TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

SouthamObserver said:

Of course, in reality no EU Directive is ever transposed into UK law. All directives are enacted through Acts of Parliament which are subject to full scrutiny by MPs.

It's amazing how few Leavers understand how these things work - even those who have operated at the heart of government.

It is amazing that you clearly do not understand how it works. You are completely wrong in your claim. Under the 1972 Act it is not necessary, except in very rare cases, for EU directives or decisions to be laid before the House either for debate or scrutiny. Almost all Directives pass into UK law by Statutory Instrument or by Order. Neither of these are debated and as has already been pointed out no Directive can be either amended nor refused.

For Regulations it is even worse with EU Regulations having legal effect in the UK without any enactment.

Would you prefer it if parliament had debated the double volume cap for non-displayed liquidity?

Dolt.

Listen twat I was just correcting Southam on his claim that all Directives are scrutinised and debated by the House. They are not.

And yes, I want all our laws to be scrutinised by our MPs. That is the whole point. Of course since you don't like democracy you would rather have rule by technocrats and elites. That is why you like the EU so much. To my mind that makes you a f*ckwit of the first order.

So answer the question brain box.

I did. But as usual you are just too dumb to understand.

Spell it out for me.

Would you have liked Parliamentary time to have been allocated to debating the double volume cap for non-displayed liquidity?

Edit while you're googling: you utter, utter tosser

Every time I have a look on here you're arguing with people like this. Every day.

Why?

CopperSulphate said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

SouthamObserver said:

Of course, in reality no EU Directive is ever transposed into UK law. All directives are enacted through Acts of Parliament which are subject to full scrutiny by MPs.

It's amazing how few Leavers understand how these things work - even those who have operated at the heart of government.

It is amazing that you clearly do not understand how it works. You are completely wrong in your claim. Under the 1972 Act it is not necessary, except in very rare cases, for EU directives or decisions to be laid before the House either for debate or scrutiny. Almost all Directives pass into UK law by Statutory Instrument or by Order. Neither of these are debated and as has already been pointed out no Directive can be either amended nor refused.

For Regulations it is even worse with EU Regulations having legal effect in the UK without any enactment.

Would you prefer it if parliament had debated the double volume cap for non-displayed liquidity?

Dolt.

Listen twat I was just correcting Southam on his claim that all Directives are scrutinised and debated by the House. They are not.

And yes, I want all our laws to be scrutinised by our MPs. That is the whole point. Of course since you don't like democracy you would rather have rule by technocrats and elites. That is why you like the EU so much. To my mind that makes you a f*ckwit of the first order.

So answer the question brain box.

I did. But as usual you are just too dumb to understand.

Spell it out for me.

Would you have liked Parliamentary time to have been allocated to debating the double volume cap for non-displayed liquidity?

Edit while you're googling: you utter, utter tosser

Every time I have a look on here you're arguing with people like this. Every day.

Why?

Just pointing out illogicalities where I see them.

TOPPING said:

CopperSulphate said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

SouthamObserver said:

Of course, in reality no EU Directive is ever transposed into UK law. All directives are enacted through Acts of Parliament which are subject to full scrutiny by MPs.

It's amazing how few Leavers understand how these things work - even those who have operated at the heart of government.

It is amazing that you clearly do not understand how it works. You are completely wrong in your claim. Under the 1972 Act it is not necessary, except in very rare cases, for EU directives or decisions to be laid before the House either for debate or scrutiny. Almost all Directives pass into UK law by Statutory Instrument or by Order. Neither of these are debated and as has already been pointed out no Directive can be either amended nor refused.

For Regulations it is even worse with EU Regulations having legal effect in the UK without any enactment.

Would you prefer it if parliament had debated the double volume cap for non-displayed liquidity?

Dolt.

Listen twat I was just correcting Southam on his claim that all Directives are scrutinised and debated by the House. They are not.

And yes, I want all our laws to be scrutinised by our MPs. That is the whole point. Of course since you don't like democracy you would rather have rule by technocrats and elites. That is why you like the EU so much. To my mind that makes you a f*ckwit of the first order.

