Next PM?

First topic message reminder :

So Cameron has stepped down. Who's next?

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't have anybody to tag-team.  I'm driven by totally independent thoughts.  One minute I'm arguing that women cause a lot of spousal violence--a seeming RW opinion that arouses a lot of lefty ire--and then arguing that war in the middle east is idiotic and Palestinians are victims--which RW'rs despise me for.  I'm always out on a limb by myself...  

Ain't no palm to tag over here!  

Erm Quill? Most of us are individuals posters? I bet everyone here, would say the same.

We are all logged on alone quill. I'm not sat with Syl and Rags on a park bench sharing an ID whilst we drink cider and tag team other posters.

I don't like cider anyway. Make it a lager, and I'll sit on a park bench with you and tag team.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't have anybody to tag-team.  I'm driven by totally independent thoughts.  One minute I'm arguing that women cause a lot of spousal violence--a seeming RW opinion that arouses a lot of lefty ire--and then arguing that war in the middle east is idiotic and Palestinians are victims--which RW'rs despise me for.  I'm always out on a limb by myself...  

Ain't no palm to tag over here!  

Erm Quill? Most of us are individuals posters? I bet everyone here, would say the same.

We are all logged on alone quill. I'm not sat with Syl and Rags on a park bench sharing an ID whilst we drink cider and tag team other posters.

You are the one who said we are all tag-teamers. I don't really care; I don't spend much time thinking about it. But, I understand you to mean that there are certain gangs or teams that coalesce around each other. You'd have to be a fool not to notice it. But I try to address each person as an individual.

A cheerleader is one who is in it for the cheers, and not for the solving of problems or gaining of information. Because they seek cheers (of others), they necessarily work in groups in forums. I dislike the competitiveness, and I prefer a problem-solving approach. For example, how is the UK going to leave the EU and not abandon devolution?

Leaving the eu means we get all our powers and controls over our country 'devolved' back to us from the eu...

Tommy Monk wrote:Leaving the eu means we get all our powers and controls over our country 'devolved' back to us from the eu...

I know. I think you've already expressed your preference for trashing the Sewel convention.

But it's an interesting exercise in nation-building, or in this case...nation disassembling.

4EVER2 wrote:Gee ...SLY, making coy references that the two Americans 'must be drinking' ...because we see your rejoinders in the same attitude - method - and mindset  
 LAME pretty dam LAME!  
But thanks for dragging me into a topic that you clearly can't hold your own POV on!

Well SPECS I was meaning more of a witches concoction than anything alcoholic.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

You said I was cheerleading yesterday too just because I agree with someone elses posts and not yours...  are you drinking the same brew as 4Ever??   ...I have also given my own opinions throughout the various threads  so it's an unfair remark.

Cheerleading is a term of art used by lawyers who find someone is not being critical in their thinking, but merely being wishful.  It's non-productive.  You have to consider the bad facts along with the good facts.

It is true that there is probably a correlation between cheerleading and the kind of tag-teaming you often engage in, but that is because both have motives other than getting at the truth.

The English definition of tag teaming must be different from the American one.
BTW you mentioned it first not Eddie...read back.

The eu is about nation dissembling...

You claim to support proper legal procedure... try telling us how us voting to stay in a simple trade arrangement back in 1975 called the EEC, with promises and assurances that this meant no loss of sovereignty/democracy/national powers would follow... ended up with huge losses of sovereignty/democracy/national powers to different political entity, a federalist dictatorship, called the eu, which was created in 1992, and has never had the consent of the british people... and one which has grabbed increasingly more and more powers from us since 1993, and none of which have ever had the consent of the british people...!?


Would you not argue the illegality and illegitimacy of this...!?

I'm hoping the racist tea kettle will win ...

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Leaving the eu means we get all our powers and controls over our country 'devolved' back to us from the eu...

I know.  I think you've already expressed your preference for trashing the Sewel convention.

But it's an interesting exercise in nation-building, or in this case...nation disassembling.

The eu is about nation dissembling...

