emoji/rating thingy so you’ll have to make do with a load of crying laughing emojis
I live to please bannister, live to please Now, away from your superior than thou london bubbleista mannerisms, what if Bercow and the eu have done a deal about the extension if there is to be one or one has been created, and as such Bercow has acted as an agent for the British people whilst outside of his remit of office and is not a peoples representative what's your thinking on that?
Dunno. I don’t know enough about the the facts at this stage, which in turn would inform what if any laws or rules of Parliamentary procedure he has broken (which I'm very unlikely to be instantly familiar with anyway and would need to look up)......which is why I’ve not offered a positive opinion on the matter and am keeping an open mind. I suggest you do likewise, but I very much doubt you will, as a total absence of knowledge or experience of a subject doesn’t seem to offer any sort of obstacle to you giving an opinion on it. A Ducati themed analogy (this is still a Ducati forum after all) - all this talk of “treason” and whatnot is like somebody offering their view on the rebuilding of a Desmocedici engine which has gone bang, based solely on their experience of once doing their own oil change using a Haynes manual and secondhand hearsay reports about what might have happened from people who actively want the bike to be damaged beyond repair.
Is that your best duck out post? he has met Bercow He then sets out his view that any request from British institutions (notice he does not say British government, as they are the only negotiators on behalf of the U.K.) for an extension He then asigns that any extension would be with a general election or referendum He also says that he and bercow are on the same level within regards to parliaments input, again undermining the governments position now try and hide all of that even when it is in the video from the eu parliament and with the relavent people speaking, but there it is as plain as day, without a single haynes manual needed
Read the first part of my post again. I’ve annotated part of it below for you. “I don’t know enough about the the facts at this stage*, which in turn would inform what if any laws or rules of Parliamentary procedure he has broken (which I'm very unlikely to be instantly familiar with anyway and would need to look up**)......” * Because I’ve not been paying much attention to the story as the girlf and I have been celebrating her (dream) job offer this evening. I’m also not going to take your word for it because tbh I’ve not found you to be remotely reliable or credible. ** Ditto. Unfortunately I also don’t have access to the specialist texts and materials which would be needed to research such unusual points of law and parliamentary procedure. #rolleyes
That you believe that it is the Leave side that "driving a coach and horses through the constitution, trashing the established norms of politics and allowing the Executive free rein" is not at all surprising, given your political sympathies and other personal interests. That you believe that the Remain side is doing nothing of the sort, and you expect others to believe that based upon your expert analysis of the situation ... is disappointing, but not shocking. Is it so difficult to come to a reasoned assessment of the situation? That Remain are tearing up "established norms" in order to defeat the expressed will of the electorate and that BoJob is taking similarly unprecedented action, ostensibly to honour the 2016 Referendum and the manifestos of the major parties in the 2017 GE? I am not arguing for two wrongs make a right here. I am just trying to get seemingly intelligent and thoughtful people to recognise that the disgraceful behaviour of our Parliamentarians - of all stripes - needs to be fully acknowledged and that both sides of the Brexit divide are engaged in dirty tricks to achieve their aims. Excuse me for butting in but the acknowledged and undeniable activity of Bercow, meeting EU negotiators to discuss matters concerning Extension of Art50 plus whatever else, constitutes a negotiation conducted with a foreign power, yes or no? If no, please show your workings. If Yes, is Bercow a member or representative of HM Government, yes or no? Hint: the answer is not Yes. So why is Bercow meeting and discussing the nature of the UK relationship with a foreign power? Art50 is, in effect if not in fact, a treaty. Treaty talks with foreign powers are within the remit of HM Government and its authorised representatives, and no one else. Or perhaps I am wrong? Forgive me but I am just trying to understand how Bercow's actions can be considered lawful. In this discussion, we have established that we both believe that two wrongs do not make a right. We have established that historically, realpolitick has led to people trying achieve "the right" result but arguably through the wrong methods. This is a specie of "the end justifies the means". I feel the activities of Remainer politicians and establishment figures also demonstrates "end justifies means" thinking. That Remainers believe so vehemently that Remain is not just the best option, it is the only option for the UK ... that they are prepared to burn down every constitutional norm that prevents them achieving their goal. There is no doubting their commitment to the cause, their (dare I say this) sincerity ... but if you are going to embark on an ""end justifies means" programme, it's hypocritical to complain when your opposition dips its toes into that same murky pool.
That you believe that it is the Leave side that "driving a coach and horses through the constitution, trashing the established norms of politics and allowing the Executive free rein" is not at all surprising, given your political sympathies and other personal interests. That you believe that the Remain side is doing nothing of the sort, and you expect others to believe that based upon your expert analysis of the situation ... is disappointing, but not shocking. . strange init, spend several years arguing against the "established norms" being the root of all evil, then when ways are found to really hold the executive to account by mechanisms that where always available but never used, by the "establishment" its all of a sudden called, giving them free reign. that's not arguing two wrongs make a right, that's just simply contradicting your self.
Careful now, if you follow Noobsters logic that statement could be treason! Full marks for his entertainment value though. As he and his, fail to spot the irony of the situation with the double standards that have been applied to the Brexit process since before the referendum.
tbh, I don't really follow noob. check out the first two lines or so, aggressive? check, trolling? check, walk on by. see my reasons in the media watch thread. too often its not a different view point. its just bull. and yip, the irony is, "sovereignty". oh shit, look what happens when we use our sovereignty. bad sovereignty bad. not surprising when you consider their political view points and other special interests.