So answer the question brain box.

I did. But as usual you are just too dumb to understand.

Spell it out for me.

Would you have liked Parliamentary time to have been allocated to debating the double volume cap for non-displayed liquidity?

Edit while you're googling: you utter, utter tosser

Every time I have a look on here you're arguing with people like this. Every day.

Why?

Just pointing out illogicalities where I see them.

Am I dumb, because it looked like Richard said yes in his first reply?

david_herdson said:

Charles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

david_herdson said:

Charles said:

619 said:

Charles said:

Sandpit said:

(apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?

That's bigging up my role too much. A dear friend of mine was working up the policy and I suggested the idea while we were having dinner together - told her that it could be an elegant compromise that could get a large part of the CofE on board.

I'm sure other people had the same idea so - at best - I was one voice among many

C of E are ok with gay marriage now though as well!

We were having dinner at the much lamented Sambucco so this must have been around 2000. All part of a transition - although I think theChurch should have the right to choose who they marry in their own buildings

Not when it's the state religion. But then that's just another (and good) argument for disestablishment.

Absolutely disagree.

The state part of a church wedding is when you sign the register. If people want to go into a back room rather than a registry office, hire a registrar and sign the book there they can, I suppose, but they shouldnt be able to require a religion to conduct a service in their sacred space

Then their sacred space should not be established as part of the state. Problem solved.

The Church would probably benefit individually from disestablishment but society would be damaged.

I don't see the great harm that is being done that requires overthrowing a centuries old arrangement that, broadly speaking, works for everyone

There's a lot of assertions there. In what way does it work for me (I don't accept the privileged position the CofE has in education - there are good church schools and bad church schools and in general, the quality has little to do with the church).

FWIW, I think a lot of the CofE's temporising stems from this sense of trying to be the nation at prayer and, as such, trying to accommodate all conflicting views. Freeing it from that mission and, hence, enabling to regain a set of core beliefs that it could promote and evangelise about might do it the world of good.

In theory, I'm a lapsed Anglican and I guess when I was young I did believe. I'd rather be a lapsed Catholic. It least then I'd have an idea of what I'd lapsed from.

It works for society rather than individuals

A powerful assertion that Judeo-Christian values underpin our society for example.

A unifying, non-party political, but respected individual who can make effective interventions at critical moments

12.45 and PMQs roll on. This is ridiculous.

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

david_herdson said:

Charles said:

619 said:

Charles said:

Sandpit said:

619 said:

https://twitter.com/susannareid100/status/905328847717060608

What’s a Catholic suppposed to say?

Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?

That's bigging up my role too much. A dear friend of mine was working up the policy and I suggested the idea while we were having dinner together - told her that it could be an elegant compromise that could get a large part of the CofE on board.

I'm sure other people had the same idea so - at best - I was one voice among many

C of E are ok with gay marriage now though as well!

We were having dinner at the much lamented Sambucco so this must have been around 2000. All part of a transition - although I think theChurch should have the right to choose who they marry in their own buildings

Not when it's the state religion. But then that's just another (and good) argument for disestablishment.

Absolutely disagree.

The state part of a church wedding is when you sign the register. If people want to go into a back room rather than a registry office, hire a registrar and sign the book there they can, I suppose, but they shouldnt be able to require a religion to conduct a service in their sacred space

Then their sacred space should not be established as part of the state. Problem solved.

The Church would probably benefit individually from disestablishment but society would be damaged.

I don't see the great harm that is being done that requires overthrowing a centuries old arrangement that, broadly speaking, works for everyone

Two can play that game, I don't see the great harm that would be done to society.

If you are proposing radical change it's for you to make the case

You're shifting the goal posts. You claimed that society would be damaged if the Church was disestablished and in the next sentence spoke about "great harm". I didn't say there was a great case one way or another but I'd be curious what "great harm" or "damage" society would suffer in your eyes.