You claim to support proper legal procedure... try telling us how us voting to stay in a simple trade arrangement back in 1975 called the EEC, with promises and assurances that this meant no loss of sovereignty/democracy/national powers would follow... ended up with huge losses of sovereignty/democracy/national powers to different political entity, a federalist dictatorship, called the eu,  which was created in 1992, and has never had the consent of the british people... and one which has grabbed increasingly more and more powers from us since 1993, and none of which have ever had the consent of the british people...!?


Would you not argue the illegality and illegitimacy of this...!?

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Cheerleading is a term of art used by lawyers who find someone is not being critical in their thinking, but merely being wishful.  It's non-productive.  You have to consider the bad facts along with the good facts.

It is true that there is probably a correlation between cheerleading and the kind of tag-teaming you often engage in, but that is because both have motives other than getting at the truth.

The English definition of tag teaming must be different from the American one.
BTW you mentioned it first not Eddie...read back.

Well, Sly ...yuk - yuk ...ya got me there; I'm not well versed as you are to the drinking habits of the 'Witches' that you hang with or their preferred methods for imbibing; but I'm pretty sure that Quill wouldn't be gendered specific as to be called a 'WITCH' but perhaps more of a 'WARLOCK'   

But what all that had to do with your LAME grasping for points in your verbal exchange with Quill and the need to pull me into it, that just seemed ...un-necessary but telling    But that's supposed to be a "FAIR REMARK" ...by your standards?

4EVER2 wrote:

Syl wrote:

The English definition of tag teaming must be different from the American one.
BTW you mentioned it first not Eddie...read back.

Well, Sly ...yuk - yuk ...ya got me there; I'm not well versed as you are to the drinking habits of the 'Witches' that you hang with or their preferred methods for imbibing; but I'm pretty sure that Quill wouldn't be gendered specific as to be called a 'WITCH' but perhaps more of a 'WARLOCK'   

But what all that had to do with your LAME grasping for points in your verbal exchange with Quill and the need to pull me into it, that just seemed ...un-necessary but telling    But that's supposed to be a "FAIR REMARK" ...by your standards?

Oh do shut up you silly woman....and stop spoiling threads with your inane waffling.

Hey, you brought my name into this ...now your screeching at me like some ole' harpy because I'm responding!  Good Grief ...how's that 'BREW' you've mentioned?  LOL

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Leaving the eu means we get all our powers and controls over our country 'devolved' back to us from the eu...

I know.  I think you've already expressed your preference for trashing the Sewel convention.

But it's an interesting exercise in nation-building, or in this case...nation disassembling.

The eu is about nation dissembling...

You claim to support proper legal procedure... try telling us how us voting to stay in a simple trade arrangement back in 1975 called the EEC, with promises and assurances that this meant no loss of sovereignty/democracy/national powers would follow... ended up with huge losses of sovereignty/democracy/national powers to different political entity, a federalist dictatorship, called the eu,  which was created in 1992, and has never had the consent of the british people... and one which has grabbed increasingly more and more powers from us since 1993, and none of which have ever had the consent of the british people...!?


Would you not argue the illegality and illegitimacy of this...!?





STILL WAITING QUILL!!!

Syl wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:Gee ...SLY, making coy references that the two Americans 'must be drinking' ...because we see your rejoinders in the same attitude - method - and mindset  
 LAME pretty dam LAME!  
But thanks for dragging me into a topic that you clearly can't hold your own POV on!

Well SPECS I was meaning more of a witches concoction than anything alcoholic.

Heeeeey...excussssse me; why you'd call me that horrid name for ...you're the one pulling me into your karfarckle?  That's not nice!

4EVER2 wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well SPECS I was meaning more of a witches concoction than anything alcoholic.

Heeeeey...excussssse me; why you'd call me that horrid name for ...you're the one pulling me into your karfarckle?  That's not nice!

If you give it out expect to take it back 4Ever. ...it's only fair.

and yet you have called her "SLY" in more than one post on this thread alone...so no its NOT a typo

Lord Foul wrote:and yet you have called her "SLY" in more than one post on this thread alone...so no its NOT a typo

Yep...in capitals too.

I believed her before when she said she was tired and they were typos....I dont now,

Syl wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:and yet you have called her "SLY" in more than one post on this thread alone...so no its NOT a typo

Yep...in capitals too.

