Brit/pol/ - Evening edition

File: 1502044482778.png (797KB, 1080x1558px) Image search: [Google]

797KB, 1080x1558px

Posted in previous thread

>21 earn 17000 a year

Kill me.

I'm thinking of taking an AAT course and maybe trying to get into accounting or opening up my own accountancy.

Any advice? Feel like I should at least try and learn some skills to better myself and potential future family.

xth for Triplord Supremacy

Somebody else make new links. That nigger Cope just comes along and ruins the format anyway.

>tfw trying to get steamed on my unlimited supply of 4% ale until work ends so I can get something that will actually give me a buzz
JUST

>>136385414

Have you considered investing?

>>136385414
There are people whose job it is to help you. Find them.

File: 14697337370090.jpg (61KB, 500x524px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 500x524px

>>136385414
You've just gotta find a skill the market values lad.

File: IMG_6844.jpg (74KB, 654x436px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 654x436px

Thatcher did nothing wrong

>>136385808
In what?

>>136385939
Always wanted to start a business and I find accountancy pretty interesting I guess, would that have market value?

File: Screenshot_20170806-103458.png (789KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

789KB, 1080x1920px

David Kurthen desu

>>136385840
Recruiters?

All I know is recruiters are fucking annoying I had to block them in LinkedIn

No, I don't want to join ROC search. I will never want to join ROC search.

File: Screenshot_20170730-212915.png (573KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

573KB, 1080x1920px

Anne Marie Waters is a the_donald meme

>>136386174
>I find accountancy pretty interesting
Boring cunt.

>>136385994
while that is an excellent caption, Thatcher did plenty wrong

>>136386233
No I don't mean recruiters.

>>136385994
>>136386404
not that Thatcher is uniquely responsible

File: sadnap.jpg (53KB, 446x599px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 446x599px

>>136385939
Why do you beat your 4 inch prick to Nappy and hide your trip when arguing about subjects you know nothing about?

>>136386241

>Lol no I didn't. I said the precedent is 3 centuries old and to go against it would cause constitutional crisis.

Where does that show that she can't do it?

>O wait it doesn't

Good on you for proving my point.

>>136386470
Give it a rest pal

>>136386643
Why do you hide your trip when talking utter horseshit though?

>>136386667
I know, after 8 or so hours of missing the point you think he'd give up.

File: Screenshot_2017-08-06-20-56-22-1.png (84KB, 720x478px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 720x478px

>>136386643
Why did you hide your trip you civic law cuck?

>>136386643
>>136386470
Don't kick that off again lads. Been at it all day, can't handle it all night as well...

>>136386470
What a little bitch you are

>>136386716
>Why do you hide your trip when talking utter horseshit though?

I wasn't talking horseshit tbf.

I said she should, and could, speak more forcefully regarding the national crises we face. Eddie then missed the point entirely, and said, "but it would cause a constitutional crisis".

No doubt one would be engineered, but again that was never the point. I never said there wouldn't be ramifications.

>>136386930
>he supports a system of law that isn't derived from precedent like Napoleon implemented
State of you euro cucks

>>136387032
I was more concerned with the horseshit directed at me in which you resorted to talking about the colonisation of India and Queen Victoria to change the subject over the course of 7 hours.

>>136387032
>knows he's wrong
>hides trip
BTFO BONAPARTE

>>136385705
They did, but then you replaced them with old ones remember?

File: liam.jpg (49KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1280x720px

What would it take to redpill this guy?

>>136387032
You are a fucking disgrace.

>>136387468
I made the 4 editions before you decided to steal a bunch of my links, then I made some new ones with 2 oldish but relevant ones and archived them all.

File: 1501963680797.jpg (92KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1000x1000px

>>136386800
I still feel like you've missed my point over and over again.

My point was:

>The Queen should be more vocal.

Now, there is no doubt this would arouse constitutional problems, but that was never the point I was making.

>>136387139
That wasn't with you, that was with the guy who criticised 1688. All I stated was that we likely wouldn't have colonised India without it, and I believe this.

>>136387161
I hid my trip so if I was wrong pride wouldn't prevent me from conceding.

>>136387542
see>>136354040
Those were new links which you have replaced with old ones. Fuck off you BTEC Rightly

File: 1404823685181.jpg (279KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 960x1280px

>>136387509
I'm richer than you though lad tbqh

>>136387509
Notice how he concedes my point that it would cause a constitutional crisis but also tries to make out that it wasn't the point because he was only LARPing, despite his constant refusal that precedent is the primary source of UK constitution.
No wonder he hid his trip.

>>136387579
>That wasn't with you, that was with the guy who criticised 1688. All I stated was that we likely wouldn't have colonised India without it, and I believe this
That was me. It was me all day you were arguing with besides from Eddie, and you were wrong so many times it hurt my brain.

>>136387628
I posted the links to the old ones you used you utter fucking mong.

Would greater unity emerge among the states if we moved the capital from london to somewhere more central to scotland,wales,england and NI?

File: Kayleigh lending a hand.jpg (41KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 640x360px

Who else here hard-line monarchist national conservative?

>>136387640

>Hello, my name is Mr.Tumnus.

>>136387640
genetic snap chat filter

>>136387687
I was actually angry at some point today, but the more he crumbled the funnier it got and now the whole hidden trip has made it hilarious. NappyTheMan permanently disgraced.

>>136387687
>That was me. It was me all day you were arguing with besides from Eddie, and you were wrong so many times it hurt my brain.

I was correct, broadly.

1. If the Queen wanted to, she could be more vocal

2. The Queen should be more vocal

3. Without the Glorious Revolution we wouldn't have taken India

4. Without control of all India, our Empire wouldn't have been anything special.

5. Dutch economic systems gave us an advantage over our French and Spanish adversaries.

All five of these points have not been effectively countered

File: duh duh duh dun dun dun dun dunnnn.png (312KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 500x500px

>liz will never do this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfHrMnl1uLo

>>136387898
Deep down you must know you're wrong, right?

Is that why you've spent all day countering points I didn't make?

>>136387914
>if I make a point, get BTFO then pretend my point was something else, I win
>better hide my trip though
HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA FUCKING STATE OF YOU NAPPY

>>136387914
Not only did you dodge every single one of my points, you brought up the colonisation of India which was completely irrelevant to change the subject. Go back and read it, it's embarrassing on your behalf.
>>136347870

>>136388006
Nappy you're too much! If you were as mobile in Russia as you are with your points, we may very well be tricolourcucks after all.