See my reply to @david_herdson

DavidL said:

12.45 and PMQs roll on. This is ridiculous.

Not only that - it has been a complete turn off. Low grade debate and too much noise .

TOPPING said:

CopperSulphate said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

SouthamObserver said:

Of course, in reality no EU Directive is ever transposed into UK law. All directives are enacted through Acts of Parliament which are subject to full scrutiny by MPs.

It's amazing how few Leavers understand how these things work - even those who have operated at the heart of government.

It is amazing that you clearly do not understand how it works. You are completely wrong in your claim. Under the 1972 Act it is not necessary, except in very rare cases, for EU directives or decisions to be laid before the House either for debate or scrutiny. Almost all Directives pass into UK law by Statutory Instrument or by Order. Neither of these are debated and as has already been pointed out no Directive can be either amended nor refused.

For Regulations it is even worse with EU Regulations having legal effect in the UK without any enactment.

Would you prefer it if parliament had debated the double volume cap for non-displayed liquidity?

Dolt.

Listen twat I was just correcting Southam on his claim that all Directives are scrutinised and debated by the House. They are not.

And yes, I want all our laws to be scrutinised by our MPs. That is the whole point. Of course since you don't like democracy you would rather have rule by technocrats and elites. That is why you like the EU so much. To my mind that makes you a f*ckwit of the first order.

So answer the question brain box.

I did. But as usual you are just too dumb to understand.

Spell it out for me.

Would you have liked Parliamentary time to have been allocated to debating the double volume cap for non-displayed liquidity?

Edit while you're googling: you utter, utter tosser

Every time I have a look on here you're arguing with people like this. Every day.

Why?

Just pointing out illogicalities where I see them.

It might produce a better result to cut down on the personal attacks. It makes it look like you're incapable of winning an argument using just logic and facts.

TGOHF said:

Slackbladder said:

PMQs is dire all around.

Old Jezza avoids the topics most on the minds of the Labour supporters on here - Brexit and immigration.

Who is out of touch ?

I think pay, the fall in real wages (however distorted or contrived that might be) and how tough things are for those without secure employment are very fruitful areas for him. It is the government for the many and not the few theme that worked so well in the election campaign and it is incredibly difficult for the government to respond when there is no money.

DavidL said:

12.45 and PMQs roll on. This is ridiculous.

Bercow is enjoying his opportunity to humiliate May. No real leader would allow their schedule to be controlled this way.

Hard not to disagree with The Adam Smith Institute on this.

https://twitter.com/ASI/status/905378062220627968

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

If you are proposing radical change it's up to you to make the case

The tried and tested way to avoid that responsibility is to deny that the change proposed will have any consequences. For example some Brexit change deniers said we could keep the EMA and that it was a 'rookie mistake' to think it had anything to do with the EU just because it has 'European' in the title.

I've never used the cliche "rookie error" in my life, so you must be thinking of someone else.

Retaining membership of the EMA would be sensible without impinging on matters of national sovereignty

Ishmael_Z said:

Charles said:

It works for society rather than individuals

A powerful assertion that Judeo-Christian values underpin our society for example.

A unifying, non-party political, but respected individual who can make effective interventions at critical moments

The bits of Judeo-Christianity which are specific to it are the no ham sandwiches, no gays bits. The bits which are right (do unto others...) are common to a lot of other belief systems, including atheist ones - most flavours of utilitarianism for instance. If we could sideline Christianity as a rather embarrassing relic we could do the same to Islam without appearing to have double standards. No Islam-> no Islamists, which would be good.

You know the end result would be the sidelining of Christianity whilst Islam would be left untouched to flourish.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hard not to disagree with The Adam Smith Institute on this.

https://twitter.com/ASI/status/905378062220627968

Hardly surprising from the libertarian Adam Smith institute, of course polling shows most voters want greater controls on low skilled immigration and no mention of the downward pressure it puts on wages or the demand it places on housing

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

logical_song said:

MORGAN STANLEY: Theresa May's government will collapse in 2018, triggering a fresh general election

"Next year, however, we think that the government is likely to fall. We expect the EU to offer a choice between a close relationship in which the UK can participate in the single market and customs union but will be bound by the EU rules of the game, and an arm's length relationship in the UK, in which the UK achieves full sovereignty over borders, courts and laws, but does not participate in the single market and the customs union."

