Internally, Johnson is threatening the anti-Brexit majority in Parliament - and this with a minority government whose ruling Conservatives have a large anti-Brexit faction. This would seem suicidal, but for the fact that the Labour party is led by a man who is himself pro-Brexit, but is seen as wildly outside the mainstream (and possibly anti-Semitic) and therefore there is a strong tilt against a no confidence vote.Moreover, if the anti-(hard) Brexit majority, in effect, goes to the country for a mandate, it will be seeking a mandate from a population that told Parliament in a popular referendum that it wants out of the EU. Grant that the details, because of the nature of the referendum, were fuzzy. Still, it is not promising ground for the anti-Brexit majority in Parliament to seek a mandate and as to anti-Brexit Tories, they split their party at their peril. This then giving Johnson another advantage.In the end, of course and as noted, the issue may be rendered moot by the courts. In that event, Johnson's government is apt to be short lived and Brexit will either be nullified altogether or it will occur on such terms as to reduce Britain, in effect, to the status of a satellite to what amounts to an Franco-German entente. A situation unprecedented in European history since William the Conqueror, but such are matters left beginning the day that Mr. Cameron decided that government by plebiscite was better than having himself to make the tough choices of governing.
As usual you have drilled down to the core of the issue. The Prime Minister has to negotiate with Brussels. Parliament does not.
Thanks for your kind words. In fairness, Parliament will have to entertain whatever deal - if any - the EU comes up with. So to that degree, Parliament ends up negotiating with Europe. Assuming the EU comes up with anything - and to the extent that current parliamentary majority wants to avoid a hard Brexit. So to that degree, Parliament is part of the process. De facto but not de jure.Still, Johnson basically put the domestic opposition on the defense. They fight him only by opposing the express will of the British public in a referendum. (However ill-advised that referendum may have been. For me, I liked the result - hate how the UK got to the result.) Kill Brexit - which is what the effect would be since the EU refuses to negotiate and the "backstop" is a non-starter in Parliament - and you oppose the will of the British people. That is a hard place for the anti-Brexiters to be in.In terms of the EU, it wants things from Britain but has been able to sit on its hands and let the UK fall into its lap. The way things were headed at the very least the UK would keep one foot in, no longer be master of its fate, and the rest of Europe would see the price Britain paid for quitting the club. At the most, Britian's divides would, over time, negate the referendum results and Britain would end up remaining all in. (Either way, the UK is reduced to the status of an effective satellite of a Franco-German entente.)What Johnson has done in terms of Europe is shown it that it will have to pay the price - see also the Irish border, see also Gibraltar, see also German auto exports to the UK, etc. - of its own hard line. In effect, British indecision was sparing Europe that choice. Johnson has now forced - assuming he gets his way - the issue and enhanced his negotiating leverage to get a Brexit deal.
As Spanish, you must know that the airport is in our zone and that after brexit, the water is Spanish and about commerce with Gibraltar, UE will accept all our terms, without taking into account Gibraltar or England opinion by law, we never had so much control in years since we lost that territory, so... I would think that is England who doesn't want a frontier... And have to pay for it. Northern Ireland and Scotland must decide between England or UE...I was on Malta when their prime Minister said, we would be from common wealth if they like, but we will stay on UE say what engalnd say... I'm sure who will choose the rest... And about the economy, it's now under euro, and they haven't gone yet... So, can you explain me where does that confidence come from?
@lernulo My sincerest apologies, but your English is hard to follow and I am not sure of what you are saying.Let me just be clear that this is by no means signed and sealed. Merely that Mr. Johnson has enhanced his negotiating position both in terms of his domestic opponents and in terms of the EU. In terms of the divides between England on the one side and Scotland and Northern Ireland on the other, in terms of NI, there is no chance, with unionist sentiment as strong as it is - indeed, it is why Ulster remains separate from the rest of the island - there is no chance it will separate from the UK over EU. They want to avoid the hard border, but they have lived with it and can do so again.As regards Scotland, the separatist movement remains strong, but it is really independent of the EU issue and, in any case, appears based on the most recent polls to continue to be a minority view - albeit a large minority.As regards Gibraltar, they really have no say in the matter, but in any case there is NO support for joining Spain. A hard border will not be pleasant, but by the same token, Spain will not want a hard border any more than Gibraltar does and therefore will pressure the EU to cut a deal. In any case, at the worst, things would likely revert to what they were before Maastricht. Difficult, but manageable.Bottom line, Brexit is a given. The only question at this point is the terms of separation and the EU wants to avoid a hard Brexit - at the end of the day - as much as the UK.