CAN YOU TRIPNONCES SHIT THE FUCK UP

>tfw my died-in-the-wool 60s lefty mum now regularly comes out with stuff that would make tommy Robinson blush

What have I done lads

File: What's all that about.gif (993KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 500x333px

>>136387978
This bit was beautiful. I would genuinely adore the Queen if she did this, or if Charles did it later down the line.

>>136388297
It's not codified. DanTheMan says we can't do it.

trip nonces will never stick their dick in me lol
I'm a girl as well

>>136388018
>if I make a point, get BTFO then pretend my point was something else, I win

Read my earlier post regarding the trip.

Again, counter points 1 and 2, else I'll just have to assume you've accepted defeat. My points haven't changed.

I said this morning that the defender of the faith refusing to defend the faith (You clearly mistook this for an argument for the pulling of constitutional levers, which it was not) is inexcusable. This then expanded into her opinions on national crises.

You then said she couldn't do this, and I disagreed. I asked you to provide a good reason. You said it was down to precedent. Considering that like cases haven't been heard, you're essentially stating that a crisis would occur.

However, the outcome of said crisis is not a foregone conclusion, especially with support for the monarchy at 75%.

>>136388467
omg a grill post armpits

>>136388129
I never said it wasn't illegal. I merely stated the benefits of 1688, which was enormous prosperity and power.

My whole point was that whatever the legal or political ramifications were, they must be understood in the wider geopolitical, economic, and imperial context

>>136387914
>All this spin
You really are SEETHING

Reminder AMW IS OURGAL.

File: it's tits, I aint gotta explain shit.jpg (542KB, 1098x947px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 1098x947px

>>136388467

Post tits.

>>136387978
whos actually the next king/queen if lizzy dies

>>136388684
It's not spin, it's just what happens when you spend all day talking oranges, while your opponent is talking pears.

>>136388297
You UK faggots are so screwed. Erdogans going to invade Europe and at the same time you're going to have an islamic insurrection on your hands, funded and armed by Soros.

>>136388717
>>136388626
seriously just fuck off
/pol/ is big enough for girls to be a likely part of of it at this point
stop being pathetic foerever virgins

File: escape from the union.jpg (78KB, 799x650px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 799x650px

>>136385276
>Gove confirms foreign access to UK fishing grounds

Well we did try to tell the dumb cunt Unionists

Thinking of going for a research degree tbqh lads.

>>136388843
cant take a joke mate seriously think i want to see your armpits??

File: 1496610673236.png (153KB, 242x308px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 242x308px

I am so angry all the time, all I think about is the downfall of our country and the west and how we can fix it, everytime I turn on the TV I am faced with the same foreign faces, black brown and everything in between, the constant pandering to non whites with taxpayers money, I can't take it anymore, I fear that in time if things do not begin to change I will go postal

>>136388783
Prince Charles.

>>136388869
I swear fishing access has always been shared

>>136388789
You anonymous posting is oranges and your triposting is pears. Take the trip off, you've been embarrassed into exile (ptg)

>>136388628
We weren't even arguing over 1688. We were discussing constitutional law and you used the entire subject to change the subject because you were only capable of slightly altering what your question was over the course of 7 hours.

You said the Queen should be able to have an opinion, when I asked you to elaborate you simply said the same so I told you she can, and gave examples of her speaking up in favour of the Church of England's role in our constitution, but also explained why we would be unlikely to ever hear a speech from a Royal in regards to immigration or a heated topic of that nature, you then added the words "forcefully" and "strongly" to your shit point, claiming she should force her opinion on parliament. I cited precedent and the Act of Union 1707 and 1688 as the basis for this and you changed the subject.

After this, you also hinted that you meant Royal Assent, but when you were informed on that topic, you completely changed the subject again and went back to playing around with the words "strongly" and "opinion."

>>136388476
Points 1 and 2 weren't your point lmao you were claiming law had nothing to do with precedent! Fucking hell you're cracking me up lad. It's pathetic,
>hide trip
>make statement so retarded multiple posters aggressively shoot him down
>desperately try to defend his point
p...precedent means nothing in law
>get completely destroyed
th... that wasn't my real point...
>continues to get BTFO until people start to ignore him
>feels lonely
Lel... i... i sure won that argument about these lists of points that weren't even my argument
>get aggressively BTFO again
>tries to defend himself but his tears cloud his eyes
>forget to remove his trip
>accidently click post

This is probably the funniest shit I've seen in a long time. You've been BTFO harder than Waterloo Nappy.

>>136388843
This is a politics board, maybe try starting a British thread on >>>/ck/

>>136389042
>You anonymous posting is oranges and your triposting is pears.

Explain.

how likely is charles to dissolve parliament or order an act to kill all pakis

Or is he cucked

what we up to tonight lads?

>>136389069
>makes a poll asking who won the argument and wins by 1 vote (probably his own)

>>136388289
>What have I done
Not enough
IT won't be enough until the formation of active paramilitaries forces the collapse of government, and the re-establishment of monarchist primacy backed by a traditionalist and TRULY conservative military, service running through every lineage

>>136389142
Sorry, but you're beneath me. I don't have to explain shit to you.

File: Screenshot_2017-08-06-21-26-37-1-1.png (11KB, 479x123px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 479x123px

>>136388971
>tfw you've got BTFO so hard you need to go back into education to recover

>>136387978
Might watch this. Name of show?

>>136389239
I'm gonna alternate between weight lifting and watching SS-GB to fuel my kraut hate.

File: IMG_1887.jpg (57KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x375px

>>136389245
He made a poll?

>>136389377
I have no idea, was hoping someone here would know.

>>136389245
Shit I missed that! Fucking hell the utter state.

any other girls here got tips for getting rid of hiccups?

>>136389437
>>136389505
http://www.strawpoll.me/13640745/r

>>136389377
I also want to know seen that clip numerous times but no one has mentioned what its from

>>136389545
>45any other girls here got tips for getting rid of hiccups?
Yes honey, I get my boyfriend to give me a good fucking xx

>>136389065
>We weren't even arguing over 1688.

No, but you mentioned it, and I felt compelled to defend it. Not constitutionally; it was plainly illegal, but in terms of Britain's place in the world.

