|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 21, 2018 17:12:37 GMT 1
You seem to forget Aqua that it was a headline part of the Referendum Bill that the vote would be decisive and binding - not "advisory" at all, and as a matter of fact there is no such "constitutional position", that's just a desperate post hoc invention of the Remoaners - and it was voted for, in favour of course, virtually unanimously - half a dozen nays, I think I recall. That was Parliament voting on the Referendum.
And where the hell were your conscientious constitutional quibbles when Brown signed the Lisbon Treaty? No Referendum or vote in Parliament on that huge constitutional conjuring trick.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 21, 2018 17:42:08 GMT 1
Let's start with the latest arcane mystery. What can he possibly mean when he declares - with no explanatory or evidential packaging, of course, Aqua doesn't like to go beyond the 140 characters his minister was kind enough to permit him - that in the '75 referendum the "ordinary people" were "sidelined", just as "they are now". Huh? Who are these "ordinary people" - clearly, not the majority who voted, in either case. Can he mean people like him - that is, the ones who lost the vote on both occasions? What would "not being sidelined" entail, exactly? Have their own bit of the country that remained in the EU, or, originally, didn't join what was then, (oh so unlike now!) a "rich man's club"?
Well - wtf is it supposed to mean?
|
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Mar 21, 2018 17:42:42 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 21, 2018 17:43:58 GMT 1
What utter, utter bollocks. I see what you mean by your being a gullible sap. A few screaming errors that should tell anyone with even a CSE-level educational attainment that this piece of "fake news" is utterly untrustworthy and should never, ever be reposted by anyone at all interested in their credibility. Heath didn't take us into the EU. And he didn't sign the Treaty of Rome. It may also interest you to learn that Heath and Paisley are dead, which is the only reason anyone - including yourself - can get away with such slanderous bollocks. |
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Mar 21, 2018 19:56:59 GMT 1
I'm always listening to village idiots. You should try it. (Leaving me aside, of course.) Presumably that's how you can broadcast such pearls of wisdom as the DUP go around murdering people, or Heath received a bribe for taking us into the EEC, or any of the other ridiculous pronouncements you make about politics or history? You're just a gullible sap? As you've probably realised by now I said neither of those specific things. That you say I did is surely libellous itself. |
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Mar 21, 2018 20:37:42 GMT 1
Bollocks, or an annual award?
Happy to admit that the various Treaties Of Accession are distinguishable from the original Rome treaty inthat they bind newcomers to the original Rome conditions as subsequently amended. Doesn't make the EU any better, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 22, 2018 0:20:26 GMT 1
Presumably that's how you can broadcast such pearls of wisdom as the DUP go around murdering people, or Heath received a bribe for taking us into the EEC, or any of the other ridiculous pronouncements you make about politics or history? You're just a gullible sap? As you've probably realised by now I said neither of those specific things. Try that one in court - it didn't get Irving very far. You did. The truth can't be a libel. |
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 22, 2018 0:29:35 GMT 1
Bollocks, or an annual award? According to the Telegraph, Heath's prize amounted to £446, which he put towards a piano. Awarded ten years before we went into the EC. Hardly a bribe of any sort. The only remaining puzzle is why you would swallow anything a Mail columnist might mouth off? |
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Mar 22, 2018 1:30:08 GMT 1
As you've probably realised by now I said neither of those specific things. Try that one in court - it didn't get Irving very far. You did. The truth can't be a libel. OK, prove it. (Is this about language skills?) |
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 22, 2018 6:22:41 GMT 1
Try that one in court - it didn't get Irving very far. You did. The truth can't be a libel. OK, prove it. It's the accused that has to prove it, that what he claimed was true, and further if unable to was not said with intent to damage. English law, actually, but either way, I submit, Alan would be sunk. He'd have a better chance of convincing a jury that communism wasn't the criminal evil enterprise it turned out to be wherever and whenever it was imposed, in whatever culture under whatever conditions - or at least that he wasn't evil for still believing in it despite all that history, because he's too close-minded and unreflective to figure out why. Who knows -earn their sympathy somehow. OJ got away with it. |
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Mar 22, 2018 8:29:39 GMT 1
"Presumably that's how you can broadcast such pearls of wisdom as the DUP go around murdering people, or Heath received a bribe for taking us into the EEC, or any of the other ridiculous pronouncements you make about politics or history? You're just a gullible sap?"
mrsonde seems to be getting mixed up between what Alan and Aqua have said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 22, 2018 8:44:05 GMT 1
Bollocks, or an annual award? Happy to admit that the various Treaties Of Accession are distinguishable from the original Rome treaty inthat they bind newcomers to the original Rome conditions as subsequently amended. Doesn't make the EU any better, though. An excuse for virtue-signalling for overpaid bureaucrats - presumably the will have an annal gala to grant these awards; and note this-' defend the highest earthly goods - freedom, humanity and peace'- note the absene of democracy, an unnecessary troublesome thing that hinders the good works the the bureaucrats want to impose upon their subjects' |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 22, 2018 11:07:42 GMT 1
Presumably that's how you can broadcast such pearls of wisdom as the DUP go around murdering people, or Heath received a bribe for taking us into the EEC... As you've probably realised by now I said neither of those specific things... It's the accused that has to prove it... What nonsense! If aqua were to stand accused of having said 'the DUP go around murdering people' or 'Heath received a bribe for taking us into the EEC' then of course the prosecution would have to offer evidence that he said it. Otherwise there would be no case to answer. It's the accused that has to prove it, that what he claimed was true... You've missed a stage there. Aqua's defence, remember, is that he did not say what he is accused of saying. The truth or otherwise of the words is irrelevant to that defence. Language skills or what!!! mrsonde seems to be getting mixed up between what Alan and Aqua have said. I think so. |
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Mar 22, 2018 21:06:04 GMT 1
According to the Telegraph, Heath's prize amounted to £446, which he put towards a piano. Awarded ten years before we went into the EC. Hardly a bribe of any sort. So payment before the act is not a bribe? Or is there a de minimis defence for bribery? The sum you quote would be worth about £9,000 in the pocket of a modern politician - probably not a lot for a Tory or a Steinway, but enough to swing a LibDem vote or upgrade from a studio to a concert piano. Re the big prize: In the world of professional ethics, we consider the prospect of payment after the act to be an inducement, which, depending on its magnitude, can be considered at least unethical and potentially illegal. But politicians are, of course, immune from such mundane considerations. I'd like to believe both but given the choice between the Telegraph and the good burghers of Aachen (who award the Charlemagne Prize), I'd tend to believe the latter. And it was reported in the Telegraph too. |
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Mar 23, 2018 1:17:40 GMT 1
Let's start with the latest arcane mystery. What can he possibly mean when he declares - with no explanatory or evidential packaging, of course, Aqua doesn't like to go beyond the 140 characters his minister was kind enough to permit him - that in the '75 referendum the "ordinary people" were "sidelined", just as "they are now". Huh? Who are these "ordinary people" - clearly, not the majority who voted, in either case. Can he mean people like him - that is, the ones who lost the vote on both occasions? What would "not being sidelined" entail, exactly? Have their own bit of the country that remained in the EU, or, originally, didn't join what was then, (oh so unlike now!) a "rich man's club"? Well - wtf is it supposed to mean? I'm happy to admit - even apologise for (sorry, that's an alien concept to you) - that I omitted a couple of words. And I've already said sorry today to my grandkids for being a little-endian, as the birthday-cake didn't quite work. |
|
