semantics. We have a parliamentary democracy and therefore a prime minister.
Governed by whom ?
- Thread starter gasbanni
- Start date
semantics. We have a parliamentary democracy and therefore a prime minister.
Sponsored Links
Liam Fox promises he will have agreed dozens of international free trade deals within the next 18 months.
Oct. 2, 2017
http://uk.businessinsider.com/liam-...als-the-second-after-brexit-2017-10?r=US&IR=T
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...in-human-history-sterling-falls-idUSKBN1A50QC
remember how easy they Quitters said it would be?
load of *******s
It has become increasingly clear how the EU refuses at all to negotiate in any meaningful way. What does that prove? It proves how the European Union has no interest in nation states and increasingly is becoming monopolistic in its behaviour.
What annoys me about pro-Royalists is their argument that "the Queen does a lot of good for the country".
I cannot think of one solid example in her ~65 years of reign where she has genuinely "done good" for the interests of her subjects (because we're not free citizens). She has never really stepped in during national crises, nor made sacrifices as a symbol of solidarity. When millions have protested against the government our head of state has never stood by us -- in contrast there's a lot of evidence to suggest her and her son have been actively involved in political interference for their own gain.
They are nothing more than a large family with a primary interest in money. We don't need that in the 21st Century. We need a clearly-defined Bill of Rights and a written Constitution which we have never had, in our history as a nation. Let's open up their homes for tourism and free up some of the 2,000,000 acres of land they own.
I cannot think of one solid example in her ~65 years of reign where she has genuinely "done good" for the interests of her subjects (because we're not free citizens). She has never really stepped in during national crises, nor made sacrifices as a symbol of solidarity. When millions have protested against the government our head of state has never stood by us -- in contrast there's a lot of evidence to suggest her and her son have been actively involved in political interference for their own gain.
They are nothing more than a large family with a primary interest in money. We don't need that in the 21st Century. We need a clearly-defined Bill of Rights and a written Constitution which we have never had, in our history as a nation. Let's open up their homes for tourism and free up some of the 2,000,000 acres of land they own.
Sponsored Links
You remember how there are four options for trading with the EU? And the Quitters have never said which one they thought they were voting for?
Today Theresa's buddies are arguing which of two of their own invented, non-available options they dislike least. Neither of their options is acceptable to the UK Parliament or to the EU.
Less than a year to go now, and our government still hasn't even decided what it wants.
The marketing benefit to the UK by having a monarchy is not easy to monetise, but its likely to be of some good.
I'm not a keen Royalist, but I would much prefer to see this country retain its Royal family than become a republic state.
Why shouldn't we have that in the 21st century?
To say we are not free citizens but subjects is a bit of a pathetic argument..........
No there are not
The options are only limited by what the EU want to offer......which is no option at all. The UK is the 2nd largest contributor to the EU it doesnt want the UK to leave and is doing all it can to achieve that.
What is wrong with being a republic? Why would you not want an elected head of state? Other developed nations did it and thrive.
Because we don't need a Queen any more - she serves little function and prevents our outdated system of government from developing into something truly democratic (such as a government accountable to parliament, which we STILL don't have). The family are even less useful, aside from making money for themselves.
It's not an argument - it's a statement. Legally we are subjects. My argument is that we need a written constitution and a bill of rights. This is something we have never had in full. At present, we have a frayed and disconnected collection of laws and declarations which are easy to put down and make it hard to define clearly what rights we have.
Yes there are. There are these four option. Which one do you want?
Will you be able to get the EU to agree to one of them (except the 4th, which is the "no deal" option)?
What do you want to do with the Irish border? Remember that the Republic of Ireland is a member of the EU, and has a veto on any deal. The EU has committed to protect Irish interests.
None of this is "news." It's all been the case since long before the referendum.
No there are not.
You love using a false choice argument, this is just another example....hence why you keep peddling it.
The EU can offer any deal if it wanted to do. It doesnt and wont because it doesnt want a deal, it wants our money.
The EU has 28 (soon to be 27) members, and it has trade treaties. It generally has committed in those treaties that if any better terms are offered in a new treaty, they will be applied to all existing ones. Each of the members has a veto.
It also has non-negotiable principles, such as Freedom of Movement, which determine the conditions under which it will agree which terms apply.
If you go to a place that sells three possible things, and tell them you want something they don't sell, don't be surprised if they say no.
When you resign from the golf club, and give up your seat on the committee, you also give up the right to play on their course. They may agree to let you play if you commit to obey their rules and pay their green fees. Perhaps they offer a day ticket or six rounds per season, and no admittance on match days. Every member of the club can veto your request. If you say you won't follow the rules, what will they say? Being you, you'll whine that they "refuse to negotiate" if they don't cave in to your demands.
It also has non-negotiable principles, such as Freedom of Movement, which determine the conditions under which it will agree which terms apply.
If you go to a place that sells three possible things, and tell them you want something they don't sell, don't be surprised if they say no.
When you resign from the golf club, and give up your seat on the committee, you also give up the right to play on their course. They may agree to let you play if you commit to obey their rules and pay their green fees. Perhaps they offer a day ticket or six rounds per season, and no admittance on match days. Every member of the club can veto your request. If you say you won't follow the rules, what will they say? Being you, you'll whine that they "refuse to negotiate" if they don't cave in to your demands.
No, they are sticking by the rules of the 'club'.
The 'club' that brexiteers voted to leave.
Nothing more, nothing less!
'leave means leave', remember
Funny that, you change your tune to suit your argument.
When its about immigration, apparently Freedom of movement is negotiable. Now when talking about a deal freedom of movement is not negotiable.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
No it can't that delusional Rees Mogg thibking. They have made the offers - we simply cannot decide because each one is worse than our current position.
We want to leave and retain all the benefits.
Now Australia & NZ will be negotiating trade deals with the EU which will be on better terms than we will be able to get.
How many lies being exposed does it take for you to accept this is a complete s hit show. Put your biases to the side look at the cold hard facts.
Sponsored Links
