Jump to content RIP Sheffield Admin Mort

Consequences Of Brexit [Part 8] Read First Post Before Posting

Groose

Mod Note: As we are getting rather tired of seeing reports about this. The use of the word Remoaners  is to cease. Either posts like adults, or don't post at all. The mod warnings have been clear.

Message added by Groose

mort

In addition to remoaner we are also not going to allow the use of libdums or liebore - if you cannot behave like adults and post without recourse to these childish insults then please refrain from posting. If you have a problem with this then you all know where the helpdesk is. 

Message added by mort

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Longcol said:

So explain - a government with a small majority passes a statute to abolish opposition parties, packs out the Lords to make sure it gets onto the statute books - then what?

I refer the gentleman to post #362!

5 minutes ago, Obelix said:

I just demonstrated that your assertion anoyne over 18 can stand to be utterly baseless Drome.

That is sufficient.

No, you are just being pedantic for the sake of it as always and dont like being corrected.

 

The only bit you were correct about was this "Crucially idiots and lunatics - both terms with specific if outdated legal meanings are unable to stand too..."

 

Which is basically pretty obvious as I doubt they would be capable of filling in the forms or getting the deposit.

Edited by Dromedary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dromedary said:

I refer the gentleman to post #362!

 

I don't think SF mods consider they are the arbiters of the British Constitution.

 

Now would you care to answer my question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dromedary said:

I refer the gentleman to post #362!

No, you are just being pedantic for the sake of it as always and dont like being corrected.

 

The only bit you were correct about was this "Crucially idiots and lunatics - both terms with specific if outdated legal meanings are unable to stand too..."

 

Which is basically pretty obvious as I doubt they would be capable of filling in the forms or getting the deposit.

I'm sorry. You said that anyone could enter with the clear intention to show that stupid people can enter Parliament.

I demonstrated that you are both wrong, and there are safeguards against this.

 

Would you like to quit whilst you are behind or do you need your nose rubbing in it further?

Edited by Obelix

Share this post


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

I don't think SF mods consider they are the arbiters of the British Constitution.

 

Now would you care to answer my question.

Sorry my mistake, maybe.. But I refer you to #368 instead!

5 minutes ago, Obelix said:

I'm sorry. You said that anyone could enter with the clear intention to show that stupid people can enter Parliament.

No I did not. I said:

"No it does not as anyone over 18 regardless of education or qualifications can enter parliament as an MP, providing they are elected according to the rules. "

 

Those same rules would also rule out what you call..

 

"Crucially idiots and lunatics - ..."

Edited by Dromedary

Share this post


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

Sorry my mistake, maybe.. But I refer you to #368 instead!

 

You mean you're unable to answer the question  "What is to stop Parliament changing the rules to abolish all opposition parties?" 

 

eg. passing a statute

Edited by Longcol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dromedary said:

Sorry my mistake, maybe.. But I refer you to #368 instead!

No I did not. I said:

"No it does not as anyone over 18 regardless of education or qualifications can enter parliament as an MP, providing they are elected according to the rules. "

 

Those same rules would also rule out what you call..

 

"Crucially idiots and lunatics - ..."

Regardless of qualifications?

 

People qualified as idiots and lunatics are not allowed.

 

It's unclear if camels are allowed but I suspect not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Obelix said:

It's unclear if camels are allowed but I suspect not.

I think they're further down the food chain than Monk Bretton Civil Servants for Marxist / Faragist / Moggism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Longcol said:

I think they're further down the food chain than Monk Bretton Civil Servants for Marxist / Faragist / Moggism.

Thats impressive... I thought they were the archetypical bottom feeders...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Longcol said:

You mean you're unable to answer the question  "What is to stop Parliament changing the rules to abolish all opposition parties?" 

 

eg. passing a statute

The courts. They would stop it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

The courts. They would stop it. 

Explain how please

 

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

 

"Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution."

 

 

- examples of statutes overruled by courts (preferably within the last 50 years) would help.

Edited by Longcol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Explain how please

 

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

 

"Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution."

 

 

- examples of statutes overruled by courts (preferably within the last 50 years) would help.

Parliamentary sovereignty yes - so a law trying to get rid of parliament and create a dictatorship surely wouldn’t be allowed?  It would have to get through the Lords for a start. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

Parliamentary sovereignty yes - so a law trying to get rid of parliament and create a dictatorship surely wouldn’t be allowed?  It would have to get through the Lords for a start. 

 

 

I clearly said getting rid of opposition parties, not parliament.

 

And what's to stop the government  packing out the Lords with its cronies?

Edited by Longcol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.