I know we don't want the hard border, most sure will be the economy border... It means... Taxes for all or England must pay in other form.
About Scotland, I know it came from before, but I think this will give those movements strength, no?About English people going better... its something I would like to see, by now their economy falls, so I'm not sure it can do much better to them.
@lernulo Not sure I am following what you wrote. My apologies. However, based on what I think you are trying to say, a couple of points are pertinent. First, as far as the economic costs, Brexit is NOT assured of being economically the easier route by any means. Though to the extent that the initial "gloom and doom" predictions that were supposed to follow if the referendum passed never did - in fact, until recently, the British economy was growing and even now is still doing better than the European average - there is no reason to assume that it automatically means economic catastrophe either.Be that as it may, the British public chose to assert their national sovereignty over their economic security. In other words, give the choice as they effectively were, the British opted to be independent over remaining connected to whatever presumed economic advantage European membership was assumed to have brought.Taxes, budget deficits, whatever. A study by the House of Commons Library found that - depending on how EU court rulings and regulations are counted - 77% of all British laws were being written and imposed without reference to Parliament. This the British chose not to accept - and the issue was given particular salience by the immigration issue. The British simply were not going to allow the EU to control their borders. Hence, the referendum results. The British in effect chose to take the economic consequences - whatever they may be or not - over the loss of national self-government.CONT.
As to Scotland, it may be that Brexit gives the Scottish independence movement a boost. However, that remains to be seen. So far it really has not - though it has inflamed the SNP, which is certainly hoping that it will. Be that as it may there are two problems. The first is practical, Scotland depends more on England than it does any other EU economy or indeed the EU overall. If the question is purely economic, then Scotland best remains within the UK. If the question is sovereignty, two problems follow. First, Scotland has less self-government in the EU. (See also the 77% figure above.) It is a strange nationalism that seeks independence with less self-government.Second, Scotland would have to reapply to join the EU and there is no assurance - given the size of the English economy and London's role as a banking center - that EU governments would want it in at the risk of antagonizing England. (Bottom line, in or out of the EU, the British - and within that the English - economy remains one of the world's largest.)Thus, Scottish independence is no assurance of EU membership, which may be one of the reasons that Scottish nationalism, though aroused by the Brexit issue, at least at this point remains a minority position within Scotland. As an economic or political option, at the end of the day, the EU ends up being aside the point in terms of impacting the merits of Scottish independence.
It is actually much sadder than that because all of this assumes that the deadline will automatically trigger a no deal brexit.. which is by no means guaranteed. In fact it is probably illegal. Basically Article 50 which starts the withdrawal from the EU announces the intention of the UK to leave the EU and is not actually the act of withdrawing itself.This is important because the EU can't force another country out of the EU and they can only leave on their own but triggering Article 50 does not mean the UK has decided to leave either. That is something only Parliament has the power to do so going past the deadline should technically not change anything except for just making things oh so much more messy.
@Soteris That is not quite correct. The October 31 deadline is British law. What the anti-Brexiters were trying to do was get another shot at modifying or abolishing outright the law as it currently stands. By shortening the Parliamentary session, Johnson was denying them the necessary time to do so.As to the courts, so far at least, they have sided with the government. I do not specialize in British law, but given that the government of the day normally sets the parliamentary schedule, it would be a massive break with precedent for the courts to rule to the contrary.
The wise woman who thinks herself a fool is wiser than the fool who thinks himself wise.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
I read about the Canadian prorogation, very interesting! A no-confidence vote and General Election remain on the cards.