"We think this choice splits the Cabinet and the Conservative party and will lead to a loss of a vote of no confidence in parliament, triggering early elections."
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-may-government-to-collapse-in-2018-2017-9/

Is this before or after the great Turkey/Christmas referendum? People who write this sort of nonsense really should spend more time on PB.

I was talking to somebody the other day, and they think a 2018 general election is very likely.

Mrs May is currently reliant on the DUP for a majority and there's a high chance the solution to the Irish border question will enrage the DUP.

Then you've got to factor in the leadbangers.

There will be no general election until Brexit talks are complete in 2019 and the DUP knew the position when they committed to confidence and supply and will want to stay powerbrokers and avoid an election

Won't the DUP have already got some of their goodies by next year?

Key word 'Some'

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sulphate, on that note: https://twitter.com/ExMuslimTV/status/905113761207513088

Well we all know this stuff is going on and the problem is growing.

It completely baffles me that the elite don't seem to be worried about this in the slightest. Perhaps because they ensure they and their families live as far away from the problem as possible.

Sean_F said:

tyson said:

Don't say don't do anything....it encourages the opposite action. I have just googled golden shower. It is what I thought it is....disgusting..... (unless you get bitten by a large jellyfish in which case 6 handily placed hookers prepared to do that would be quite welcome)........but will I now get lots of horrible adverts?

Incidentally is there a name for a number 2 shower, or is that simply so grossout that no one would ever consider putting a name to it.

There are many nicknames for such activity, which you can find on Urban Dictionary.

"Hardsports" is probably the least offensive.

An "Oaten".

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sulphate, on that note: https://twitter.com/ExMuslimTV/status/905113761207513088

The Catholics and Mogg debate reminds me of Catholic adoption agencies closing when they were compelled by law to offer adoptions to gay couples. So they shut instead. Nobody benefited, and straight parents and children lost out. Great.

As for Mogg's abortion view, I think it's backward. What's his view on circumstances where the foetus poses a risk to the mother's life, and isn't viable itself?

Catholics and adoption - not a happy history.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/03/catholic-church-apologises-for-role-in-forced-adoptions-over-30-year-period

CopperSulphate said:

PAW said:

Was Germany terribly damaged when it blocked Polish and East European immigration?

Germany's economy hasn't been based on driving down the wages especially of the lowest paid for the last 50 years. They invest in better technology and productivity instead.

Hmm, not so sure about that. What about the millions of Turkish Gastarbeiter?

Just caught up with Jacob Rees-Mogg's comments on abortion and Catholicism.

Hmm... that's an issue.

Richard_Nabavi said:

CopperSulphate said:

PAW said:

Was Germany terribly damaged when it blocked Polish and East European immigration?

Germany's economy hasn't been based on driving down the wages especially of the lowest paid for the last 50 years. They invest in better technology and productivity instead.

Hmm, not so sure about that. What about the millions of Turkish Gastarbeiter?

Hmmm good point. Although I'd argue they have pursued that policy to a much lesser extent than we have.

It's not been a particularly effective policy for them either apparently:

But in the German reality, the unemployment rate is almost twice as high among immigrants as Germans.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/at-home-in-a-foreign-country-german-turks-struggle-to-find-their-identity-a-795299.html

I wonder where this idea that this is all great for the economy has come from when the reality is very different indeed.

Casino_Royale said:

Just caught up with Jacob Rees-Mogg's comments on abortion and Catholicism.

Hmm... that's an issue.

We need to stop the Papist fifth column in this country.

FWIW, I support the CoE remaining an established church.