>You said the Queen should be able to have an opinion, when I asked you to elaborate you simply said the same so I told you she can, and gave examples of her speaking up in favour of the Church of England's role in our constitution, but also explained why we would be unlikely to ever hear a speech from a Royal in regards to immigration or a heated topic of that nature, you then added the words "forcefully" and "strongly" to your shit point, claiming she should force her opinion on parliament. I cited precedent and the Act of Union 1707 and 1688 as the basis for this and you changed the subject.

I never claimed she should force her opinion on parliament. That's not what "forcefully" or "strongly" means. I was referencing her influencing the public opinion strongly, not trying to force MPs to vote the way she wants them to.

>After this, you also hinted that you meant Royal Assent

If I did that was purely accidental; that was never my intention.

>>136389069
>Points 1 and 2 weren't your point

Objectively untrue, I said case law precedent would not stop the Queen from stating her opinion, because there are no like cases to extract applicable principles from. I recognised the fact the move is unprecedented would cause constitutional chaos, as politicians try to grapple and stop this new behaviour. However, you stated the outcome of any potential crisis is that the Queen would lose out, while I feel if done correctly there would be enough public support to ensure the monarchy prevails.

File: 1478846773480.webm (829KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

829KB, 640x360px

tfw got a nosebleed

>>136389550
>No duplication checking
It gets even better.

File: 1502046171225.jpg (10KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 275x183px

>>136389440
>>136389377
it might be this

>>136389295

Well I'll ask her but she's mostly into gardening these days

>>136389363
>Sorry, but you're beneath me.

Untrue. I am likely wealthier than you.

greatest ally here.
tripfags have ruined this.

File: Unimpressed Transylvanians.jpg (172KB, 895x538px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 895x538px

>tfw can't work out if DanTheMan is an elaborate troll or is just a cunt for real

File: JUST.png (163KB, 392x324px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 392x324px

>>136389365
KEK
E
K

>>136389715
Please tell me he's unconscious and that his brain was just spazzing out when he was dying.

File: Griff_flip.jpg (26KB, 179x250px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 179x250px

>>136389245

>One vote

You mean seven?

>>136389440
>>136389377
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04z0n7s

>>136389821
I agree. It all started with Eddie, the Saxon-Aquitainian kike.

>>136389656
>model

>>136389550
Apparently eddies losing

>>136389800
>I am likely wealthier than you
Please never take off your trip again, you're my favourite poster Nappy.

>>136389715
Is this the twat who only found about 10 dollars in the car?

>>136389874
you won by 2 votes, not one or 7 you degenerate filth.

File: 1.jpg (30KB, 465x262px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 465x262px

Kate McCann writes about her and Gerry's sex life and Maddie's genitals in book, which she claims she wrote for her kids. https://youtu.be/ek0HH71LW34

File: brightonpride.png (47KB, 621x424px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 621x424px

Brit/pol/ BTFO

>>136389983
Whatever lad, you're not involved.

>>136389874
>No duplication checking
Fucking lel

>>136389377
>>136389440
King Charles III

>new Hitchens on Sunday Politics
Wonderful
glad it's all on YouTube
I'll register to use iPlayer when geese hatch out of my japseye

>>136389656
That story looks like a lie. Something is missing

>>136390012
disgusting, should be killed for corrupting the youth

>>136389859
Pretty sure he was dead instantly.

>>136390147
she was missing but not anymore

>>136389706
>No, but you mentioned it, and I felt compelled to defend it. Not constitutionally; it was plainly illegal, but in terms of Britain's place in the world
And I explained why that was utter horseshit, and how William Paterson, a Scottish man, acquired the first capital stock of the Bank of England through public donations, based off the Dutch model, but independently and the fact the Empire peaked centuries later, and had been established almost a century prior.

>I never claimed she should force her opinion on parliament. That's not what "forcefully" or "strongly" means. I was referencing her influencing the public opinion strongly, not trying to force MPs to vote the way she wants them to.
"Forcefully" and "strongly" mean fuck all in the context of a decent discussion in regards to constitutional law you absolute fucking mong, which is what my point is and why (I think) you used those words, and also why you changed the subject multiple times. Essentially what you meant is, you wanted a monarch to influence fashion sense and work in the shadows like some sort of tyrant, like Victoria, as opposed to the most valued part of our constitutional system, of which you had no clue about.

>If I did that was purely accidental; that was never my intention
That was your intention, you had no argument and you wanted to change the subject.

File: fml.jpg (161KB, 710x850px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 710x850px

>>136385414
>29
>15k per year
>1k comission

File: tornapart.png (18KB, 551x189px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 551x189px

>>136389988
I just downloaded the epub to see if that's true. It actually fucking is in there.

>>136390012

>swearing
>parading around with your cock out and a bloke in a dog mask on a leash

He's got us there

File: 1496530353413.jpg (34KB, 292x479px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 292x479px

>>136389988
>"her perfect little genitals torn apart"

>>136389800
I am a homeowner at the ripe of old age of 19. Unlikely.

File: Pride.jpg (46KB, 600x500px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 600x500px

>>136390012

someone is def cheating at that straw poll

File: rogerd1.png (886KB, 864x1726px) Image search: [Google]

886KB, 864x1726px

>>136390467
>>136390488

File: Another form of racism.jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x360px

>>136390488
The McCanns are paedos and sold Maddie off to some rape gang or child traffickers. Probably watched her get fucked before they let her go too. Fucking monsters.

>>136390510
running into a home and staying there with squatters rights doesn't count as owning a home cope you nigger.

Eddie, it's plainly obvious you have, either intentionally or unintentionally, missed my point and strawmanned me over and over again.

So, to make it easy for you, I'd like you to counter these three points. If you do, congrats! You win the argument! If not, you admit defeat.

1. The Queen can voice her opinion, and probably should.

2. There have been no like cases from which to extract principles applicable to the situation in point 1.

3. The Queen stands a good chance, with 75% support, at winning any subsequent legal challenge to her behaviour.

And to COPE, I have but one challenge.

You're at a job interview. "Why do you want to work here at X". Do you:

a) Blush and stammer your way through a pre-planned routine before staring at the wall behind your interviewer

b) Cooly tell him something close to the truth, trying hard to butter things up of course

c) "You know, I'm quite popular on an anime general known as Brit/pol/"

File: 1483086343342.png (66KB, 137x259px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 137x259px

>>136390012
>men swearing at opposing teams for fun
>men marching through the streets naked and wearing clothing specifically designed for sexual fetishes in front of children
>in any way similar

The state of these cunts.