It's not a military coup, that's for sure. However:"In March 1975 Margaret Thatcher described referendum as “a device of dictators and demagogues”. Thatcher was quoting Clement Attlee who noticed that Hitler, Mussolini and Napoleon III used referendum to legitimise decisions they had made. If we just look at referendum before Wordl War II we can see how Mussolini and Hitler used them to their advantage. March 1929 – Italy approves single-party list for Mussolini’s National Fascist Party in referendum. July 1933 – Hitler grants himself the power to hold referendums. November 1933 – Germans vote to leave the League of Nations in referendum. March 1934 – Italians confirm approval of single-party list for Mussolini’s National Fascist Party in referendum. August 1934 – Germans approve combining posts of Chancellor & President in referendum. March 1936 – Germany approve single-party rule & occupation of Rhineland in referendum. April 1938 – Germans approve single list of Nazi candidates for Reichstag & Anschluss with Austria in referendum.More recently in 2014 Russia used a referendum to legitimise the annexation of Crimea. The question the referendum asked the people of Crimea was if they wanted to join Russia as a federal subject, or to restore the 1992 Crimean constitution and Crimea’s status as a part of Ukraine. As the 1992 constitution provided for increased control to the Crimean parliament, including full sovereign powers to agree relations with other states, both choices available in the referendum would probably have resulted in separation from Ukraine. The status quo was not an option on the ballot paper."www.conversion-uplift.co.uk/.../
@goaded So what? Referendums demonstrate the will of the people, particularly in democratic countries with a good electoral commission. Just because some fascists in the past have done referendums doesn't mean anything other than, if the referendum wasn't meddled with, they were enacting the will of the people. Plenty of democratic countries have done referendums, more so than fascistic or non-democratic countries. Also, in the UK the question being asked was simple and unbiased, do people wish to leave the EU? And 52% of people who bothered to register to vote said yes. You're entire comment is just an attempt to make referendums sound bad by association and try and make them sound undemocratic, which when they are done properly like the EU referendum was, they are the exact definition of democracy, which was the will of the people deciding their fate.
OK, ignoring the fact that they have previously been used to clearly undemocratic ends, the problems with referendums: The vast majority of people who vote are necessarily uninformed, and often (as in this case) mis-informed. The 52%, as you say, was of the people who bothered to vote, 17,410,742, in a country of 46,500,001 potential voters. Not a majority of the people, not even a majority of the potential voters. In a representative democracy, the MPs are supposed to represent all their constituents, not just the voters.
@goaded The people who bothered to vote were the people who knew enough about the EU and cared enough about our membership to vote, those who did not vote either out of a lack of knowledge or interest should be disregarded with regard to this debate, the people that did not vote are more susceptible to propaganda and misinformation. Clearly you don't give a shit about democracy if your argument against the result of the referendum is people being "uninformed" or "misinformed".There is absolutely no way in which you can characterize disregarding the outcome of a referendum that you didn't like the outcome of and then doing more referendums until you get the "right" decision as democratic or the will of the people or a "people's vote". There are plenty of legitimate and logical reasons to not want to be part of the EU, to claim that there aren't and to call everyone that voted leave as "stupid" or "misinformed" is the definition of bigotry. Maybe people don't want to be part of an internationalist, modern liberal, left wing organisation which clearly has an authoritarian bend. Maybe people don't like the gun laws encouraged by the EU, maybe people don't like the the surveillance in the EU. Maybe people don't like the idea of regulations being put in place over their country that harm their country at the benefit of another or even the majority of countries within the EU. Maybe people don't like the idea that it is difficult to effect political change on such a large union of countries with so many different cultures and peoples in it and with a fixed legislature creator who is not democratically elected. Maybe people want their culture and people to be represented and worked unrepentently in the interest of. Maybe people just want sovereignty. Maybe it is bad for certain businesses in certain areas and overtime forces countries to be dependent on one another, thus allowing other countries to have it by the balls.