I like the idea of Christian(ish) ethos at the heart of our national life (and the CoE is superb at the "ish" bit), I like the fact our monarch is the head of it, I like the idea you can get legally married in a church, I think churches and vicars are at the centre of parish/community life across England, they run primary schools well, they organise fetes, they provide a level of moral guidance, they are generally good at accommodating different views, I think it's good the Bishops can chip in a different angle in the Lords, and I like the national pageantry.

Is that all logical? No, of course not - and thank heavens.

We'd lose far too many valuable things if they were all sacrificed at the altar of logic.

surbiton said:

CopperSulphate said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hard not to disagree with The Adam Smith Institute on this.

https://twitter.com/ASI/status/905378062220627968

We mustn't change our immigration policy because the bureaucrats can't handle it?

Of all the lame excuses I've ever heard about not controlling immigration that's right up there.

We can have as many EU nationals here as we want now because we're now free to make up our own laws on immigration. Pretty good eh?

Of course having the country built on a pyramid scheme that needs an endless supply of new workers to sustain is completely mental anyway.

The Adam Smith Institute is NOT a Corbynista offshoot.

The Adam Smith Institute are, in my opinion, correct. Though I am surprised to see left wingers supporting them given their staunch commitment to the free market in practically everything.

Sean_F said:

tyson said:

Don't say don't do anything....it encourages the opposite action. I have just googled golden shower. It is what I thought it is....disgusting..... (unless you get bitten by a large jellyfish in which case 6 handily placed hookers prepared to do that would be quite welcome)........but will I now get lots of horrible adverts?

Incidentally is there a name for a number 2 shower, or is that simply so grossout that no one would ever consider putting a name to it.

There are many nicknames for such activity, which you can find on Urban Dictionary.

"Hardsports" is probably the least offensive.

Scat is another. I once confused it with a form of Caribbean music.

Not sure Mr Chapman is having a fun summer:

Bell Pottinger could close by end of the year without fresh finance
PR company embroiled in scandal over its practices in South Africa needs to service debts of around £4m

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/sep/06/bell-pottinger-debts-buyout-clients-south-africa-scandal

Peter_the_Punter said:

Sean_F said:

tyson said:

Don't say don't do anything....it encourages the opposite action. I have just googled golden shower. It is what I thought it is....disgusting..... (unless you get bitten by a large jellyfish in which case 6 handily placed hookers prepared to do that would be quite welcome)........but will I now get lots of horrible adverts?

Incidentally is there a name for a number 2 shower, or is that simply so grossout that no one would ever consider putting a name to it.

There are many nicknames for such activity, which you can find on Urban Dictionary.

"Hardsports" is probably the least offensive.

Scat is another. I once confused it with a form of Caribbean music.

That must have been a memorable evening.

I won't ask which way round you made the mistake.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Sean_F said:

tyson said:

Don't say don't do anything....it encourages the opposite action. I have just googled golden shower. It is what I thought it is....disgusting..... (unless you get bitten by a large jellyfish in which case 6 handily placed hookers prepared to do that would be quite welcome)........but will I now get lots of horrible adverts?

Incidentally is there a name for a number 2 shower, or is that simply so grossout that no one would ever consider putting a name to it.

There are many nicknames for such activity, which you can find on Urban Dictionary.

"Hardsports" is probably the least offensive.

Scat is another. I once confused it with a form of Caribbean music.

sexualdeviancydiscussionchat.com

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

SouthamObserver said:

Of course, in reality no EU Directive is ever transposed into UK law. All directives are enacted through Acts of Parliament which are subject to full scrutiny by MPs.

It's amazing how few Leavers understand how these things work - even those who have operated at the heart of government.

It is amazing that you clearly do without any enactment.

Would you prefer it if parliament had debated the double volume cap for non-displayed liquidity?

Dolt.

first order.

So answer the question brain box.

I did. But as usual you are just too dumb to understand.

Spell it out for me.

Would you have liked Parliamentary time to have been allocated to debating the double volume cap for non-displayed liquidity?

Edit while you're googling: you utter, utter tosser

In many cases they may not chose to avail themselves of the opportunity but again that should be their decision.

