Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
I was drawing attention to a certain part of that article to show that the point I had been making was valid
|
Let's make this very clear shall we? You blame the 10 years of austerity on Labour. You do not accept the real cause. You constantly peddle the free market dream world in denial of the facts.
Your "point" is to perpetuate the lie that free market capitalism is the answer when everyone can see that this ship has sailed, hit the iceberg and all we see is you rearranging the deckchairs ...
---------- Post added at 22:21 ---------- Previous post was at 22:18 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Illegal: forbidden by law.
Unlawful: not authorised by law.
If you’re going to play lawyers, do try to get your basic facts right. The Supreme Court ruled the advice unlawful, not illegal. There is more than a trivial difference between the two.
---------- Post added at 20:51 ---------- Previous post was at 20:48 ----------
It is not the Queen’s role to seek advice from any other source. Her constitutional role is to receive advice from ministers. That is what ministers are for.
You can’t judge someone ineffective for not doing something they are neither permitted nor expected to do. You might as well declare your car ineffective because it doesn’t float.
|
I feel the point here is that the Head of State should, with appropriate help, be in a position to validate the "advice" received from the Executive. If not, then what value does this individual contribute in terms of Government?