I never said stupid."Maybe people don't want to be part of an internationalist, modern liberal, left wing organisation which clearly has an authoritarian bend."What authoritarian bent?"Maybe people don't like the gun laws encouraged by the EU"The UK's gun laws were already stricter than most of Europe, first. Why would they get looser, outside the EU?"maybe people don't like the the surveillance in the EU."The UK has more CCTV than almost any other country on Earth, and privacy laws are more protective at least in Germany."Maybe people don't like the idea of regulations being put in place over their country that harm their country at the benefit of another or even the majority of countries within the EU."Examples?"Maybe people don't like the idea that it is difficult to effect political change on such a large union of countries with so many different cultures and peoples in it and with a fixed legislature creator who is not democratically elected."That sounds like a reasonable complaint; can that legislature pass laws that all the EU countries have to follow without ratifying them first?"Maybe people want their culture and people to be represented and worked unrepentently in the interest of."Isn't that what the government and MEPs do?"Maybe people just want sovereignty."Maybe."Maybe it is bad for certain businesses in certain areas and overtime forces countries to be dependent on one another, thus allowing other countries to have it by the balls."Don't you want to have Germany by the balls? Or France? It goes both ways.Maybe not all the people who voted Leave wanted all of those things, maybe they were upset about one aspect, but didn't look and see things that they do appreciate about Europe. Maybe an informed opinion should involve listening to economists.
Like I said, not stupid, just misinformed.
@goaded Didn't notice your reply until just now, and I am not misinformed on the matter. >Authoritarian bent They are constantly pushing for stricter gun laws, they considered banning home farms, they support hate speech laws. I could probably look for more, but these things demonstrate a dislike for the population having hard-power and therefore being armed, freedom of speech, and a dislike of autonomy from the system. They also want to force diversity on white countries.>Can that legislature pass laws that all the EU countries have to follow without ratifying them first?Well yes, the issue is put before MEPs and then once the issue has been voted on and put through then countries have to obey it our face punishments, and no one country has enough MEPs to prevent the law on their own. Hungary faced economic punishments as a result of not wanting to allow into their country "refugees". Also, this legislature makes the decisions and the MEPs have to appeal to modify the laws to the legislature, either way the law will get through.The issue with gun control also stems from this criticism, it would be much easier to change the laws on gun control in the UK if there wasn't a double layer of it, one in the UK which with enough people getting into shooting and enough lobbying could conceivably be loosened slightly to allow for pistols again or maybe even semi-automatic rifles, but then trying to abolish the EU laws surround firearms that becomes very difficult because many countries would not wish to do the same and would vote against it and they outnumber the UK, so essentially even if it was the UK's will to abolish it, they wouldn't be able to because of other countries.cont.
@goaded >Isn't that what the government and MEPs do?No, because the other MEPs outnumber British MEPs and therefore they will work in the interests of the greater EU. In order to work in the interests of our people we need to write our own laws and act independently and often at the expense of other European countries, the EU prevents this for the most part.>Examples?That is literally the main principle of these unions, it can be seen with all these liberal regional, supranational unions. They support the idea of absolute gains as opposed to relative gains, absolute gains mean everyone or at least the majority making gains but some people making more gains than others, relative gains making more gains when compared to other countries, and in some cases gains to the weaker countries at the expense of the strong. The aid given to eastern countries to build infrastructure by the UK is an example. cont.