I believed her before when she said she was tired and they were typos....I dont now,

And - AND ...on my TABLET there's this blasted AUTO CORRECT that will put your name into SLY instead of SYL if I'm not paying attention!!!  Dang it ...I detest that dam function and when I'm pecking away ...I do forget to go back and correct that - RECORRECTION.        You do have a 'odd' spelled word that my tablet thinks needs to be over written to that other word... SORRY!   

Lord Foul wrote:and yet you have called her "SLY" in more than one post on this thread alone...so no its NOT a typo

Good Grief ...putting your big foot into once again...well done Dick Tracy!  LMAO

4EVER2 wrote:

Syl wrote:

Yep...in capitals too.

I believed her before when she said she was tired and they were typos....I dont now,

And - AND ...on my TABLET there's this blasted AUTO CORRECT that will put your name into SLY instead of SYL if I'm not paying attention!!!  Dang it ...I detest that dam function and when I'm pecking away ...I do forget to go back and correct that - RECORRECTION.        You do have a 'odd' spelled word that my tablet thinks needs to be over written to that other word... SORRY!   

Awww.....OK. Lets move on then.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Leaving the eu means we get all our powers and controls over our country 'devolved' back to us from the eu...

I know.  I think you've already expressed your preference for trashing the Sewel convention.

But it's an interesting exercise in nation-building, or in this case...nation disassembling.

The eu is about nation dissembling...

You claim to support proper legal procedure... try telling us how us voting to stay in a simple trade arrangement back in 1975 called the EEC, with promises and assurances that this meant no loss of sovereignty/democracy/national powers would follow... ended up with huge losses of sovereignty/democracy/national powers to different political entity, a federalist dictatorship, called the eu,  which was created in 1992, and has never had the consent of the british people... and one which has grabbed increasingly more and more powers from us since 1993, and none of which have ever had the consent of the british people...!?


Would you not argue the illegality and illegitimacy of this...!?





STILL WAITING QUILL!!!

Syl wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:

And - AND ...on my TABLET there's this blasted AUTO CORRECT that will put your name into SLY instead of SYL if I'm not paying attention!!!  Dang it ...I detest that dam function and when I'm pecking away ...I do forget to go back and correct that - RECORRECTION.        You do have a 'odd' spelled word that my tablet thinks needs to be over written to that other word... SORRY!   

Awww.....OK. Lets move on then.

I'll just use the 'quote option' or say 'HEY YOU' and you'll have to be aware ...

4EVER2 wrote:

Syl wrote:

Awww.....OK. Lets move on then.

I'll just use the 'quote option' or say 'HEY YOU' and you'll have to be aware ...

You are welcome.
I understand many a time people do typos...I never post on the tablet because it's such a pain.
You wont know this but I was targeted and called "SLY" for years on a couple of forums by a handful of posters....it was their way of trying to garner support against me, and it got a tad irritating.

I will happily answer to "Hey you"....and most other names.

turn off the auto correct????

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Leaving the eu means we get all our powers and controls over our country 'devolved' back to us from the eu...

I know.  I think you've already expressed your preference for trashing the Sewel convention.

But it's an interesting exercise in nation-building, or in this case...nation disassembling.

The eu is about nation dissembling...

You claim to support proper legal procedure... try telling us how us voting to stay in a simple trade arrangement back in 1975 called the EEC, with promises and assurances that this meant no loss of sovereignty/democracy/national powers would follow... ended up with huge losses of sovereignty/democracy/national powers to different political entity, a federalist dictatorship, called the eu,  which was created in 1992, and has never had the consent of the british people... and one which has grabbed increasingly more and more powers from us since 1993, and none of which have ever had the consent of the british people...!?


Would you not argue the illegality and illegitimacy of this...!?





STILL WAITING QUILL!!!

Lord Foul wrote:turn off the auto correct????

Ya, well ...I'm lucky I remember to restart my virus protection on that dang thing --- I'll figure it out and then shut it off to recharge it and forget all about it the next time I pick it up! 

It's an age thing --- there I said it ...just tuck that away for the next time you wanna hit me with an 'ole hag' poke!

pfffft...some folks just shouldnt be let loose with anything more technologically advanced than a good ole Besom....

