On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 13:05:33 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


As always.

As always, you are a trolling piece of ****!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 13:51, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/09/2019 10:39, The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 10:23, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/2019 01:07, The Todal wrote:
when a bench of judges reaches a unanimous decision it can only mean
that the losing party's case is extremely weak.
Bless!

It wasn't so weak that the High Court and the Court of Session threw
it out.

Do explain.

As I've said, repeatedly: the only argument that the Government was
really arguing was that the case was non justiciable. In other words,
no court has the right to judge Boris when he exercises the Royal
Prerogative.

That argument succeeded at first instance. It was left to the Supreme
Court to research the law properly and to explain that - to use Lord
Denning's famous words - be ye ever so high, the law is above you.

I'm sure the lawyers on both sides researched the law, such as it
exists, absolutely thoroughly.Â* It's their job, you see.Â* It isn't the
job of the Court to research the law independently but just to decide
the case before it solely on the evidence presented in court.Â* That's a
well-established legal principle here in the UK.

In the Supreme Court, the judges certainly do their own legal research
and don't merely rely on the submissions made by counsel.




It is a shame they didnt look back at their own interests and step down.
That is the only area that is relevant.




The fact is that there were no precedents that read onto the case.Â* The
Supreme Court had to break new ground and in so dooing created a
precedent for future cases.

Once they had got past that hurdle, the government's case collapsed
like a pack of cards. They had no justification for the lengthy
proroguing of Parliament.

Which part of the above do you disagree with?

Just your glossing over of 'once they had got past that hurdle'.Â* It was
that point on which there was no precedent.

What drivel you talk. Perhaps you haven't bothered to read the judgment.
There was plenty of precedent. Nothing on all fours with the present
case because nobody had yet challenged a modern prorogation of
Parliament but plenty of relevant precedent about challenging the Royal
Prerogative.


There is no precedent. No one challenged Blair, Major or Wilson when they
prorogued Parliament or any other PM.



Don't rely on the Daily Express for your legal advice, Norman.


Are you impressed by Boris's notorious words: "The whole September
session is a rigmarole introduced by girly swot Cameron to show the
public that MPs are earning their crust."?

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, given that they've just got back
from their nice summer hols, and are about to have another three weeks
recess when they all go off to their jolly conferences at the seaside.


Lord Pannick correctly pointed out that the conference season is not a
fixture and can be abandoned at time of national crisis - as has
happened now. When the country is about to go to hell in a handcart, MPs
need to spend their time in Parliament not in a seaside hotel drinking beer.


It isnt a €˜crisis. The only problem is those trying to delay things.

Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/09/2019 20:28, The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 13:51, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/09/2019 10:39, The Todal wrote:

Are you impressed by Boris's notorious words: "The whole September
session is a rigmarole introduced by girly swot Cameron to show the
public that MPs are earning their crust."?

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, given that they've just got back
from their nice summer hols, and are about to have another three weeks
recess when they all go off to their jolly conferences at the seaside.

Lord Pannick correctly pointed out that the conference season is not a
fixture and can be abandoned at time of national crisis - as has
happened now. When the country is about to go to hell in a handcart, MPs
need to spend their time in Parliament not in a seaside hotel drinking
beer.

I don't recall any previous clamour at all for the conference recess to
be cancelled. But surely there would have been if your contention was true.

No. On the contrary, MPs were fully aware of the 31 October Brexit
deadline but thought it perfectly OK to go off on their jollies to
agreeably posh seaside hotels rather than to Westminster for 3 or 4
weeks, almost immediately after getting back from their summer hols.

It was only when Boris set about proroguing that faux indignation raised
its ugly head and they all got on their high horses saying how awful for
Parliament not to sit through.

Utter hypocrites, the lot of them.



You missed having trying to delay things for nearly 3 years.

On 28/09/2019 08:49, Brian Reay wrote:
The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 13:51, Norman Wells wrote:

Which part of the above do you disagree with?

Just your glossing over of 'once they had got past that hurdle'.Â* It was
that point on which there was no precedent.

What drivel you talk. Perhaps you haven't bothered to read the judgment.
There was plenty of precedent. Nothing on all fours with the present
case because nobody had yet challenged a modern prorogation of
Parliament but plenty of relevant precedent about challenging the Royal
Prerogative.


There is no precedent. No one challenged Blair, Major or Wilson when they
prorogued Parliament or any other PM.


You have misunderstood the concept of precedent.