@goaded >Don't you want to have Germany by the balls? Or France?No, I want countries to freely work in their own self interest without international law or international unions or the United States getting in the way, particularly my country, and it is simply a matter of fact that due to the very weaved in and integrated nature of the economies of all the countries in the EU, if our government were to do something that would harm France or would benefit us at the expense of France (for instance) then France could find a way to screw us over due to the fact our economies are so linked and reliant on one another. This wouldn't be as bad if we traded and we were outside the EU because then we could just find a supplier or consumers in another countries, but in the EU different countries specialize in different areas and the EU makes it so it is only really affordable to trade within the EU and with countries that have some sort of agreement with the EU. >Maybe not all the people who voted Leave wanted all of those things, maybe they were upset about one aspect, but didn't look and see things that they do appreciate about Europe. Maybe an informed opinion should involve listening to economistsMaybe if you care about democracy you should just let people vote, and additionally what is "good" for the economy is such a subjective term and all of these economists come from a neo-liberal, internationalist point of view which essentially view more integration and more GDP is the ultimate goods, where as at another time economists would value national freedom and a dynamic, secure economy
I keep missing messages since the recent updates, too, so I thought I'd prod!You're mis-informed about gun laws, at least. Like I said, the UK has some of the strictest in the Europe (and are probably among those pushing for stricter laws across Europe), but there's absolutely nothing (but common sense) to stop the UK government from relaxing the laws to levels seen elsewhere in Europe.What's this about banning home farms? I've never heard of it, and it seems very unlikely.
@goaded The EU have minimum gun laws for all nation states, that is simply a fact. Also, it isn't common sense to ban firearms, it is simplistic and wrong. The UK has a mass shooting every 11 years or so, banning types of firearms doesn't make this any less common or any less deadly it appears. Gun violence rates in the UK are comparable to other European countries with looser gun laws, in fact Northern Ireland, where you can still buy handguns and own them for the purpose of self-defense has a gun crime rate around average for the UK. Mass shootings aren't really an issue that need to be resolved, they are so rare anyway and even in the US where there are 10,000 homicides with guns every year the majority of those are by gangs who own the guns illegally and the people are of a certain type which we have less of in the UK and Europe thankfully.Although I imagine one of the reasons they have yet to be unbanned by a proper Conservative government is because if there was a mass shooting with a gun which was unbanned that would probably be political suicide for that Prime Minister or MP that got the unbanned, also politicians don't like the population to own firearms especially when they are ruffling so many feathers. As for the EU banning home gardens. www.activistpost.com/.../...eirloom-seeds-and.htmlwww.theguardian.com/.../eu-regulation-garden-plantswww.theguardian.com/.../eu-law-plants-seedswww.permanentculturenow.com/.../
"The EU have minimum gun laws for all nation states,"I said that: those minimum requirements are less stringent than the UK's were before the EU introduced theirs."Banning" (heavily regulating) firearms isn't just to avoid mass shootings, it's also to avoid lots of those little ones that don't make the headlines. Imagine all those knife attacks being replaced by gun attacks - there would be more deaths (you're 3x as likely to die from a gunshot wound than a stabbing), and more innocent victims (it's hard to accidentally stab someone across the street)."... in the US where there are 10,000 homicides with guns every year the majority of those are by gangs who own the guns illegally..."Also 20,000 suicides. The majority of firearm murders are *not* from gangs - "estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually" www.nationalgangcenter.gov/.../measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problemsHow do you go about illegally obtaining a firearm? You can steal one quite easily (even accidentally) if a large proportion of vehicles and homes contain one, or you could buy one from someone else who can buy one in a shop. If they're not common, it's harder for criminals to come by them (and if simple posession is a crime, you don't have to wait for them to shoot someone to put them away)."politicians don't like the population to own firearms especially when they are ruffling so many feathers."Do you know why? It's so that one moron with a gun can't take away the voices of the people who elected someone like Jo Cox. People elect their representatives, and the way to hold them accountable is to show up and vote, or with peaceful protest."... home gardens."Ah, I was confused by "home farms", earlier. The proposal didn't become a regulation, as I understand it. Here's the thing: outside the EU, we have no say over what happens in 27 of our neighbouring countries, in it, at least we have some.
