You need to stop seeing everything in the context of sex. I get more fun
from playing poker than that thanks.

"...Parliament cannot bind its successors by stipulating against repeal,
wholly or partly, of the 1972 Act.

Lisbon amends the 1972 Act.

That's the bit I don't get - if I've got it right, the principle of
Parliamentary sovereignty means that no government can put into law
anything that would overturn Parliamentary sovereignty. It would simply
not be valid. Or have I got it wrong?

There's lots of scope for a constitutional crisis.

But surely only if the highest court struggles with this principle that
has stood for so long and effectively amends the law itself through
interpretation.

Special Care wrote:
On Nov 4, 11:05 pm, Maria <oldwo... at (no spam) theshoe.ac.uk> wrote:
You need to stop seeing everything in the context of sex. I get more fun
from playing poker than that thanks.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I love playing poker.

But the mother-infant relationship is sex.

It's the universal imprint, which we are condemned to imitate and
repeat, Oxana Malaya style.

It's foolish to imagine any of us ever outlived that sexual
relationship with our mothers.

My mother dumped me. My father dumped me. I never had such a
relationship so I don't know anything about it, sorry. I have 6 lovely
children, who I would never dump, and that's been enough for me.

 It's a treat to see young
asylum seekers laughing and smoking on town centre benches, while
British lads of a similar age are dying in the third-world cess pit from
whence they came.

------------------------------------------------------------

The gods have made us mad wrote:

Not to mention the EU military conscription forms dropping through the
letterbox - how proud you'll feel when your own eligible relatives march
off to do their bit for the empire...

Do any EC countries still have conscription?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'And, so far as withdrawal under I-59 is concerned, fortunately there is a
second, more powerful, string to the bow. In the Metric Martyrs' case,
Lord Justice Laws made an intriguing ruling: that Parliament does not have
the power to divest itself of its own sovereignty. In Britain, sovereignty
is derived from the people and, effectively, lent to Parliament.

"...Parliament cannot bind its successors by stipulating against repeal,
wholly or partly, of the 1972 Act.

"Maria" <oldwoman at (no spam) theshoe.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:puidnVCu1Ph0Z2zXnZ2dnUVZ8iudnZ2d at (no spam) bt.com...
'And, so far as withdrawal under I-59 is concerned, fortunately there is a
second, more powerful, string to the bow. In the Metric Martyrs' case,
Lord Justice Laws made an intriguing ruling: that Parliament does not have
the power to divest itself of its own sovereignty. In Britain, sovereignty
is derived from the people and, effectively, lent to Parliament.

"...Parliament cannot bind its successors by stipulating against repeal,
wholly or partly, of the 1972 Act.

Lisbon amends the 1972 Act.

There's lots of scope for a constitutional crisis.


But surely only if the highest court struggles with this principle that

But what's the use of this?

The experience of "The Flying Vet" shows that the so-called "law" has
no meaning if elements of the ruing group decide to target a man like
Maurice Kirk because he has ruffled their feathers.
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal/browse_thread/thread/8e2786753c3e113b?hl=en#

The fate of Patrick Cullinane tells the same story.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2004/nov/06/features.jobsmoney15

The "law" has no meaning, if the ruling group say it has no
meaning........
...as in Humpty Dumpty..... Through the Looking Glass............

Why are you so anxious to show your prowess in intellectual wrangling,
Maria?

I reckon you need cunnilingus followed by a really hard fucking once
every day to calm you down, Maria.
Your husband is falling down on the job.
http://www.jamyewaxman.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/sex_cunnilingus.jpg

You need to stop seeing everything in the context of sex. I get more fun
from playing poker than that thanks.

"Maria" <oldwoman at (no spam) theshoe.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:puidnVCu1Ph0Z2zXnZ2dnUVZ8iudnZ2d at (no spam) bt.com...
'And, so far as withdrawal under I-59 is concerned, fortunately there is a
second, more powerful, string to the bow. In the Metric Martyrs' case,
Lord Justice Laws made an intriguing ruling: that Parliament does not have
the power to divest itself of its own sovereignty. In Britain, sovereignty
is derived from the people and, effectively, lent to Parliament.

"...Parliament cannot bind its successors by stipulating against repeal,
wholly or partly, of the 1972 Act.

Lisbon amends the 1972 Act.

There's lots of scope for a constitutional crisis.

On Nov 4, 11:05 pm, Maria <oldwo... at (no spam) theshoe.ac.uk> wrote:
You need to stop seeing everything in the context of sex. I get more fun
from playing poker than that thanks.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I love playing poker.

But the mother-infant relationship is sex.

It's the universal imprint, which we are condemned to imitate and
repeat, Oxana Malaya style.

It's foolish to imagine any of us ever outlived that sexual
relationship with our mothers.

DVH wrote:
"Maria" <oldwoman at (no spam) theshoe.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:puidnVCu1Ph0Z2zXnZ2dnUVZ8iudnZ2d at (no spam) bt.com...
'And, so far as withdrawal under I-59 is concerned, fortunately there
is a second, more powerful, string to the bow. In the Metric Martyrs'
case, Lord Justice Laws made an intriguing ruling: that Parliament
does not have the power to divest itself of its own sovereignty. In
Britain, sovereignty is derived from the people and, effectively,
lent to Parliament.

"...Parliament cannot bind its successors by stipulating against
repeal, wholly or partly, of the 1972 Act.

Lisbon amends the 1972 Act.

That's the bit I don't get - if I've got it right, the principle of
Parliamentary sovereignty means that no government can put into law
anything that would overturn Parliamentary sovereignty. It would simply
not be valid. Or have I got it wrong?