Jump to content

E U. Should we stay or should we leave.


barry luxton

BREXIT in or out  

52 members have voted

  1. 1. should the u k remain in or leave the E U

    • vote to stay in
      12
    • vote to stay in following e u rule change
      2
    • vote to leave
      38


Recommended Posts

If he knew exactly just how insignificant it is to be held in contempt of Parliment I doubt if he would repost it, no, wait a minute, he probably would post it because it's written down in the Guardian or whatever so it must be REALLY important.

 

Fancy thinking MP's are going to allow laws to be passed which could possibly punish themselves for indiscretions, you or I would get a bigger fine for cycling at night without lights on our bikes Chesters. (I was going to say fishing without a rod license, but really not sure if that's called bony underwater living creature catching now, nope, I'll stick to fishing, I think you'll understand Chesters!)

Edited by Huge_Vitae

"My imaginary friend doesn't like your imaginary friend is no basis for armed conflict...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he knew exactly just how insignificant it is to be held in contempt of Parliment I doubt if he would repost it, no, wait a minute, he probably would post it because it's written down in the Guardian or whatever so it must be REALLY important.

 

Fancy thinking MP's are going to allow laws to be passed which could possibly punish themselves for indiscretions, you or I would get a bigger fine for cycling at night without lights on our bikes Chesters. (I was going to say fishing without a rod license, but really not sure if that's called bony underwater living creature catching now, nope, I'll stick to fishing, I think you'll understand Chesters!)

They are calling brexit Britains Vietnam sounds about right . Edited by big_cod

http://sea-otter2.co.uk/

Probably Whitby's most consistent charterboat

Untitled-1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No these arent lies Chesters this is stark reality brexit isnt going well some are saying its like Britains Vietnam a disaster.

 

They are calling brexit Britains Vietnam sounds about right .

Repeating something doesn't make it correct.

"My imaginary friend doesn't like your imaginary friend is no basis for armed conflict...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whats he frightened of obviously something to hide it wont end there surely he is now in contempt.

You are quite frankly, allowing your thoughts to be influenced by journalists who's sole intention is to sell headlines and newspapers other than political interference.

 

The House has little or no power to summons anybody to attend, the only institution that can do so to Members or 'Strangers' (anybody basically) is a Select Committee.

 

As for being liable to 'sacking' or anything more than, on repeat offending, being barred from attending the House for twenty days with loss of pay. The House can by a majority vote in the full House remove a Member from his seat and cause a by-election. The last time this was done I think was in 1950's and the Member had been sentenced to seven years imprisonment but refused to resign. Another case was a Member who fought against the Crown in the Boer War and was convicted of Treason, a Member removed from his seat can stand at the by election caused by his removal, if winning he returns to the House. The Member convicted of Treason has no rights to stand in any election ad infinitum.

 

He has therefore nothing to be 'frightened of' if you listened to Stamer's actual words he asked basically, why he had not received any information and then asked why, when he had looked at it that it did not contain full details using that lovely term from Holywood, 'redacted'. Logically he cannot claim all of those in one go.

"My imaginary friend doesn't like your imaginary friend is no basis for armed conflict...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are quite frankly, allowing your thoughts to be influenced by journalists who's sole intention is to sell headlines and newspapers other than political interference.

 

The House has little or no power to summons anybody to attend, the only institution that can do so to Members or 'Strangers' (anybody basically) is a Select Committee.

 

As for being liable to 'sacking' or anything more than, on repeat offending, being barred from attending the House for twenty days with loss of pay. The House can by a majority vote in the full House remove a Member from his seat and cause a by-election. The last time this was done I think was in 1950's and the Member had been sentenced to seven years imprisonment but refused to resign. Another case was a Member who fought against the Crown in the Boer War and was convicted of Treason, a Member removed from his seat can stand at the by election caused by his removal, if winning he returns to the House. The Member convicted of Treason has no rights to stand in any election ad infinitum.

 

He has therefore nothing to be 'frightened of' if you listened to Stamer's actual words he asked basically, why he had not received any information and then asked why, when he had looked at it that it did not contain full details using that lovely term from Holywood, 'redacted'. Logically he cannot claim all of those in one go.

For something as serious as brexit and he cant be arsed to turn up lets just wait and see .

http://sea-otter2.co.uk/

Probably Whitby's most consistent charterboat

Untitled-1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

big_cod, on 28 Nov 2017 - 15:56, said:

For something as serious as brexit and he cant be arsed to turn up lets just wait and see .

 

 

hahaha starmer is clutching at straws, trying to find something to dig the knife in and stir the shiet, yet his boss corbinesta has told all that we are leaving the e u's political tit. That means that all the m p's should be going full pelt in getting the best deal that can be sought for the u k. What are the left wingers doing, absolutely nothing but whinging.

Davis will walk all over the whingers, when he tells them it's redacted to prevent the e u manderins gaining an advantage. So what big trouble is davis looking forward to?

 

You didn't tell me who you are dealing with in the pba org big cod. I know 4 of them, 3 on a personal basis who ran the pba, so can you please let me know who, just asking.

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

big_cod, on 28 Nov 2017 - 15:56, said:

For something as serious as brexit and he cant be arsed to turn up lets just wait and see .

much like abbott she missed one or two votes as all I can see, she didn't want to put her foot right in it.

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.