@goaded I don't care, we shouldn't oppress and punish the British people because some you-know-whats in the cities can't stop themselves from stabbing people and committing crime. Besides, our murder rate didn't decrease even after handguns were banned, so it had virtually no effect and all it did was make this country more totalitarian, more restrictive and just generally worse. I don't care whether gun crime is lower, all that matters is whether the murder rate went up or down and banning guns had no effect on the overall murder rate. Furthermore, the 20,000 suicides shouldn't be included because a large portion of those people will find other methods to kill themselves and if people really want to kill themselves then who am I to stop them? We certainly shouldn't take people's rights away just because some people use their rights to kill themselves. Democracy doesn't work how you think it works or how it ideally should work. Do you know what a safe seat is? Jo Cox was elected because she was a labour candidate and because her constituency was a labour safe seat, her constituency voted 60% leave even after she was gunned down and they probably would have voted even more for leave if she hadn't. Jo Cox likely would have remained just as pro-remain and pro-multiculturalism and she likely would have been elected again and no amount of chanting or waving signs will make people like Jo Cox alter their positions. It is essentially a dictatorship with the illusion of democracy, and the dictator in this situation hates those they rule over. (I don't advocate violence by saying this, I'm just saying our democracy is trash, our MPs are trash, real democracy doesn't mean shit to the people that currently lead, they are all liberal, internationalist, multiculturalist ideologues who hate the British race and I don't give a fuck about Jo Cox and I lol at her constituency voting 60% leave).
I was also just using Jo Cox as an example since you brought her up, I don't think it was good that she was killed or anything, I just don't care about her and I find it kind of funny that her constituency voted leave, and to claim that she was truly representing her constituents and their thoughts and interests is stone cold retarded.
@goaded Also, I don't want to decide what happens in other European countries if it means they can decide what goes on in mine.
Not being allowed to have unnecessary weapons is not oppressing or punishing you, and you'd have to go back to the 16th century to get to a point where there was no firearms regulation in the UK. It still has nothing whatever to do with the EU.
@goaded It is precisely to do with the fucking European Union, the mass shootings that were used to ban types of guns in the UK were staged by the government and then capitalized on by the media in line with the rest of the EU. Fuck the EU. And furthermore, the EU is going to have data loggers put in all cars so that the government can monitor your movements. www.extremetech.com/.../288592-eu-wants-speed-governors-data-recorders-in-cars-for-2022Honestly, I fucking hope that every single fucking person who is at all involved with this totalitarian globalist regime fucking dies in a fire. Also, Jo Cox was a cunt, its cunts like her that have made Britain into the police state shithole that it is today. Fuck her and Fuck every single politician in the UK, they are all fucking controlled opposition. This country is fucking dead and it is because of underhanded faggots like this. Fuck every single politician from Nigel Farage to Jeremy Corbyn to Jean Claude Junker. They are all controlled by the Jews, Saudis (controlled by the Jews), freemasons, and Marxists.
Also, Hitler was the last man who stood a chance at actually defeating these globalists, but he failed and now we are all permafucked forever, and most of the population are brain dead, indoctrinated husks. Honestly, fuck it all, I hope a nuclear war breaks out and the world is destroyed just so that we can go out with a bang instead of a depressing, slow. death similar to that of suffocation.
Wow. It's always interesting to see someone's true colours. Disgusting and scary, too, of course. It also reinforces my original quote from Thatcher: “a device of dictators and demagogues”.This is why we need a second referendum, to return to sanity.
Really, why? Lowering animal welfare standards?
@goaded really why what
They should have required more than a simple majority to change the status quo.
The referendum did not ask if the people wanted to go to the WTO standards.
@goaded It was a straight-forward referendum; it said if they wanted to be a part of the EU, and they said no. Anything else is up for debate after the fact, but getting them what they want is the first priority.
When you sign a contract, there's a cooling off period; we now understand what brexit entails, and who we're aligning ourselves with. e. g."Also, Hitler was the last man who stood a chance at actually defeating these globalists, but he failed and now we are all permafucked forever, and most of the population are brain dead, indoctrinated husks. Honestly, fuck it all, I hope a nuclear war breaks out and the world is destroyed just so that we can go out with a bang instead of a depressing, slow. death similar to that of suffocation."Polls show a majority for remain.
@goaded It's simply a reflection of the psycho-social stress the country has been under for over a year because of Brexit. The Labor party, who does not want to see the peoples will done, which does not want a sovereign British State, and which like every other "progressive" party thinks they are the intellectual superiors of their mindless followers and conservative counterparts want to tear down every tradition that has ever worked (including the nation-state).This is tantamount to asking a child if they would rather keep the band-aid on (after they're healed), or keep slowing tearing it off.