That is the crux. You have just summed up the benefits of EU membership in a nutshell. We are sovereign, we always were sovereign. Just that we chose to outsource some decisions to another body (in this case ESMA).

I could have written your above sentence; the fact that you did should cause you to ponder.

Richard_Nabavi said:

The lagershed seems to get earlier and earlier.

Blame PB's guest editor Donald Trump and The Russians.

We need a proper separation between Church and The State.

Her Majesty can be only be Queen or The Supreme Governor of The Church of England, she can't be both.

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

If you are proposing radical change it's up to you to make the case

The tried and tested way to avoid that responsibility is to deny that the change proposed will have any consequences. For example some Brexit change deniers said we could keep the EMA and that it was a 'rookie mistake' to think it had anything to do with the EU just because it has 'European' in the title.

I've never used the cliche "rookie error" in my life, so you must be thinking of someone else.

Retaining membership of the EMA would be sensible without impinging on matters of national sovereignty

Perhaps you were hacked?

http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1383234/#Comment_1383234

You're right - I mistyped. I meant to say I've never said "rookie mistake".

But you are deeply sad to spend any time googling that.

CopperSulphate said:

surbiton said:

CopperSulphate said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hard not to disagree with The Adam Smith Institute on this.

https://twitter.com/ASI/status/905378062220627968

We mustn't change our immigration policy because the bureaucrats can't handle it?

Of all the lame excuses I've ever heard about not controlling immigration that's right up there.

We can have as many EU nationals here as we want now because we're now free to make up our own laws on immigration. Pretty good eh?

Of course having the country built on a pyramid scheme that needs an endless supply of new workers to sustain is completely mental anyway.

The Adam Smith Institute is NOT a Corbynista offshoot.

Yeah I know....I don't think I was suggesting it was.

It represents big business that wants to drive down wages to increase profits at the expense of wider society.

ASI doesn't represent big business. It's on the nutty fringe of economics.

It's going to be awkward in the Rees-Mogg household if Sixtus or one of the other offspring turns out to be gay.

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

SouthamObserver said:

Of course, in reality no EU Directive is ever transposed into UK law. All directives are enacted through Acts of Parliament which are subject to full scrutiny by MPs.

It's amazing how few Leavers understand how these things work - even those who have operated at the heart of government.

It is amazing that you clearly do without any enactment.

Would you prefer it if parliament had debated the double volume cap for non-displayed liquidity?

Dolt.

first order.

So answer the question brain box.

I did. But as usual you are just too dumb to understand.

Spell it out for me.

Would you have liked Parliamentary time to have been allocated to debating the double volume cap for non-displayed liquidity?

Edit while you're googling: you utter, utter tosser

In many cases they may not chose to avail themselves of the opportunity but again that should be their decision.

That is the crux. You have just summed up the benefits of EU membership in a nutshell. We are sovereign, we always were sovereign. Just that we chose to outsource some decisions to another body (in this case ESMA).

I could have written your above sentence; the fact that you did should cause you to ponder.

Not at all because under the EU our Parliamentarians did not have the opportunity to amend or reject legislation. That is exactly the problem with EU membership. Like I said you are just too dumb to understand that even when it is right in front of you.

We are talking about the regulations, Richard. Not the big stuff - we were talking about the widgets, the double volume cap, etc. All of which was decided in committees of which we were a part.

*pauses, hits head repeatedly on table*

This latter, in particular, promoted strongly by our dear own FCA who never met an EU regulation it didn't want to gold-plate. And do you know what? That double volume cap? We are going to implement it anyway. We are going to be bound by ESMA regulations. Time to march on Brussels for you, young lad.

Edit: of which we were arguably the most influential part.

Actually we weren't. If you bother to go back and check we were talking about Directives, many of which have far reaching consequences.

In the end our elected Parliament has to make the final decisions. Under the EU we do not.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Sean_F said:

tyson said:

Don't say don't do anything....it encourages the opposite action. I have just googled golden shower. It is what I thought it is....disgusting..... (unless you get bitten by a large jellyfish in which case 6 handily placed hookers prepared to do that would be quite welcome)........but will I now get lots of horrible adverts?