If no one challenged Blair, Major or Wilson that isn't a precedent that
says they couldn't or shouldn't be challenged. Maybe someone should have
applied to the court to challenge the prorogation in those cases.

The Todal wrote:
On 28/09/2019 08:49, Brian Reay wrote:
The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 13:51, Norman Wells wrote:

Which part of the above do you disagree with?

Just your glossing over of 'once they had got past that hurdle'.Â* It was
that point on which there was no precedent.

What drivel you talk. Perhaps you haven't bothered to read the judgment.
There was plenty of precedent. Nothing on all fours with the present
case because nobody had yet challenged a modern prorogation of
Parliament but plenty of relevant precedent about challenging the Royal
Prerogative.


There is no precedent. No one challenged Blair, Major or Wilson when they
prorogued Parliament or any other PM.


You have misunderstood the concept of precedent.




So you are claiming if there is no precedent that doesnt mean there isnt
a precedent.

Do you realise just how stupid that is.


If no one challenged Blair, Major or Wilson that isn't a precedent that
says they couldn't or shouldn't be challenged. Maybe someone should have
applied to the court to challenge the prorogation in those cases.

Maybe but that isnt relevant. No one did so there is no precedent. Not
over those instances or any others.

Therefore precedent can not be claimed.

On 28/09/2019 08:50, Brian Reay wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/09/2019 20:28, The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 13:51, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/09/2019 10:39, The Todal wrote:

Are you impressed by Boris's notorious words: "The whole September
session is a rigmarole introduced by girly swot Cameron to show the
public that MPs are earning their crust."?

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, given that they've just got back
from their nice summer hols, and are about to have another three weeks
recess when they all go off to their jolly conferences at the seaside.

Lord Pannick correctly pointed out that the conference season is not a
fixture and can be abandoned at time of national crisis - as has
happened now. When the country is about to go to hell in a handcart, MPs
need to spend their time in Parliament not in a seaside hotel drinking
beer.

I don't recall any previous clamour at all for the conference recess to
be cancelled. But surely there would have been if your contention was true.

No. On the contrary, MPs were fully aware of the 31 October Brexit
deadline but thought it perfectly OK to go off on their jollies to
agreeably posh seaside hotels rather than to Westminster for 3 or 4
weeks, almost immediately after getting back from their summer hols.

It was only when Boris set about proroguing that faux indignation raised
its ugly head and they all got on their high horses saying how awful for
Parliament not to sit through.

Utter hypocrites, the lot of them.



You missed having trying to delay things for nearly 3 years.




The only ones delaying brexit are those that can't agree on a deal.

If a deal had been agreed then we would have left.

On 27/09/2019 13:37, wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
On something as finely balanced as the latest case, when no-one knew
with any certainty which way they'd decide, it's pretty indicative that
all 11 came could have come to exactly the same conclusion on the facts.

Seeing as the "no-one" category consists almost entirely of people
with no meaningful expertise in constitutional law, their corporate
feeling that it was "finely balanced" is irrelevant. And since the
eleven senior judges, who *are* chosen on the basis of their relevant
experience, all agreed with the given verdict and its reasoning,
suggests that the case was very definitely on one side of the line,
however "near" to that line it might be thought have been.

How come the very experienced High Court disagreed then?

Try tossing a coin 11 times, and see if you get 11 heads.

Aha, that well known and reliable technique for deciding legal
matters;

It's what's called an analogy.

but strangely one that is somehow even less popular than
trial-by-combat or the ducking-stool. I wonder why the Supreme Court
doesn't use it more often in their decisions?

Because they like to dress up their political and personal decisions as
logical and rational of course.

On 27 Sep 2019, The Todal wrote
(in article ):

On 27/09/2019 13:51, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/09/2019 10:39, The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 10:23, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, The Natural wrote:
On 27/09/2019 01:07, The Todal wrote:
when a bench of judges reaches a unanimous decision it can only mean
that the losing party's case is extremely weak.
Bless!

It wasn't so weak that the High Court and the Court of Session threw
it out.

Do explain.

As I've said, repeatedly: the only argument that the Government was
really arguing was that the case was non justiciable. In other words,
no court has the right to judge Boris when he exercises the Royal
Prerogative.

That argument succeeded at first instance. It was left to the Supreme
Court to research the law properly and to explain that - to use Lord
Denning's famous words - be ye ever so high, the law is above you.