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Cheerleading is a term of art used by lawyers who find someone is not being critical in their thinking, but merely being wishful.  It's non-productive.  You have to consider the bad facts along with the good facts.

It is true that there is probably a correlation between cheerleading and the kind of tag-teaming you often engage in, but that is because both have motives other than getting at the truth.

The English definition of tag teaming must be different from the American one.
BTW you mentioned it first not Eddie...read back.

I know I mentioned it first. My statement to eds was different--

Quill wrote:You are the one who said we are all tag-teamers.

Do the English know how to read? Between you, tommy and didge, y'all are constantly misconstruing...and it seems none of you have the ability to comprehend what you're reading.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I know.  I think you've already expressed your preference for trashing the Sewel convention.

But it's an interesting exercise in nation-building, or in this case...nation disassembling.

The eu is about nation dissembling...

You claim to support proper legal procedure... try telling us how us voting to stay in a simple trade arrangement back in 1975 called the EEC, with promises and assurances that this meant no loss of sovereignty/democracy/national powers would follow... ended up with huge losses of sovereignty/democracy/national powers to different political entity, a federalist dictatorship, called the eu,  which was created in 1992, and has never had the consent of the british people... and one which has grabbed increasingly more and more powers from us since 1993, and none of which have ever had the consent of the british people...!?


Would you not argue the illegality and illegitimacy of this...!?





STILL WAITING QUILL!!!

Been gone, tommy.  I've just seen your repetitive pleadings on the above question.

You seem to want me to discuss the Maastricht Treaty, or the Treaty on European Union (TEU) of 7 February 1992.  That's an entirely different discussion from the one we've been having on the Scotland Act of 1998, and the legal morass that the UK has gotten itself into with Scotland.  Whatever the details of how you got into the EU, it's more a matter of history.   The fact that section 29 incorporates EU law is predominately a legal matter.

Y'all go ahead and discuss the Maastricht Treaty without me.  I may have some comments later.

Hate to admit it but Gove's rhetoric this morning was spot on.

Boris never cared about Brexit. That was evident the day after when he said the UK should join the EEA.

More waffle from Quill I see...


And yes Zack... some are not as serious as others about getting uk properly out.

Tommy Monk wrote:More waffle from Quill I see...

My goodness, tommy...I simply expressed indifference toward a subject, and invited y'all to go ahead without me. Is that not as polite as one can be? Or, did you want to put words in my mouth?

Apparently, you had a point to make. My presence is not necessary in order for you to make a point. Go ahead and and express yourself on your own.

I was asking you something...

Of which you cannot answer it seems...

Tommy Monk wrote:I was asking you something...

Of which you cannot answer it seems...

But you were changing the subject to the Maastricht Treaty. There are many different threads, tommy, and it's my choice which conversation I want to join.

Or do you believe in forcing others to join involuntarily, in which case you have answered your own question on Maastricht.

The eu wasn't created until 92 with the maarstrict treaty... so no change... just clarity over argument.

ERRR,it's Scotland that's got itself in a legal morass not us.

nicko wrote:ERRR,it's Scotland that's got itself in a legal morass not us.

Scotland had no volition in the question. It was the UK that wrote the Scotland Act of 1998.

The fact is, when the UK was in the EU, it was all gung-ho the principles of the EU. Consequently, it wrote section 29 into the Scotland Act of 1998, mandating that Scotland follow EU law.

Now, when the UK wants to extricate itself from the EU, it's all gung-ho to beat up on Scotland...for reasons that the UK itself was responsible. The UK wrote the Scotland Act of 1998. The UK put in section 29 to that Act. The UK wrote the Sewel convention, and gave the Scottish Parliament the power to approve or deny any change in its form of government.

Now, the UK presents itself with dilemmas of its own making. Scotland is merely exercising its right to choose freely. Or, does the UK not support freedom? The UK is acting like a petulant child in this affair. It got caught in its own contradictions and changes in mood.

Man up to your own mistakes.

Still wrong... the Sewel convention was about uk parliament legislating in areas that are devolved to scotland to legislate on...


Membership of the EU is a uk parliament matter not an area where Scotland has been given power to legislate on.


