Illuminati-R-Us

Мастер wrote:

Lance wrote:

Lianachan wrote:"bloody foreigners"

I wish it were that easy here. We call them so many different things it's hard to keep up sometimes.

I thought you folks just called them "terrorists".

Yes, most of them, but there are different sub-sets of terrorists. Like "sand niggers" and various others. There are also the "lazy wet-backs" and many other terms for those from South of the Border. They're not terrorists generally, just normal criminals; rapists, drug dealers, murderers, etc.

Heid the Ba' wrote:

Lianachan wrote:

Heid the Ba' wrote:And who described their citizens who live in Brexitonia as bargaining chips.

Ah, did they? I had thought they were only talking about those filthy european types who thought they were good enough to live in Hingland. I suppose it cuts both ways right enough.

Liam "The Pride of East Kilbride" Fox. If the bloody foreigners won't let our people live there we won't let bloody foreigners live here.

Ah, but English people living abroad aren't "immigrants", they are "ex-pats". Totally different.

Yes, emigrants from here rather than immigrants to there. When we were in Spain last week the Mem's parents said their friends x+y had arrived and if we met them we should go for a drink, to which the Mem said:
"Are they bigoted Little Englanders like most of the others?"

*Hope Solo goes here*

Heid the Ba' wrote:Yes, emigrants from here rather than immigrants to there. When we were in Spain last week the Mem's parents said their friends x+y had arrived and if we met them we should go for a drink, to which the Mem said:
"Are they bigoted Little Englanders like most of the others?"

*Hope Solo goes here*

I'm growing increasingly fond of that woman.

It wouldn't have to be a major EU state to drag its heels over an agreement. Unanimity of the other 27 Member States means just that. So you could have Luxembourg or Lithuania saying, "Screw you, no deal" and there'd be no deal, even if Member States with several times their populations were in favour. Spain might say, "Come on, guys, we want the Brits to have visa-free access at least for leisure purposes" and Lithuania could say, "Not that many visit here. And after the way our people are treated in England?" Germany could say, "We want a deal that allows us to sell cars to the UK easily" and Luxembourg could say, "We don't have any car plants here and the Brits don't import our wine. And they insult our politicians." We live in interesting times.

True, but if Merkel wants it to happen she can pressure/cajole/bribe small countries. Spain certainly wants UK tourists but they'd be quite happy to be rid of the c750,000 UK pensioners clogging up their health service.

I'll just stick this here.

The High Court in London has ruled that the government can't unilaterally trigger Article 50, it will require a vote in Parliament. This will be appealed to the Supreme Court with a date in December. This may be a good thing if enough MPs are prepared to vote Remain, but that depends on many things.

Gosh, that a High Court had to even make such a ruling? Sheesh!

So they might be able to get out of leaving?

Lance wrote:So they might be able to get out of leaving?

Funny isn't it?

tubeswell wrote:

Lance wrote:So they might be able to get out of leaving?

Funny isn't it?

I don't know, is it? My question was real.

Lance: Yes, but it would require some English MPs voting Remain when their constituents voted Leave. It brings to a head questions on the nature of representative government, whether someone is elected to make decisions on behalf of their constituents or to vote as most of them would.

tubeswell wrote:Gosh, that a High Court had to even make such a ruling? Sheesh!

The government takes the line that they were elected to make decisions, not parrot the wishes of the country, so it is their prerogative to trigger Article 50. Which they have to do because it is the wish of the country.

Heid the Ba' wrote:

tubeswell wrote:Gosh, that a High Court had to even make such a ruling? Sheesh!

The government takes the line that they were elected to make decisions, not parrot the wishes of the country, so it is their prerogative to trigger Article 50. Which they have to do because it is the wish of the country.

From the Wikipedia page:

The following well-known quote, or some variation of it, is often attributed to Ledru-Rollin: "There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader." The quote is probably apocryphal.[2]

But is it what the people still want? I thought there was a whole lot of "holy shit, we did WHAT?" after the referendum passed in the first place.

That's what I thought too.
And if true, can't they re-survey their constituents, and vote to remain if that is what their constituents now want?

I was about to ask the same thing. They would have to vote against their constituents, but has not the constituency shifted since the Brexit vote?

People who have changed their minds need to let their MPs know this.

We get a say at the appeal where the Lord Advocate will say "c'mon tae fuck referee!"* My mate who works closely with/for the Lord Advocate does not expect to sleep much for the next few weeks.


*I say referee, isn't the correct decision obvious?

I just saw someone on the television news refer to a potential trade deal between the UK and the US as the USUK agreement.

The appeal is being heard and the Lord Advocate James "Two Brains" Wolffe, Dumfries born and raised in Dumfries and Galloway, will be on his feet this afternoon, aided by his Legal Secretary who is Dumfries born and raised. I know the latter very well but have never met the former. The latter is one of the few people I know that I would trust with anything important so I am hopeful.

Edit to add: And of course the Lord Advocate has the dodgy foreign sounding surname because his Dad was a dodgy foreign immigrant who came over here and stole our jobs.

It's all going to kick off.

I suppose it need not be said that Keen is a worthless arsehat? No, ok. Keen is a worthless arsehat.

Keen gave the Westminster line yesterday as he is their spokesman on Scottish legal matters. Wolffe will counter that today, with facts and everything.