Boris Johnson would essentially close the border with the E.U. for weeks or months. He says that he is planning now, and will act then, to mitigate the effects. But, thousands of businesses will be unable to honor agreements, unable to fulfill contracts. England deserves better.

All any of them care about is that his or her “plan,” divised in isolation, is the one followed. They want to be the “clever fellow” who figured it all out.

But now, they have insulted Her Majesty, and shamed Great Britain, by their open threats to allow the economy to fail, repudiating her word.

Just days before the “Report” by Parliament detailing the financial damage off “No-deal,” Johnson gave the Queen a disingenuous report of his own. He did not give an honest, fair assessment. HE JUST ADMITTED IT, by saying that it is up to the Supreme Court to decide what is, and is not, a lie. He admitted that his assessment had been only talking-points,intentionally skewed.

They have insulted Her Majesty: the crude, scuffling, dullards and louts. Browbeaters, who, at the of the day, shed crocodile tears that they have been wronged.

Brexiters have their own MAGA. They want the “Five Hundred Year Myth,” of England; harking back to an entirely self-sufficient England that ruled the world – which never existed.

Influence:

In Red States in the ’16 elections I saw middle-aged adults abuse their own elderly mothers and fathers to unduly influence their vote. For what, power? Not really; just stinking, “influence!” In England I saw bullying, threat and vile lying elevated to objects of worship. For undue influence. Unreal influence.

Ultimately, we each have about the same power; but the wicked want influence: they want to be bigger than they are!

Anyone caught attempting to exert undue influence should be horse-whipped. These perverted loudmouths on TV should be considered the lowest scum of the Earth. “One person, one vote?” How about one person, one mouth.”

They look so infinitely stupid, trying to influence votes, lifestyles and fundamental beliefs. It’s stupid because it’s completely futile. Nobody ever influenced another person’s vote. They just think that they have. They delude themselves.

Brexit and our elections were both tainted by bullies, by influence hustlers – the same loudmouths who always poison the dialog, but never bring anything of value to the table. They were corrupted and perverted. They were frauds perpetrated by thugs.

“Corrupted and Perverted.” These words run through everything that we read and think. Every mistake that we have made in two hundred years is reflected in them. Every lie told.

Brexit, Trump, and the terror we all live under, as though an iron-fisted dictator already has us by the thoats, are all parts of a malignant bloom. It could never be avoided.

We have already lost our souls, our honour, and many of our cherished traditions. What will be the true cost?

Previous articleTrump Uses 9/11 Anniversary to Negotiate with Bin Laden in Seance
Next articleLIVE CHAT TONIGHT! The Democratic Debates in Houston at 5:00pm PDT/8:00pm EDT!
Air Force brat. My dad was shepherd to a bunch of B-52's; the GI's called that place "20 Minutes From Armageddon;" because a missile launched in East Germany would pop over our heads twenty minutes later. That put me in some of the best schools anywhere. I wrote in the Press Office of a powerful, charismatic Midwestern Governor. I dabble in graphic arts. My 50+ entertainment sites get a few million visits, and I have stopped counting the fans, likes, and shares, per year. I've rambled the world, hitched around the continent (counter-clockwise). Climbed a couple of teeners, been to a couple of thousand rock, blues, and jazz concerts. I was at a free concert on Telegraph Avenue, Berkeley, CA with about 350,000 freaks and hippies; and other festivals. I won a writing contest when I was six. It was a Poe-like horror story taken from an account of a mining disaster. I had already been reading Edgar Allan Poe (which may explain a lot). I could read before I could talk. I implemented some of the first client/server, TCP-IP networks (the Internet) at many of the world's largest corporations. I know a half-dozen programming languages, and have implemented and administered many network operating systems. Right now I build ebikes, and lithium batteries from scratch. I was taught that race and ethnicity don't set us apart. I think that the best thing that could happen in this country would be if a woman were to be elected President of the United States. I admire President Obama more than any man in history, save one.

