Let's All Laugh at the Royalist Nats and Greens

[carpetmonster]

UKGov breaking international law, or intending to, wasn’t anything to do with the Act of Union

 

https://www.ft.com/content/a20e7822-468f-4671-8e82-9dc5b5f353d8

[lichtgilphead]

6 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Silly - again.

The Treaty of Union - made between two countries' parliaments.  An act which ticks all the 'international law' boxes.  Yet, if you're a Natwit that doesn't matter.

Yes. The Acts of Union are legal. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. However, only Kincy appears to be arguing that these acts are "perpetual", and cannot be repealed.

Direct question to Albus & Durie - do you agree with Kincy's view, or do you agree with the doctrine of Westminster supremacy i.e. that Westminster can repeal any previous act passed by that legislature?

If you are both here to debate in good faith, surely you can answer this one simple question?

[The_Kincardine]

5 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Yes. The Acts of Union are legal. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. However, only Kincy appears to be arguing that these acts are "perpetual",

I have said this dozens of time:  The less you know about Scotland the more likely you are to be a Nat

The AoU was made in perpetuity.

Edited April 24, 2022 by The_Kincardine

[Zern]

I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make there @The_Kincardine

All laws are made in perpetuity, it doesn't prevent them from being amended, annulled or repealed.

 

[wastecoatwilly]

9 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

I have said this dozens of time:  The less you know about Scotland the more likely you are to be a Nat

The AoU was made in perpetuity.

You do know Scots law has always been independent Kinky? 
You don't need a prize gonk for that one

Edited April 24, 2022 by wastecoatwilly

[lichtgilphead]

2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

I have said the dozens of time:  The less you know about Scotland the more likely you are to be a Nat

The AoU was made in perpetuity.

I referred to the Acts of Union (my emphasis). The first article of the Act of Union (Ireland) Act 1800 states

That it be first article of the union of the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, that the said kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first day of January, which shall be in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever, be united into one kingdom, by the name of “the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,” (My emphasis, again)

As far as I am aware, the "and for ever" bit was changed in the 1920's. Can you explain this apparent anomaly?

[The_Kincardine]

4 minutes ago, Zern said:

I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make there @The_Kincardine

All laws are made in perpetuity, it doesn't prevent them from being amended, annulled or repealed.

sake

[The_Kincardine]

2 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

I referred to the Acts of Union (my emphasis). The first article of the Act of Union (Ireland) Act 1800 states

That it be first article of the union of the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, that the said kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first day of January, which shall be in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever, be united into one kingdom, by the name of “the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,” (My emphasis, again)

As far as I am aware, the "and for ever" bit was changed in the 1920's. Can you explain this apparent anomaly?

sake

[The_Kincardine]

4 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

You do know Scots law has always been independent Kinky? 
You don't need a prize gonk for that one

sake

[lichtgilphead]

Just now, The_Kincardine said:

sake

Ah. Are we on the Japanese spirits tonight? Enjoy!

However, your response doesn't really answer the question posed.

[Antlion]

16 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

I have said this dozens of time:  The less you know about Scotland the more likely you are to be a Nat

The AoU was made in perpetuity.

Perpetuity has been proven to mean nothing in the Acts of Union forming the UK. You might deny Ireland’s existence - but we’ve established you hate the Irish (as you appear to hate the “Scotch”, and anyone else who isn’t of your ilk). We’ve been over this several times. Are you that lonely that you have to repeat it every weekend?

[The_Kincardine]

3 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Ah. Are we on the Japanese spirits tonight? Enjoy!

However, your response doesn't really answer the question posed.

It was a daft question and had nothing to do with Britain.  But that's to be expected.

[Antlion]

6 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Ah. Are we on the Japanese spirits tonight? Enjoy!

However, your response doesn't really answer the question posed.

The only time I’ve got him to acknowledge that the Act of Union written to be “for ever” crumbled after a century resulted in him claiming he wants the Irish forcibly brought back under UK rule. That tells you all you need to know about how radicalised he’s become. But, of course, it does prove he knows fine well that the “perpetuity” written into the UK’s constitutional documents is a fiction - he’s seen it proven before. He just delights in hitting the reset button every weekend because, presumably, he doesn’t have much else going on and attempting to wind up strangers at least means someone’s acknowledging his existence.

Edited April 24, 2022 by Antlion

[lichtgilphead]

1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said:

It was a daft question and had nothing to do with Britain.  But that's to be expected.

Can you explain why you consider it to be a daft question?

In your opinion, why can the provisions of the Act of Union (Ireland) Act 1800 be amended, when both Acts of Union 1707 cannot?

[Zern]

13 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

It was a daft question and had nothing to do with Britain.  But that's to be expected.

Um, pretty sure the British were intimately involved in the conflict of Irish Independence. A key player if you will.

[lichtgilphead]

Just now, Zern said:

Um, pretty sure the British were intimately involved in the conflict of Irish Independence. A key player if you will.

He appears to be claiming that an Act of the Great British parliament has "nothing to do with Britain". 

I'm looking forward to his next reply.

[lichtgilphead]

1 hour ago, lichtgilphead said:

Yes. The Acts of Union are legal. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. However, only Kincy appears to be arguing that these acts are "perpetual", and cannot be repealed.

Direct question to Albus & Durie - do you agree with Kincy's view, or do you agree with the doctrine of Westminster supremacy i.e. that Westminster can repeal any previous act passed by that legislature?

If you are both here to debate in good faith, surely you can answer this one simple question?

Just in case you missed my previous post, I'll humour your pretence to be discrete posters and tag you both in.

@Albus Bulbasaur & @Duries Air Freshener

Do you agree with @The_Kincardine, or do you agree with the mainstream interpretation of UK Constitutional law?

[The_Kincardine]

[carpetmonster]

Oh Gordon Bennett, he’s regressed to Spongeheid level now, albeit with better clipping. 

[Zern]

54 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

He appears to be claiming that an Act of the Great British parliament has "nothing to do with Britain". 

I'm looking forward to his next reply.

Perhaps he has no knowledge of British history or the tangled weave of Anglo-Irish conflict.

Seems impossible to me. However i am aware that The Daily Express does indeed have a subscriber base, so there is a chance that one of their 'readers' has managed to figure out how to get on the internet for something other than porn.