File: 1497883041843.jpg (25KB, 749x537px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 749x537px

>>136390679
Haven't squatters rights been nullified since 2013?

>>136385414
lol fucking loser

>tfw you're currently earning £0 a year

>>136390801
wouldn't know lad im not a nigger like you so i dont need to concern myself with such subhuman laws

>>136390656
It does seem very odd that a thought like that would go through her head. Maybe you share that thought with your partner (even that's a stretch), but to put it in a fucking book for the whole world to read is indefensible.

Despite this being an anonymous board that prides itself on this fact - there are people amongst us who believe themselves to be particularly special and above all others here. They believe that their posts and opinions are more highly valued and more important than the contributions of others - these people are known as tripfags.

They are a rotten pustulent cancer that has destroyed this board - along with their allies: The Karenposters and the miscellaneous food item posters - they have worked tirelessly to derail all forms of rational discussion in favour of their rampant egomania. Their almost unquenchable narcissism has derailed countless discussion and caused a great rift between the formerly united posters of Brit/pol/.
The Tripcunt is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a narcissist, egomaniac, arsehole, attention seeker, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But tell people to filter his tripcode and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”
You can stop tripfags by simply not responding to them ever. You can hide and filter tripcodes by going to the [SETTINGS] link at the bottom of the page and adding their tripcode to the FILTER option. BE SURE TO HIDE POST STUBS.

This will improve your experience here tenfold - as it has done mine.
TRIPCODES TO ADD TO THE FILTER LIST!
!mWI667SLso
!BrexitHrLw
!m7t.tB.BKw
STOP THEM. HELP PRESERVE BRIT/POL/'S CULTURE AGAINST THESE INVADERS.

Things are already tough with hugely higher cost of living, centralisation of work opportunities into a few hubs, reduction of traditional employment opportunities, higher education costs, depressed wages, reduction of value of qualifications, and so on.

Brexit is another layer on top of that. It makes everything that much more uncertain, adds significant complexity onto work and travel opportunities, and will undoubtedly lead to job losses and relocation as well as higher costs. I genuinely can see no benefits except for a few very wealthy people.

>>136390012
>sweary

cuck beta-dad detected

>>136390771
>He's still trying
You've been explained how precedent works repeatedly by multiple people including myself and multiple posters have highlighted your rocket propelled goalposts.
Lel Fuck off Nappy. I'm going to bed.

FCMD and WN are the patrician /tripchoices/

>>136390147
When was the last time you saw, even a trash like DM report on an apparent VICTIM of rape and kidnapping, post pics of her being naked & tied (which we now know are pics of a porn star) but still, they posted those thinking it's her, and then a day later named her and posted dozens of her pics from Instagram without even blurring her face.

This is so fishy that it really tingles my almonds. A human sex traffickers releasing their 200k kidnapee because they felt remorseful. And the next day she walks out to the press smiling.

This is some shit-tier jewing.

does no one care that me was easily beating Eddie
But suddenly Eddie burst ahead by 38 votes
That seems very suspicious
And I assume the person who did it has very little life
Sorry you just seem like a faggot mate

Back home from Alton Towers lads.

Had a good time but fuck me there were lots of immigrants.

>>136391029

Fauxcons makes me feel guilty about not going to church desu

>>136391040
I'll admit I did 3 or 4.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzT09-xnS_U

Imagine singing that in once breath... ooshh...

>>136390963
We managed to exist perfectly well outside of European union for the 900 or so years before joining the EU, we will continue to do so.

File: IMG_1235.jpg (114KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1024x768px

Getting freaked out by the Samsung phone advert where the jaunty song repeats "everything is better now" while the phone scans your fucking iris

This is crazy

The world is on an express elevator to hell

>>136391218
top tier feet

>>136390771
I'd like to have a shot since this was explained many times to you over the course of 7 hours.
>1. The Queen can voice her opinion, and probably should.
She has but you didn't specify to which extent or what those opinions were in regard to. When given choices, you didn't use any other words but "forceful" and "strongly" and hinted towards you meaning Royal Assent. You provided no basis for what these opinions were, because when presented with a recent video of the Queen speaking in regards to the constitutional role of the Church, you ignored the point and continued with your word play.

>2. There have been no like cases from which to extract principles applicable to the situation in point 1.
For what? Again, you haven't specified, but the most noted descend from Act of Union 1707, 1688, 1649 and Victoria's/Edward VI's role. If you simply mean an opinion, again, she has them and is vocal on them.

>3. The Queen stands a good chance, with 75% support, at winning any subsequent legal challenge to her behaviour.
This is extremely debatable. The consensus of people is certainly not in favour of Monarchism, and our Monarch in particular is not the secure institution it once was and is on a knifes edge. I'm sure, realistically, an opinion on matters such as immigration would not necessarily result in the overthrow of a monarch but it is tradition for a monarch not to speak on such matters - again, if this is what you meant. You never told us what you meant so its hard to know.

Also answer my question you subject dodging mong.

>>136391067
https://youtu.be/F6BUZZ3qvZM

>>136391218

Somebody wake up hicks

File: der untermensch.jpg (52KB, 500x374px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x374px

>>136390012
what can be done about these types of people?

>>136391292
>The consensus of people is certainly not in favour of Monarchism
if you mean absolute monarchism, probably, but i'd say there's more pro-monarchy conviction than any other system, i.e. the rest is groupthink and siding with the 80%

>>136391320

Haha, I thought of that video when I was walking around.

>>136391452
Free helicopter rides.

>>136391292
An obvious point is her high popularity is down to her apolitical stance. As soon as she voices an opinion she alienates all those who disagree.

>>136391465
People have no passion to restore the constitutional role of the monarch thus it will descend into irrelevancy sooner or later. It's extremely unlikely, if the Crown remains what it is, it will stay simply as a beacon whilst every active constitutional role is put on ministers or Governor Generals abroad.

>>136391452
isn't that the guy who got rekt for making his dog slaute hitler

>>136391653
i think if you could shatter the "false consciousness" (to borrow a commie phrase) of democracy, the general tendency of the British would be pro-monarchy
Most people still love the royal family.
Nobody likes the sort of people that post on facebook complaining about them.