I'm sure the lawyers on both sides researched the law, such as it
exists, absolutely thoroughly. It's their job, you see. It isn't the
job of the Court to research the law independently but just to decide
the case before it solely on the evidence presented in court. That's a
well-established legal principle here in the UK.

In the Supreme Court, the judges certainly do their own legal research
and don't merely rely on the submissions made by counsel.


The fact is that there were no precedents that read onto the case. The
Supreme Court had to break new ground and in so dooing created a
precedent for future cases.

Once they had got past that hurdle, the government's case collapsed
like a pack of cards. They had no justification for the lengthy
proroguing of Parliament.

Which part of the above do you disagree with?

Just your glossing over of 'once they had got past that hurdle'. It was
that point on which there was no precedent.

What drivel you talk. Perhaps you haven't bothered to read the judgment.
There was plenty of precedent. Nothing on all fours with the present
case because nobody had yet challenged a modern prorogation of
Parliament but plenty of relevant precedent about challenging the Royal
Prerogative.

Don't rely on the Daily Express for your legal advice, Norman.


Are you impressed by Boris's notorious words: "The whole September
session is a rigmarole introduced by girly swot Cameron to show the
public that MPs are earning their crust."?

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, given that they've just got back
from their nice summer hols, and are about to have another three weeks
recess when they all go off to their jolly conferences at the seaside.

Lord Pannick correctly pointed out that the conference season is not a
fixture and can be abandoned at time of national crisis - as has
happened now. When the country is about to go to hell in a handcart, MPs
need to spend their time in Parliament not in a seaside hotel drinking beer.

From what I have seen in parliament over the last few days, MPs would be of
more use if they buggered off to a seaside hotel and drank beer.

Most of them are ****ing useless at their jobs.

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 17:35:49 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:


From what I have seen in parliament over the last few days, MPs would be of
more use if they buggered off to a seaside hotel and drank beer.

Most of them are ****ing useless at their jobs.

some idiots told them it was an opportunity to vote themselves
more power...how could they resist?


--
www.abelard.org

On 28 Sep 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 17:35:49 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

From what I have seen in parliament over the last few days, MPs would be of
more use if they buggered off to a seaside hotel and drank beer.

Most of them are ****ing useless at their jobs.

some idiots told them it was an opportunity to vote themselves
more power...how could they resist?

Not when they are getting paid and mucho expenses.

Actually, they are probably financially better off by staying, because the
HoC alcohol is taxpayer subsidised.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 27/09/2019 13:37, wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
On something as finely balanced as the latest case, when no-one knew
with any certainty which way they'd decide, it's pretty indicative that
all 11 came could have come to exactly the same conclusion on the facts.

Seeing as the "no-one" category consists almost entirely of people
with no meaningful expertise in constitutional law, their corporate
feeling that it was "finely balanced" is irrelevant. And since the
eleven senior judges, who *are* chosen on the basis of their relevant
experience, all agreed with the given verdict and its reasoning,
suggests that the case was very definitely on one side of the line,
however "near" to that line it might be thought have been.

How come the very experienced High Court disagreed then?

Because thats what lawyers do, disagree with each other.

Try tossing a coin 11 times, and see if you get 11 heads.

Aha, that well known and reliable technique for deciding legal
matters;

It's what's called an analogy.

but strangely one that is somehow even less popular than
trial-by-combat or the ducking-stool. I wonder why the Supreme Court
doesn't use it more often in their decisions?

Because they like to dress up their political and personal decisions as
logical and rational of course.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 04:53:44 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

04:53??? Whatsa matter, senile idiot? Did you "sleep in" today? Are you sick
or what? LMAO

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

In article ,
says...


She cannot interfere. We had a civil war and a deliberately shortened
monarch to establish that.

I know she's not very tall but I didn't know that it was a
result of the Civil War!

--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 17:35:49 +0100, Keema's Nan wrote:

Most of them are ****ing useless at their jobs.

If only they were useless that'd be an improvement. As things stand
they're far *worse* than useless by thwarting the will of the people.
Aldous Huxley was right: it's national governments that are the *real*
enemy, not some foreign regime or existential threat.



--
Leave first - THEN negotiate!

In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 17:35:49 +0100, Keema's Nan wrote:

Most of them are ****ing useless at their jobs.

If only they were useless that'd be an improvement. As things stand
they're far *worse* than useless by thwarting the will of the people.
Aldous Huxley was right: it's national governments that are the *real*
enemy, not some foreign regime or existential threat.