9
Leave a Comment

Please Login to comment
4 Comment threads
5 Thread replies
6 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
MurphTheSurf3TOCBordinaryjosephineNonpartaySteppenwolf Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
MurphTheSurf3
Editor

The queen’s power to suspend – or even dismiss – Parliament is unquestioned. The buck stops with her. So why isn’t she taking more criticism for giving Johnson what he wanted?

Constitutional monarchy
One answer is that she had no choice.

That’s the position taken by several British constitutional scholars. Major, too, argued that it would have been “almost inconceivable” for the queen to have defied her prime minister’s request.

Elizabeth is technically the sovereign and free to decide on her own. But the legitimacy of her rule derives from the will of the British people – which is normally assumed to be represented by the elected government. So her independence is actually fairly limited.

BUT…. Under Britain’s constitutional conventions, the prorogation — or suspension — of parliament is a Royal Prerogative power that is exercised by the monarch alone. When the Queen suspends parliament, she does so on the advice of the prime minister and can seek no other advice, legal or otherwise, from any other individual.

Mr Johnson’s proclaimed reason for seeking the unusually long prorogation was to prepare for a reopening of parliament in mid-October, launched by a Queen’s Speech in which the monarch reads out the government’s legislative agenda for the new session.

But the Scottish Court of Session agreed with the group of legislators who brought the case that the true reason was Mr Johnson’s desire to shut down debate in parliament of his Brexit policies.

The Edinburgh court ruled on Wednesday that Mr Johnson’s advice to the Queen “was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect”.

Catherine Haddon, senior fellow at the Institute for Government think-tank, said: “This has caused major embarrassment for the Queen and for Buckingham Palace. For a court to rule that the advice given to the Queen was unlawful, even if the ruling is later rejected, opens up questions about how that advice is given. She has to be able to trust Number 10.”

Mr Johnson will be hoping that the UK Supreme Court overturns the Scottish decision, which it will take up next week. But if the Supreme Court does declare the suspension illegal, the prime minister — even if he abides by its ruling — will come under considerable pressure. If the court does not…….the Queen will likely have to act….but how?

TOCB
Member

Respectfully, I disagree that a person’s vote cannot be influenced by others. The primary purpose of campaign ads is an attempt to influence voters. Debates at all levels, some more than others, are designed to influence voters.

As an open-minded person, I want to believe that if presented with facts that inform me differently than my current understanding of an issue, I would change my opinion and even my vote on an issue or a candidate.

I also accept that people being people, some people will attempt to influence voters by using intentionally false and misleading data/information. It would be nice if we could depend on the press and people in positions of power and influence to disseminate data/information with integrity. However, I recognize that is OFTEN not the case. I take voting very seriously and I consider it my responsibility to be as informed as possible on issues and candidates. Therefore, I do a lot of research related to a candidate’s history in choosing who to vote for.

Because people naturally have varying preferences, sometimes they will disagree based on those preferences. That is expected and it is completely normal and acceptable. To that end, we just have to hope that most of our preferences align with values that reflects a civilized and compassionate society.

ordinaryjosephine
Member
ordinaryjosephine

“Nobody ever influenced another person’s vote.” Really?!? Welcome to the 21st century. Are you familiar with the work (and testimony) of Dr. Robert Epstein? I offer, as a starting point, this: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4807816/congressionalhearing-16july2019-testimonybydrrobertepstein

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

Very well said, Steppenwolf. But as U.S. citizen, I don’t agree that I’ve lost
my soul, honor, or many of our cherished traditions yet.

But that said, there’s no doubt in my mind our constitutional rights and
democratic form of government are under the greatest existential threat in
the history of our country; and for the first time the threat is from an
internal, rather than external, enemy.

It’s up to us, the sane and principled majority of the American electorate, to remove the malignant narcissist and sociopath who’s well on his demented
way to establishing a fascist dictatorship in America.

Time is not on our side and is running out. A little actual help in the way of
Speaker Nancy Pelosi choosing to follow principle rather than crass politics in moving the impeachment process forward would be more than appreciated.

Nonpartay
Member
Nonpartay

And not a moment too soon.