>>136385276
Anyone know the name of that gay looking BBC news reporter or correspondent or whatever? He has black curly hair and looks quite young compared to most of their employees

>>136391850
Yeah but there is this >>136391622
and the fact that what we have now, what you think of Queen Elizabeth aside, is not what our Monarchy should be and that is the system people are in favour of. The rating is on the Royal family as figureheads, not Monarchism versus Democracy (democracy would win).

File: englanddd.jpg (421KB, 2648x1209px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 2648x1209px

True tbqh with you

>>136390012
I don't see many football fans turning up for a match in leather fetish gear.

Fucking retard

>>136390261
>And I explained why that was utter horseshit, and how William Paterson, a Scottish man, acquired the first capital stock of the Bank of England through public donations, based off the Dutch model, but independently and the fact the Empire peaked centuries later, and had been established almost a century prior.

Bank of England was established in 1894, lad, and was based on Dutch models brought to England in 1688.

>the fact the Empire peaked centuries later, and had been established almost a century prior.

Pretty irrelevant. The Dutch controlled the waterways to and from our trading posts, prevented us from trading effectively, and government debt we wouldn't have beaten the French in 1764 and clinched India for ourselves. Our Empire prior to 1688 was in crisis primarily because not only did the Dutch wipe out our West African trading posts (cutting off slaves from the sugar islands, forcing us to rely on indentured servants), but we were at risk of losing Fort St. George (around which Madras sprang up), Calcutta, and Surat to the other powers expanding into the area, and indeed to the Dutch. That could've ended our future prospects right there.

>"Forcefully" and "strongly" mean fuck all in the context of a decent discussion in regards to constitutional law you absolute fucking mong, which is what my point is and why (I think) you used those words, and also why you changed the subject multiple times. Essentially what you meant is, you wanted a monarch to influence fashion sense and work in the shadows like some sort of tyrant, like Victoria, as opposed to the most valued part of our constitutional system, of which you had no clue about.

> Essentially what you meant is, you wanted a monarch to influence fashion sense and work in the shadows like some sort of tyrant, like Victoria

No I didn't, I wanted her to influence public opinion.

>That was your intention, you had no argument and you wanted to change the subject.

No it wasn't.

>>136391713
yeah.

File: IMG_20170806_215743.jpg (55KB, 539x960px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 539x960px

*blocks your path*

>>136392039
Figureheads can easily become political figures.
You will unironically get many people who don't really have an opinion one way or another who actually do the reverse of >>136391622 , i.e. change "their" opinion because a leader did

>>136391028
>You've been explained how precedent works repeatedly by multiple people including myself and multiple posters have highlighted your rocket propelled goalposts.

None of it was relevant to the point that the Queen can do it.

Just fuck off and admit you bloody misinterpreted my first point this morning.

>>136392317
What white guy is that and what region does that rape gang come from?

>>136392317
(((Tommy Robinson)))

>>136392371
That's Tommy Robinson

>>136392317
Is that Tommy?

>>136392371
tommy robinson and kashmir

>>136392251
>Bank of England was established in 1894, lad, and was based on Dutch models brought to England in 1688.

>http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/Pages/history

>There were calls for a national or public bank to mobilise the nation's resources, largely inspired by the Dutch example of the Amsterdam Wisselbank. Many schemes were proposed. The successful one, from Scottish entrepreneur William Paterson, invited the public to invest in a new project. The public subscriptions raised £1.2 million in a few weeks, which formed the initial capital stock of the Bank of England and was lent to Government in return for a Royal Charter. The Royal Charter was sealed on 27 July 1694, and the Bank started its role as the Government's banker and debt manager.

Wrong again, DanTheMan.

>No I didn't, I wanted her to influence public opinion.
Answer my question.

>No it wasn't.
Answer my question lad. Stop dodging questions like you did for 7 hours.

Also answer this >>136391292

>>136390012
Maybe it's time we embraced the label of homophobic
I for one am very scared at what is happening to this country as a result of gay-pandering

File: 1501196071020.jpg (35KB, 369x387px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 369x387px

>>136392251
>Bank of England was established in 1894

....

It's almost as if some of you people who think that the Queen could do what she wants because there isn't a law against it or that there would be some kind of popular uprising in her favour have a very shallow understanding of politics and tend not to read the news very often. If the Queen even so much as postponed the appointment of a prime minister until some issue was sorted out, the last remaining powers that she had would be stripped away completely, to back up this point, take consideration of the fact that when it came to light that Prince Charles, not even the head of state, just the successor, decided to merely write some letters, advising some ministers and giving them his personal feelings on some topics, making them aware of things and pushing for more traditional architecture, he was roundly accused of exercising too much influence and bullied into not doing it anymore. If the successor to the throne can not even write some letters to MPs and Prime Ministers then why would any well informed, rational person think that the head of the Royal Family could intervene in any way whatsoever?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_spider_memos

>>136391292
>She has but you didn't specify to which extent or what those opinions were in regard to. When given choices, you didn't use any other words but "forceful" and "strongly" and hinted towards you meaning Royal Assent. You provided no basis for what these opinions were, because when presented with a recent video of the Queen speaking in regards to the constitutional role of the Church, you ignored the point and continued with your word play.

I didn't intentionally hint toward Royal Assent.

This appears to be the crux of the misunderstandings, and where most of the lads here are having problems.

>For what? Again, you haven't specified, but the most noted descend from Act of Union 1707, 1688, 1649 and Victoria's/Edward VI's role.

Do any of those relate to a Monarch speaking their mind on political issues?

>This is extremely debatable. The consensus of people is certainly not in favour of Monarchism, and our Monarch in particular is not the secure institution it once was and is on a knifes edge. I'm sure, realistically, an opinion on matters such as immigration would not necessarily result in the overthrow of a monarch but it is tradition for a monarch not to speak on such matters - again, if this is what you meant. You never told us what you meant so its hard to know.

That's by and large what I meant, r.e. immigration, the EU, etc.

File: DGkgTncXkAEpfFt.jpg (241KB, 1152x2048px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1152x2048px

Would you?

>>136391622
You'd get people in the populace saying 'oh well she's the queen, she's seen alot' if she came out and influenced little things at first.

>>136392522
>Wrong again, DanTheMan.

I meant 1694, sorry lad. Been reading pages with 1800s in them lately. Must've had a brain fade.

Don't know your question.