Good gawd. He's an EU supporter now.

--
*24 hours in a day ... 24 beers in a case ... coincidence? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 11:27:42 -0000 (UTC)
Cursitor Doom wrote:


Aldous Huxley was right: it's national governments that are the
*real* enemy, not some foreign regime or existential threat.

Be careful how you phrase that, because as it stands, it carries the
implication that supra-national government could be better. If that was
actually the case, the referendum result would not have been 'leave'.

I would put it that one's own government is one's worst enemy, beyond a
doubt, but the larger and more centralised that government is, the worse
it is. A single world government would be the most harmful possible
thing for humanity.

--
Joe

On 29/09/2019 14:14, Joe wrote:
A single world government would be the most harmful possible
thing for humanity.

And yet that is exactly what the soft middle class Left believe they want.


--
€œit should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.€�

Vaclav Klaus

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:14:36 +0100, Joe wrote:

I would put it that one's own government is one's worst enemy, beyond a
doubt, but the larger and more centralised that government is, the worse
it is. A single world government would be the most harmful possible
thing for humanity.

Exactly. And what a lot of people are still unaware of is that the EU is
one of the *key* planks to the creation of a one world government.

Once the UK is out, we need to begin work on deconstructing the EU, which
has been evolving into an unaccountable monster and a destabilising
influence on world peace since 1973.



--
Leave first - THEN negotiate!

On 29/09/2019 14:33, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:14:36 +0100, Joe wrote:

I would put it that one's own government is one's worst enemy, beyond a
doubt, but the larger and more centralised that government is, the worse
it is. A single world government would be the most harmful possible
thing for humanity.

Exactly. And what a lot of people are still unaware of is that the EU is
one of the *key* planks to the creation of a one world government.

Once the UK is out, we need to begin work on deconstructing the EU, which
has been evolving into an unaccountable monster and a destabilising
influence on world peace since 1973.

The EU isn't evolving into an unaccountable monster, it IS an
unaccountable monster. The EU is run by the unelected Commission, MEPs
can't control it. Its accounts haven't been approved in years-
fundamental to controlling any organisation.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 29/09/2019 14:14, Joe wrote:
A single world government would be the most harmful possible
thing for humanity.

And yet that is exactly what the soft middle class Left believe they want.

Rubbish.

They want a continuation of the status quo without any leaps into the
unknown.

The Times yesterday was hinting at a *friends of Boris* cabal likely to
benefit financially from a no deal Brexit. About as believable as these
international groups determined to destroy the UK if it remains.

Stay in. Form pacts with other members and keep the commission on a
realistic rein.

--
Tim Lamb

On 29/09/2019 15:33, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 29/09/2019 14:14, Joe wrote:
A single world government would be the most harmful possible
thing for humanity.

And yet that is exactly what the soft middle class Left believeÂ* they
want.

Rubbish.

Wr no.

I've talked to many and they all think world government is a great idea.

They want a continuation of the status quo without any leaps into the
unknown.

Well that may be what the less intelligent and imaginative think they
want, but in life there is no such thing.


The Times yesterday was hinting at a *friends of Boris* cabal likely to
benefit financially from a no deal Brexit. About as believable as these
international groups determined to destroy the UK if it remains.


Oh those exist allright.

Stay in. Form pacts with other members and keep the commission on a
realistic rein.

No mechanism to do it.

And we are seeing the same thing happening in the UK parliament, as
remain attempt to run it on EU lines


--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 15:11:28 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

The EU isn't evolving into an unaccountable monster, it IS an
unaccountable monster.


"You ain't seen nuthin' yet" I'm sorry to say.



--
Leave first - THEN negotiate!

On 29/09/2019 15:58, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 15:11:28 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

The EU isn't evolving into an unaccountable monster, it IS an
unaccountable monster.


"You ain't seen nuthin' yet" I'm sorry to say.

The only way to kill it is to cut off its funding. They know that, which
is why they don't want us to leave and certainly not without coughing up.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 15:11:28 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

snip

The EU isn't evolving into an unaccountable monster, it IS an
unaccountable monster.

That is only you *opinion* so worth what we pay for it.

The EU is run by the unelected Commission, MEPs
can't control it.

See above.

Its accounts haven't been approved in years-
fundamental to controlling any organisation.