Incidentally is there a name for a number 2 shower, or is that simply so grossout that no one would ever consider putting a name to it.

There are many nicknames for such activity, which you can find on Urban Dictionary.

"Hardsports" is probably the least offensive.

Scat is another. I once confused it with a form of Caribbean music.

Caribbean ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scat_singing

TheScreamingEagles said:

We need a proper separation between Church and The State.

Her Majesty can be only be Queen or The Supreme Governor of The Church of England, she can't be both.

That sentence is self-evidently incorrect.

She is both and therefore, by definition, can be both

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

SouthamObserver said:

Of course, in reality no EU Directive is ever transposed into UK law. All directives are enacted through Acts of Parliament which are subject to full scrutiny by MPs.

It's amazing how few Leavers understand how these things work - even those who have operated at the heart of government.

It is amazing that you clearly do not understand how it works. You are completely wrong in your claim. Under the 1972 Act it is not necessary, except in very rare cases, for EU directives or decisions to be laid before the House either for debate or scrutiny. Almost all Directives pass into UK law by Statutory Instrument or by Order. Neither of these are debated and as has already been pointed out no Directive can be either amended nor refused.

For Regulations it is even worse with EU Regulations having legal effect in the UK without any enactment.

Would you prefer it if parliament had debated the double volume cap for non-displayed liquidity?

Dolt.

Listen twat I was just correcting Southam on his claim that all Directives are scrutinised and debated by the House. They are not.

And yes, I want all our laws to be scrutinised by our MPs. That is the whole point. Of course since you don't like democracy you would rather have rule by technocrats and elites. That is why you like the EU so much. To my mind that makes you a f*ckwit of the first order.

So answer the question brain box.

I did. But as usual you are just too dumb to understand.

Adopting a strident tone doesn't strengthen your point.

Nigelb said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Sean_F said:

tyson said:

Don't say don't do anything....it encourages the opposite action. I have just googled golden shower. It is what I thought it is....disgusting..... (unless you get bitten by a large jellyfish in which case 6 handily placed hookers prepared to do that would be quite welcome)........but will I now get lots of horrible adverts?

Incidentally is there a name for a number 2 shower, or is that simply so grossout that no one would ever consider putting a name to it.

There are many nicknames for such activity, which you can find on Urban Dictionary.

"Hardsports" is probably the least offensive.

Scat is another. I once confused it with a form of Caribbean music.

Caribbean ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scat_singing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ska

There was loud music playing and the atmosphere was....er....smoky.

A look back at the Steele dossier on Trumpovich:

https://www.justsecurity.org/44697/steele-dossier-knowing/

@Richard_Tyndall

"Almost all Directives pass into UK law by Statutory Instrument or by Order. Neither of these are debated and as has already been pointed out no Directive can be either amended nor refused.

For Regulations it is even worse with EU Regulations having legal effect in the UK without any enactment."

And my point relates to Directives also - take the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive as Exhibit One.

And people wonder why I am driven to calling a spade a spade.

Charles will be like Joffrey.

William will be extremely average and boring.

Both will result in big changes in how the monarchy works.

God knows how long we'll have to wait for another Elizabeth.

I think HMG has made a huge contribution to British soft power and global influence over the last 65 years.

She deserves all the honours of the earth.

TOPPING said:

@Richard_Tyndall

"Almost all Directives pass into UK law by Statutory Instrument or by Order. Neither of these are debated and as has already been pointed out no Directive can be either amended nor refused.

For Regulations it is even worse with EU Regulations having legal effect in the UK without any enactment."

And my point relates to Directives also - take the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive as Exhibit One.

And people wonder why I am driven to calling a spade a spade.

Your point is garbage and is clearly founded in the belief that people are too stupid to make their own decisions and have to be told what to do by a supposed elite. It is a sickening and despicable view and typical of so many Europhiles.