>>136392713
He's been getting BTFO all day and still doesn't know what precedent is. I wouldn't waste your energy.

>>136392691
Meant 1694 lad. I'm tired.

>>136392767
Look how high the nipple is, they must be fake

>Brain fade
Literally Natalie Bennett tier

Where's the best place to move to, lads?
English speaking, of course, or at least accepting.
I'm sick of this country, I want out.

>>136392940
Do you think so?

>>136392713
>It's almost as if some of you people who think that the Queen could do what she wants because there isn't a law against it or that there would be some kind of popular uprising in her favour have a very shallow understanding of politics and tend not to read the news very often. If the Queen even so much as postponed the appointment of a prime minister until some issue was sorted out, the last remaining powers that she had would be stripped away completely, to back up this point, take consideration of the fact that when it came to light that Prince Charles, not even the head of state, just the successor, decided to merely write some letters, advising some ministers and giving them his personal feelings on some topics, making them aware of things and pushing for more traditional architecture, he was roundly accused of exercising too much influence and bullied into not doing it anymore. If the successor to the throne can not even write some letters to MPs and Prime Ministers then why would any well informed, rational person think that the head of the Royal Family could intervene in any way whatsoever?

Never denied any of that.

Again, I think people have seriously mistaken my rather modest suggestions with something extreme.

>>136393006
>Where's the best place to move to, lads?
The 1950s.

>>136392863
The populace maybe, but that's not how parliament works. Regardless of if Parliament agrees with what the Queen is saying, they will start to debate if she should be influencing at all, just as with the Scottish Milita Bill.

>>136393025
Sorry if it's obvious

>>136393006
north pole

>>136391924
>>136391924
>>136391924
Someone tell me right now

>these fucking dereks tearing strips off each other all day

Makes me grateful for my life

>>136393006
Fucking defeatist coward

>>136393083
Okay Eddie, if that's your position and where your objection comes from, I actually agree with you, and always have.

Perhaps you should've voiced it 7 hours earlier.

>>136391924
its gary liniker

>>136393167
>going down with the ship
Enjoy being dead.

>>136393035
You're shifitng the goal posts. Regardless of all the other times you have been BTFO just my Black Spider Letters response completely undermines the point you made here >>136387914 that
>1. If the Queen wanted to, she could be more vocal
which is the basis of what you have been saying.

>>136392732
>This appears to be the crux of the misunderstandings, and where most of the lads here are having problems.
No, it's your wording and your constant attempt to change the subject.

>Do any of those relate to a Monarch speaking their mind on political issues?
You never specified this, you absolute fucking mongrel. You said an opinion. No, that is merely tradition, it is not a legal obligation though, there is this in regards to the Act of Settlement 1701 I forgot to state today,

>"No person who has an office under the monarch, or receives a pension from the Crown, was to be a Member of Parliament. This provision was inserted to avoid unwelcome royal influence over the House of Commons. It remains in force, but with several exceptions. (As a side effect, this provision means that members of the Commons seeking to resign from parliament can get round the age-old prohibition on resignation by obtaining a sinecure in the control of the Crown; while several offices have historically been used for this purpose, two are currently in use: appointments generally alternate between the stewardships of the Chiltern Hundreds and of the Manor of Northstead."

>That's by and large what I meant, r.e. immigration, the EU, etc.
So you just decided to state this after 8 hours you utter fucking mong?

>>136392886
No you didn't. And respond to my points.

>>136392767
if she wears a bag on her head, yes.

>>136393213
>>136393083

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ows-wRWgDMc

>>136393083
>but that's not how parliament works.
Unfortunately so.

I unironically believe that the population would accept the Queen having the final say in Foreign policy and actually speaking about it in public. Prime ministers are for 5 years, but Foreign policy is forever. It would also help to stop jewery like Antony going to Iraq and call me dave going to Libya.

>>136393213
>backtracking this hard
Nice try Nappy, if you'd backtracked this hard in 1812, you may have saved your Grande Armee

File: IMG_1758.jpg (334KB, 1200x939px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1200x939px

>>136393166
It was fun to bait them, then go away and read a book, have a snooze, some nice food, then come back and still find them arguing.

Literal mongs

>>136393479
>politics on a political general

>>136393274
Not the same guy, it wasnt sports, wasnt grey hair

>>136393449
And we generally don't elect MPs for anything other than tie colour.

>>136393371
I haven't actually read your responses tbqh lad, didn't consider you part of the discussion.

Also, black spider letters weren't public, and I don't consider it a particularly good thing on the part of Charles.

Also, the fact they've been made public, and people aren't trying to ensure Charles doesn't succeed Elizabeth strengthens my case, surely?

File: 1468102510461.jpg (94KB, 475x567px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 475x567px

>>136393167

>>136392940
real

>>136393650
>Also, black spider letters weren't public
The fact that when they were he was criticised and made to stop them means nothing to you?

>>136393650
Here's the list of times you backtracked.

>>136344947
>>136345726
>>136345984
>>136346318
>>136346567
>>136350009

>>136393597
>politics
>arguing the same point with the same responses for over 12 hours
mong

>>136388843

I've asked if there are grills on Brit/pol/ before and no one answered. I theorise that Brit/pol/ has an even higher ratio of men because it only caters to Brits and is less spazzy energetic than greater /pol/.

Are you even really a girl? What brings you to Brit/pol/?

>>136393372
>No, it's your wording and your constant attempt to change the subject.

I disagree. I don't try to change the subject.

>You never specified this, you absolute fucking mongrel

I did, almost every fucking post.

>So you just decided to state this after 8 hours you utter fucking mong?

I thought it was implied by "voice an opinion".

Yes I did lad, unless you think that I thought that it took over two centuries for the British to act upon Dutch expertise from 1688, and that they somehow used something that hadn't yet been invented in 1713 and 1757 to secure the empire?

You didn't post your points.

>>136393881
There were breaks in between but make of it what you will, I'm browsing Brit/pol/ and if some mong is parading around with his shit points, its worth raising them.

>>136393941
>Are you even really a girl? What brings you to Brit/pol/?
If xhe(she)(male)(xir) is really a girl, then she(?) is here for attention, obviously.