Depending on what you determine to be 'approved':

https://fullfact.org/europe/did-audi...ign-eu-budget/

But hey, feel free to spout any FUD that you *think* supports your
crusade, no matter how silly it makes you look amongst reasonable
people.

Are all big organisations completely free of error and have some
unanswered questions? Of course not.

Is the cost to all of us greater than any sum that may be in question?
Who knows, the fanatic Brexiteers certainly don't, or I'm guessing
they would be shouting the facts from the rooftops (rather than
spitting bile from the corner of their basement like a trapped
animal).


Cheers, T i m

In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 29/09/2019 14:14, Joe wrote:
A single world government would be the most harmful possible
thing for humanity.

And yet that is exactly what the soft middle class Left believe they want.

Rubbish.

They want a continuation of the status quo without any leaps into the
unknown.

Well they're not going to get that, are they?

Stay in. Form pacts with other members and keep the commission on a
realistic rein.

This is not possible.

Why not?

A lot more believable than the fiction of what remains of the UK going
it alone in the world.


--
Tim Lamb

On 29/09/2019 17:10, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 29/09/2019 14:14, Joe wrote:
A single world government would be the most harmful possible
thing for humanity.

And yet that is exactly what the soft middle class Left believe
they want.

Rubbish.

They want a continuation of the status quo without any leaps into the
unknown.

Well they're not going to get that, are they?

Stay in. Form pacts with other members and keep the commission on a
realistic rein.

This is not possible.

Why not?

Because the MEPS have no legal powers over the commission

Which is a self selecting dictaorship


A lot more believable than the fiction of what remains of the UK going
it alone in the world.

Oh please. If Iceland can go it alone in the world the UK certainly can





--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 29/09/2019 17:10, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article , Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 29/09/2019 14:14, Joe wrote:
A single world government would be the most harmful possible
thing for humanity.

And yet that is exactly what the soft middle class Left believe
they want.

Rubbish.

They want a continuation of the status quo without any leaps into
the unknown.

Well they're not going to get that, are they?

Stay in. Form pacts with other members and keep the commission on a
realistic rein.

This is not possible.
Why not?

Because the MEPS have no legal powers over the commission

Which is a self selecting dictaorship

More rubbish.

Culled from the BBC....
The Commission plays a vital role in the EU. It is the body which
proposes new legislation, draws up the EU's annual budget and manages
and supervises EU funding. The Commission consists of 28 members, one
from each member state.

Its president is nominated by the national leaders and then elected by
the European Parliament by majority vote. Based on member states'
suggestions, the Commission's president selects 27 other members of the
Commission for a five-year period, each with a specific policy
portfolio.

The European Parliament must approve the Commission as a whole but does
not vote on individual commissioners. More importantly, any new
legislation proposed by the Commission still has to be agreed by the
member states and passed by the European Parliament, which is directly
elected by EU voters. The statement of unelected bureaucrats making
decisions in the EU is therefore somewhat misleading.

The point is that any new legislation has to be approved and can be
opposed by any member or group of member countries.


A lot more believable than the fiction of what remains of the UK
going it alone in the world.

Oh please. If Iceland can go it alone in the world the UK certainly can

When did Iceland rank anywhere on global turnover statistics?

--
Tim Lamb

In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 29/09/2019 17:10, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article , Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 29/09/2019 14:14, Joe wrote:
A single world government would be the most harmful possible
thing for humanity.

And yet that is exactly what the soft middle class Left believe
they want.

Rubbish.

They want a continuation of the status quo without any leaps into
the unknown.

Well they're not going to get that, are they?

Stay in. Form pacts with other members and keep the commission on
a realistic rein.

This is not possible.
Why not?

Because the MEPS have no legal powers over the commission

Which is a self selecting dictaorship


A lot more believable than the fiction of what remains of the UK
going it alone in the world.

Oh please. If Iceland can go it alone in the world the UK certainly can

Iceland withdrew its application to join the EU some years ago. Wonder
why.

I would guess fishing is a very important part of their economy and they
didn't wish to share.


--
Tim Lamb

On 29 Sep 2019, Tim Streater wrote
(in t):

In , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 29/09/2019 17:10, Tim Lamb wrote:
In t, Tim Streater
writes
In , Tim Lamb
wrote:

In , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 29/09/2019 14:14, Joe wrote:
A single world government would be the most harmful possible
thing for humanity.

And yet that is exactly what the soft middle class Left believe
they want.

Rubbish.