Now what about my question...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:Still wrong... the Sewel convention was about uk parliament legislating in areas that are devolved to scotland to legislate on...


Membership of the EU is a uk parliament matter not an area where Scotland has been given power to legislate on.

Now what about my question...!?

You have no question, tommy.  You have a rhetorical point you want to make.  Indeed, it is a flawed point, and you've got to resolve that flaw.

You're floundering tommy.  I own your question.  You can get it back if you pay the price; but since I've already met the price, you still can only break even.

More waffle...

Tommy Monk wrote:More waffle...

Look in the mirror, champ. You don't even recognize your own conversation.

You can't legally justify the UKs position in the eu but you think you can justify stopping us getting out...


Most amusing!

Tommy Monk wrote:You can't legally justify the UKs position in the eu but you think you can justify stopping us getting out...

Most amusing!

It's hardly a question of justification, tommy.  It's an unfortunate blunder, by an overly enthusiastic UK Parliament on entering the EU.  Methinks they were jealous of the US, and saw the economic packaging of the whole of Europe as a way of creating economic equivalency.   Now look at 'em.

Scotland's motives are not the problem.  If the UK leaves section 29, the EU law mandate, on the books, but ignores it, there will be commercial lawsuits galore claiming they didn't follow the (EU) law.  If they unilaterally remove the provision contrary to Scotland's will, there will be lawsuits galore that they didn't follow proper procedures in asking Holyrood's permission, and that therefore section 29 is still in place.  If they submit the question to the Scottish Parliament, they will in all likelihood lose.

It's just poor craftsmanship in legislating.  If an engineer built such a labyrinth he would be sued for malpractice when it caved in...which is about to happen.

Being on or out the eu is not a power that has been devolved to scotland to decide...


And being in the eu was never something that ever had the permission of the british people... so technically invalid!

Dig up Enoch Powell, I will be his right and left hand man and make sure he works against the takeover of our island by muzzzzizzzz and all forunuz.,

Tommy Monk wrote:Being on or out the eu is not a power that has been devolved to scotland to decide...

It is in Scotland.  The UK Parliament put in section 29 of the Scotland Act of 1998, mandating that EU law must be followed in Scotland.  Interestingly, they included it independent of the European Communities Act (ECA) 1972, which is the statute giving domestic effect to EU law in the UK.  So it still stands even if the UK Parliament drafts legislation extricating itself from the EU.

Tommy Monk wrote:And being in the eu was never something that ever had the permission of the british people... so technically invalid!

Was NATO membership ever something that had the permission of the British people?  Was the UN membership?  By-the-by, was waterboarding ever submitted to the British people as a permissible practice?  If everything were to be submitted to the people, then John Doe's library card would have to be by referendum.

You still don't get it...


Try listing the powers that have been devolved to scotland...

And the powers that are reserved to national uk parliament...

Major wrote:Dig up Enoch Powell, I will be his right and left hand man and make sure he works against the takeover of our island by muzzzzizzzz and all forunuz.,

Yes becasue Enoch Powell is the answer to all the problems.
Fucking hell storm. Open your curtains, it's 2016 and he's still not a nice man.

I believe there are far too many people who do not, cannot get out of doors to see, will not see that which is happening to OUR island.
Recently in Coventry there has been an influx of jet black Somalians who are not working and have loads of little kids.
We the tax payers are paying for this when we should be looking after OUR OWN FIRST, is this what any of you really want, if so,say so here clearly.

Major wrote:I believe there are far too many people who do not, cannot get out of doors to see, will not see that which is happening to OUR island.
Recently in Coventry there has been an influx of jet black Somalians who are not working and have loads of little kids.
We the tax payers are paying for this when we should be looking after OUR OWN FIRST, is this what any of you really want, if so,say so here clearly.

See this is the problem with your posts, and I'm going to help you here:

Is it the shade of Somalians you have a problem with? If they were milky-tea-coloured, would that have bothered you less than the "jet black" shade?
Make sure you don't add in stuff that's not relevant or your whole point becomes lost.

Are you bothered about:
Only the immigrants? - their shade? - the fact they have loads of kids? - the fact they can't get a job?

You're starting to irritate me a bit if I'm honest.