>>136393642
I don't 100% believe this after seeing some results in the latest election. It is the case in 95% of the seats still though

>>136393946
>I disagree. I don't try to change the subject.
See this list,
>>136393832

>I did, almost every fucking post.
You specified an opinion, when asked what sort of opinion, you told us how she would enact it. "Forcefully" or "strongly"

>Yes I did lad, unless you think that I thought that it took over two centuries for the British to act upon Dutch expertise from 1688, and that they somehow used something that hadn't yet been invented in 1713 and 1757 to secure the empire?
>backtracking this hard

>You didn't post your points.
The points in all my posts you keep glossing over you mongrel. I hope you remove your trip in shame today.

>>136393451
No, that was unironically my position. You see, I assumed you were referring to case law precedent because you said she CAN'T, and of course when I mentioned the potential for the monarch to prevail, you denied the possibility, further strengthening my internal belief.

I think we've been talking past eachother all this time, mon amis.

>>136393958
yes but its just back and forth and no one conceding. you cunts both going to carry this into comfy hours and tomorrow no doubt ill be seeing this tomorrow.

I hope NappyTheMan continues to post under his trip, I can see him being a great source of humour in the weeks to come.

>>136393941
Girls have learned to be quiet and not draw attention to themselves on 4chan
I call it digital conservatism

>>136394155
>I think we've been talking past eachother all this time, mon amis.
Is that why you bragged about "winning the argument" an hour after it ended and made a poll asking who won, you sad fucking cunt?

File: asf23sadf.jpg (44KB, 598x451px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 598x451px

Look out for the warning signs of FGM these summer holidays,

Signs include being little white Molly from tunbridge wells

>>136393778
Oh, it's terribly important, but part of the problem was the fact it was shady.

Also, that wasn't a battle the Monarchy wanted to fight because it looked awfully bad. I think it's a different kettle of fish regarding the queen openly voicing an opinion, as opposed to doing so behind closed doors.

POLES OUT

PAKIS IN

GLOBAL BREXIT BRITAIN

https://twitter.com/LTHlondon/status/894256732289069057

File: tits or gtfo.png (78KB, 1254x261px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1254x261px

>>136388843
you know the law

>>136393941
I only post when I'm drinking
but I mainly come here for news
and the hope I can find people who think like brit/pol/ in real life
I hate normal faggy guys

>>136393832
I don't see where I backtracked. From my first post on the matter, I post the power of the monarch to influence public opinion.

No constitutional levers being pulled, nothing to do with royal assent.

>>136393062
What did you have for dinner, Kevin?

>>136394248
>here are some signs a girl may be at risk
1. her parents are muslim
2. her parents didn't bin that knife
3. her parents are muslim

>>136394155
>I assumed you were referring to case law precedent
Hahahaha fucking hell lad, we had an hour argument where I was trying to explain to you that not all precedent is case law. You're pathetic Nappy, you should have given up after the fall of Paris in 1814.

>>136394311
see it before
and basically I just don't want to show my tits

>>136394381
Then you're broken. To say nothing of the fact, the post ends in you yapping on about the colonisation of India without answering the points on constitutional law.

File: 1473897901666.jpg (1MB, 3920x2730px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3920x2730px

>>136394301
based gay black man!!!!!!

>>136394322
put the trip back on pube you queer

>>136394248
ffs

File: IMG_2478.png (910KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

910KB, 750x1334px

>>136394248
>>136394248
Female genital modification is the scourge of white middle class Britain

>>136389656
Is she the model who got kidnapped in Milan?

>>136394464
>>136394155
DanTheFag backtracking as per, that's not what he thinks it is. I differentiated stare decisis as in judicial precedent from certain traditions the monarch were bound to.

>>136394115
>The Bank of England was required for the establishment of British naval supremacy (1713), and the establishment of British supremacy in America and India (1757), but yeah, I totally thought it was 1894.

Come on lad, don't be silly.

>You specified an opinion, when asked what sort of opinion, you told us how she would enact it. "Forcefully" or "strongly"

That is, with conviction. Loudly, very apparently. Nowhere did I mention royal assent.

> The points in all my posts you keep glossing over

Most of them didn't seem especially relevant. Care to point them out?

>I hope you remove your trip in shame today.

Because of people misreading my posts? Nah

>>136394248
>FGM is particularly prevalent during school holidays
Aye, smuggling yourself into somalia is very expensive and time consuming. Not something you can do over a long weekend.

File: 1500578723497.jpg (169KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1024x768px

>>136394429
He is the 52%

>>136394229
Because as far as I was concerned I HAD, because I assumed Eddie was making a different point than he actually was, and he assumed the same about me.

>Made a poll

strawpolls are very popular on brit/pol/

15 of my family, sister/parents, aunt/uncle/cousins and grandparents are all white english.

What about you brit pol, how many siblings, parents and close relatives do you have are pure whites?

>>136394630
It's literally impossible without brain injury that he assumed we were talking about case law only, I specifically remember posting that he was viewing it as judicial alone when it encompasses the entire state.

>>136394682
>That is, with conviction. Loudly, very apparently. Nowhere did I mention royal assent.
>>136353904

>Most of them didn't seem especially relevant. Care to point them out?
If you were better at reading, you could've ended this argument in 2 hours.

File: 1499559082070.gif (5KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 500x500px

>>136394539
Ooops. Bit drunk tonight.

>>136394765

>>136394846
I can't name a single extended family member who is non-white

>>136394464
>not all precedent is case law.

Right, but you said she CAN'T, which implies the matter is settled, which if it was would be by case law.

You've misunderstood me, I've misunderstood you. Fin.

>>136394962
>You've misunderstood me, I've misunderstood you. Fin.
No, you've just altered your point so much because you can't bare to be wrong (which you were every time).

File: tonibler.png (76KB, 470x637px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 470x637px

>>136392682

>>136394484
>I don't see where I backtracked

My first post was all about the Monarch voicing their opinion. That was the crux of the argument, it's a shame you can't see that.

>yapping on about the colonisation of India

Because I considered that benefit to outweigh any issues that arose from 1688. I never said you were wrong constitutionally about 1688.