I like your honesty.
Good Idea, same with me.
The brexit voters support it, the PM supports it, the Queen of England supports it, even the courts support itThe only people who don't are people who want Britain to collapse
@Blakekeyy in other words the parliament who are scared they can't sell the UK down the river.
As Spanish, I must give you thanks to brexit, now we have the control about everything on Gibraltar.Furthermore it can mean the independence of Scotland and the loss of the North of Ireland, so... I don't understand your confidence saying only collapsers want to avoid it.
@lernulo well if brexit means Scottish indepedence i wish them good luck, they do very well in the UK especially from the point of view like northerners like me. As for Northern Ireland well the sameIf Gibraltar wants independence thats fine but what makes you think they should join spain?Maybe if our government doesn't have to worry about other countries then maybe they'll pay attention of us northen englanders rather than every other country they can squeeze something out of.
Gibraltar don't want independence by what I have heard by now...What they are it's just fucked off and without more options that accepting what Spain say, thanks to Brexit.(what I see as a bad diplomatic decision, but very convenient for us) Scotland and North of Ireland are who ask for independence.
@lerunlo sure I totally agree with everything you've said.But UK politics seem to be about other countries and how London profits from them. Otherwise fuck you!Brexit is about how English people feel about their government and how they are more concerned about other countries than their own countrymen who dont live in the places they do. Brexix to me is a fuck you to the southern shandy drinking fairies who think they can sell England down the river for their bank accounts.This is the side you never hear because me saying the government is fucking me over isn't PC enough.Regardless of what goes on what ever happened to British stiff upper lip and keep calm and carry on.Im a northern monkey and im sick of these southern fairies running the show for their own needs.
True he wanted it so let’s get it over and done with.
The Queen has no actual power. Officially she can't even have an opinion on political matters.
Bollocks, the Queen has to go along with the government.
That was to @Blakeleyy's opinion.
That's the most politically illiterate thing I've seen on this site in some time, and it had some pretty stiff competition...
If you have something to say then say it don't patronize me. Simply saying that I'm wrong is not a proper rebuttal.
The queen has approval rates north of 80% - show me any politician, anywhere, who can match that.If you write something incorrect (and patronising) such as the UK isn't a democratic country, and that you'd go against anything the queen agreed with, apparently on principle, frankly you need a bit of patronising, to sort you out.
Meghan Markle has approval rates of 80%. A smart political decision obviously which has helped the queen immensely.
I'm not trying to bash the queen personally as a human being (she seems like somebody who's actually trying to do the right thing in some situations). I'm just saying the monarchy is holding the country back. Did you know that there are nobles who can join Parliament simply by asking and without being elected?
The monarchy is the most widely respected institution in this country, does a massive amount for the country, and in no way, shape or form can it be said to be holding the country back. It's one of the things that holds the nation together. Meghan Markle's approval ratings are nothing like 80%, and she's pretty unpopular in certain quarters. Nor can 'nobles' (not a word that anybody here uses) simply ask to join Parliament, without being elected. You're twenty years out of date. You don't know as much about my country as you clearly think that you do, that much is clear.
I can at least say that I admire your loyalty and blind Faith.
@Vallius86 The Royal Family over there, for all its dysfunction (see Charles and Andrew) is ceremonial and something which the British people can rally around. What medieval institutions remain (like the House of Lords to which you refer) are also largely ceremonial.
I suppose I'd rather have them than the Kardashians.
prorogue[ proh-rohg ]|SEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR prorogue ON THESAURUS. COMverb (used with object), pro·rogued, pro·ro·guing.to discontinue a session of (the British Parliament or a similar body).to defer; postpone.
he doesn't speak for all brits though ;)
Lol Just like Me with Trump, No Chump.. I cannot Speak for all USAers. xx
@wankiam Lol That must Be a Brit Thing Word. xx