They want a continuation of the status quo without any leaps into the
unknown.

Well they're not going to get that, are they?

Stay in. Form pacts with other members and keep the commission on a
realistic rein.

This is not possible.

Why not?
Because the MEPS have no legal powers over the commission

Which is a self selecting dictaorship


A lot more believable than the fiction of what remains of the UK going
it alone in the world.

Oh please. If Iceland can go it alone in the world the UK certainly can

Iceland withdrew its application to join the EU some years ago. Wonder
why.

Because supermarket chains are not allowed to join independently?

On 29 Sep 2019, Tim Lamb wrote
(in ) :

In t, Tim Streater
writes
In , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 29/09/2019 17:10, Tim Lamb wrote:
In t, Tim
Streater writes
In , Tim Lamb
wrote:

In , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 29/09/2019 14:14, Joe wrote:
A single world government would be the most harmful possible
thing for humanity.

And yet that is exactly what the soft middle class Left believe
they want.

Rubbish.

They want a continuation of the status quo without any leaps into
the unknown.

Well they're not going to get that, are they?

Stay in. Form pacts with other members and keep the commission on
a realistic rein.

This is not possible.
Why not?
Because the MEPS have no legal powers over the commission

Which is a self selecting dictaorship


A lot more believable than the fiction of what remains of the UK
going it alone in the world.

Oh please. If Iceland can go it alone in the world the UK certainly can

Iceland withdrew its application to join the EU some years ago. Wonder
why.

I would guess fishing is a very important part of their economy and they
didn't wish to share.

It was a very important part of the UK economy and we didnt wish to share
- except that at the 11th hour, the existing Common Market countries altered
the rules to make the seas available to their bottom-scraping catch all
boats; in order to throw all the (now) dead environmental destruction back
into the sea, and sell the decent fish back to the UK - and our so-called
politicians were so gullible they fell for it.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 16:03:40 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Tim Lamb
wrote:

Stay in. Form pacts with other members and keep the commission on a
realistic rein.

This is not possible.

Indeed. Dave Cameron and others' futile attempts at reforming the thing
from inside proved beyond doubt that approach gets you nowhere. If the
pleadings of even one of the largest net contributor countries gets
roundly rebuffed, it's clearly got way too big for its boots and needs to
be destroyed.



--
Leave first - THEN negotiate!

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 16:03:26 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

The only way to kill it is to cut off its funding. They know that, which
is why they don't want us to leave and certainly not without coughing
up.

By far our best chance of leaving cleanly without a civil war was during
May's disastrous premiership. That rancid old bitch's intentional
derailment of the process is solely responsible for all the acrimony and
division we see around us today.



--
Leave first - THEN negotiate!

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 17:41:13 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 29/09/2019 17:10, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 29/09/2019 14:14, Joe wrote:
A single world government would be the most harmful possible
thing for humanity.

And yet that is exactly what the soft middle class Left believe
they want.

Rubbish.

They want a continuation of the status quo without any leaps into the
unknown.

Well they're not going to get that, are they?

Stay in. Form pacts with other members and keep the commission on a
realistic rein.

This is not possible.

Why not?

Because the MEPS have no legal powers over the commission

Which is a self selecting dictaorship


A lot more believable than the fiction of what remains of the UK going
it alone in the world.

Oh please. If Iceland can go it alone in the world the UK certainly can

Iceland withdrew its application to join the EU some years ago. Wonder
why.

Their banking system imploded...taking with it the life's savings of
many 'investors'. Who needs a country like that in the EU?

On 29 Sep 2019, Grik-bostardo®„¢ wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 17:41:13 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 29/09/2019 17:10, Tim Lamb wrote:
In t, Tim Streater
writes
In , Tim Lamb
wrote:

In , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 29/09/2019 14:14, Joe wrote:
A single world government would be the most harmful possible
thing for humanity.

And yet that is exactly what the soft middle class Left believe
they want.

Rubbish.

They want a continuation of the status quo without any leaps into the
unknown.

Well they're not going to get that, are they?

Stay in. Form pacts with other members and keep the commission on a
realistic rein.

This is not possible.

Why not?
Because the MEPS have no legal powers over the commission

Which is a self selecting dictaorship


A lot more believable than the fiction of what remains of the UK going
it alone in the world.

Oh please. If Iceland can go it alone in the world the UK certainly can

Iceland withdrew its application to join the EU some years ago. Wonder
why.