File: criminal scum.jpg (509KB, 986x768px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 986x768px

>>136394469
>I just don't want to show my tits
then gtfo, criminal scum

File: 1498634275004.jpg (13KB, 332x443px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 332x443px

>>136394846
>tfw no living relatives

>>136394962
Here's a poem for you
http://www.mikeharding.co.uk/books/poetry/poems/napoleons-retreat-from-wigan/

DanTheMan watches Cowboy Bebop, he told me yesterday
definitely a nonce

>>136395130
>My first post was all about the Monarch voicing their opinion. That was the crux of the argument, it's a shame you can't see that.
You utter fucking mong, if you can't grasp by this point what I'm saying, it's utterly hopeless even explaining but I have went over multiple times in this thread that you were painfully unspecific in your examples given and when questioned you resorted to simply describing how a monarch would do this, as opposed to enact it. You DID imply Royal Assent by claiming the Monarch should openly declare a certain bit of legislation is regrettable. You didn't state an opinion on the EU/immigration until THIS THREAD and only after I mentioned it and brought those examples up to you.

You'd have to be utterly brain dead to not grasp the point after this much explanation, so it isn't a misunderstanding, it's willfull ignorance on your behalf.

File: stop right there criminal scum.jpg (41KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 512x384px

>>136394469

Excuse me do you have a licence for your gender?

>>136394630
>DanTheFag

Wow, great one.

>backtracking

Lies.

Eddie said she CAN'T, which obviously implies the matter is settled by case law.

File: IMG_0399.jpg (30KB, 260x424px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 260x424px

>>136395386
Do you have a license inspection license?

>>136395442
>Eddie said she CAN'T
this desperate to misrepresent my point. Lel

>>136394908
That wasn't to do with Royal Assent, it was to do with her opinion on legislation. Never said it wouldn't be given royal assent.

>If you were better at reading, you could've ended this argument in 2 hours.

I'm the best here at reading, it would appear.

they've been arguing about the precedent shit for the last 10 threads.

Please stfu.

>>136394913
fuck that is so mesmerizing

>>136395554
Do you have a license to ask?

>>136385414
Dude I did AAT and moved onto ACCA now. AAT is easy but in the accounts sector you need experience too. AAT has also changed its syllabus and is harder now.

>>136395046
>bare

*Bear

Also, I wasn't wrong, they unironically misinterpreted me. They're now trying to find a single post over 7 hours where I didn't mention an opinion or view, and they can't.

>>136395610
It's funny because the argument hasn't even advanced.

File: PFG.jpg (109KB, 600x766px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 600x766px

>>136395345
NONCES OUT!

>>136395610
you think they're going to stop now? nope its going on well into comfy hours and probably even tomorrow. fucking hope all cunts involved get cancer.

>>136395758
Aye..

>>136395686
>Bank of England was established in 1894, lad
The Bank of England was established in 1694**

>Also, I wasn't wrong, they unironically misinterpreted me.
You willfully misinterpreted all of this. You're a disgrace. Get rid of your trip and leave you fucking mongrel.

File: IMG_2198.png (5KB, 477x597px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 477x597px

>>136395623
FUCK

File: camillagate.png (44KB, 1437x861px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1437x861px

>you now remember Camillagate

>>136395832
>Get rid of your trip and leave you fucking mongrel.
No!

>>136395758
Fucking tripniggers need a 12ft drop with a 6ft rope, I swear

File: 1tripbtfo.png (340KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 640x360px

>>136395721
stop fucking replying to him edward im warning you

>>136395351
>You DID imply Royal Assent by claiming the Monarch should openly declare a certain bit of legislation is regrettable.

Doesn't imply royal assent wouldn't be granted, though. Just that the Queen can voice disapproval of legislation.

>You'd have to be utterly brain dead to not grasp the point after this much explanation, so it isn't a misunderstanding, it's willfull ignorance on your behalf.

I assumed people here could understand the difference between "expressing a view" and "blocking legislation". I suppose I thought too highly of people here.

I was pressed on what I meant by "strongly"? Well, it's pretty self evident. It obviously means loudly or with conviction. Somehow you read into it all kinds of things I never said.

>>136395973
>I assumed people here could understand the difference between "expressing a view" and "blocking legislation". I suppose I thought too highly of people here.

Read it again.

>it's utterly hopeless even explaining but I have went over multiple times in this thread that you were painfully unspecific in your examples given and when questioned you resorted to simply describing how a monarch would do this, as opposed to enact it. You DID imply Royal Assent by claiming the Monarch should openly declare a certain bit of legislation is regrettable. You didn't state an opinion on the EU/immigration until THIS THREAD and only after I mentioned it and brought those examples up to you.

>>136395581
That's what you said over and over again.

If you said, "She CAN, but it would cause all kinds of turmoil" I would've agreed. You denied that it was possible by law, which is why I assumed something must've either been codified or settled by case law.

File: 1499628244291.jpg (18KB, 400x249px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x249px

>>136394597

http://www.strawpoll.me/13643254

>>136396095
You didn't though. I stated several times that it was within her legal powers to prorogue and dissolve parliament, assign prime ministers and act against ministerial advice but she wouldn't do it. I stated this numerous times, if need be, I'll go back and ctrl+f them and you responded to me with the same points you're trying to defend as a misunderstanding now.

>>136395832
I know it was, lad. Mistyped tbqh. Either that, or you think I invoked it in reference to 18th century wars establishing naval and colonial supremacy, while thinking it didn't exist.

>You willfully misinterpreted all of this. You're a disgrace. Get rid of your trip and leave you fucking mongrel.

I didn't. You misinterpreted me, and so I in turn misinterpreted your responses.

I think its an honest mistake on both our parts, but you seem to insist on painting my motivations in the worst possible light.

File: autism levels.jpg (57KB, 567x561px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 567x561px

>>136395934
>A box of Tampax, so you could just keep going.

File: IMG_1373.png (308KB, 492x419px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 492x419px

>>136395966
>It's autism awareness weekend on britpol again

>>136396048
>You DID imply Royal Assent by claiming the Monarch should openly declare a certain bit of legislation is regrettable

Which is expressing a view.

I can see how you could've interpreted it differently, but you should've asked for clarification.

>>136396433
WILL YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY

>>136396338
I know it was, lad. Mistyped tbqh. Either that, or you think I don't know the difference between "bear" and "bare", while thinking they didn't exist.

>I didn't. You misinterpreted me, and so I in turn misinterpreted your responses.
You've done that all night and read my posts again and respond to my points that you keep ignoring.

>>it's utterly hopeless even explaining but I have went over multiple times in this thread that you were painfully unspecific in your examples given and when questioned you resorted to simply describing how a monarch would do this, as opposed to enact it. You didn't state an opinion on the EU/immigration until THIS THREAD and only after I mentioned it and brought those examples up to you.