Their banking system imploded...taking with it the life's savings of
many 'investors'.

Wasnt that Gordon Browns fault?

Who needs a country like that in the EU?

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 18:55:59 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

On 29 Sep 2019, Grik-bostardo®™ wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 17:41:13 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 29/09/2019 17:10, Tim Lamb wrote:
In t, Tim Streater
writes
In , Tim Lamb
wrote:

In , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 29/09/2019 14:14, Joe wrote:
A single world government would be the most harmful possible
thing for humanity.

And yet that is exactly what the soft middle class Left believe
they want.

Rubbish.

They want a continuation of the status quo without any leaps into the
unknown.

Well they're not going to get that, are they?

Stay in. Form pacts with other members and keep the commission on a
realistic rein.

This is not possible.

Why not?
Because the MEPS have no legal powers over the commission

Which is a self selecting dictaorship


A lot more believable than the fiction of what remains of the UK going
it alone in the world.

Oh please. If Iceland can go it alone in the world the UK certainly can

Iceland withdrew its application to join the EU some years ago. Wonder
why.

Their banking system imploded...taking with it the life's savings of
many 'investors'.

Wasn’t that Gordon Brown’s fault?

Not really. When the oversized banking sector in a country with a
****ty economy gets out of control, the outcome is predictable.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 10:51:31 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grik-bostardo®™", farted again:

Iceland withdrew its application to join the EU some years ago. Wonder
why.

Their banking system imploded...taking with it the life's savings of
many 'investors'. Who needs a country like that in the EU?

Who needs idiots like you in the EU, dreckserb Razovic! Therefo no Srbja
in the EU ...EVER! LOL

--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any meaningful debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID:

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 11:18:26 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grik-bostardo®™", farted again:

Wasn’t that Gordon Brown’s fault?

Not really. When the oversized banking sector

I worry more about your oversized idiocy, you congenital idiot!

--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"That [referring to the term "consenting adults"] is just an outdated legal
construct. Are you telling me that a 13-year old who spends 15 hours a day
on Facebook is incapable of consent?"
MID:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 29/09/2019 17:10, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 29/09/2019 14:14, Joe wrote:
A single world government would be the most harmful possible
thing for humanity.

And yet that is exactly what the soft middle class Left believe they
want.

Rubbish.

They want a continuation of the status quo without any leaps into the
unknown.

Well they're not going to get that, are they?

Stay in. Form pacts with other members and keep the commission on a
realistic rein.

This is not possible.

Why not?

Because the MEPS have no legal powers over the commission

Thats not accurate. The EP can in fact sack the whole lot but
they have to sack them all so its very unlikely to happen.

Which is a self selecting dictaorship

Nope, no dictatorship has the parliament able to sack him.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 29/09/2019 17:10, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 29/09/2019 14:14, Joe wrote:
A single world government would be the most harmful possible
thing for humanity.

And yet that is exactly what the soft middle class Left believe they
want.

Rubbish.

They want a continuation of the status quo without any leaps into the
unknown.

Well they're not going to get that, are they?

Stay in. Form pacts with other members and keep the commission on a
realistic rein.

This is not possible.

Why not?

Because the MEPS have no legal powers over the commission

Which is a self selecting dictaorship


A lot more believable than the fiction of what remains of the UK going
it alone in the world.

Oh please. If Iceland can go it alone in the world the UK certainly can

Iceland withdrew its application to join the EU some years ago. Wonder
why.

They didnt want the entire EU fishing fleet able to grab all their fish.

"Grik-bostardo®T" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 17:41:13 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 29/09/2019 17:10, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 29/09/2019 14:14, Joe wrote:
A single world government would be the most harmful possible
thing for humanity.

And yet that is exactly what the soft middle class Left believe
they want.

Rubbish.

They want a continuation of the status quo without any leaps into the
unknown.

Well they're not going to get that, are they?

Stay in. Form pacts with other members and keep the commission on a
realistic rein.

This is not possible.

Why not?

Because the MEPS have no legal powers over the commission

Which is a self selecting dictaorship


A lot more believable than the fiction of what remains of the UK going
it alone in the world.

Oh please. If Iceland can go it alone in the world the UK certainly can

Iceland withdrew its application to join the EU some years ago. Wonder
why.

Their banking system imploded...taking with it the life's savings of many
'investors'.

They actually applied to join the EU after that, but the
voters decided that they didn't want that to happen.