|
||||||||
Gina Miller hates democracy |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#251 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 4,372
|
Quote:
gina miller is briliant.
My view, and I've no doubt many others, is that as Parliament approved the referendum and by implication the result, the PM does not have to return to Parliament to exit the EU. This decision did not originate from the PM, she didn't even want Brexit, however to her credit she is exercising (well that's still to be proven) the will of the majority of those who bothered to vote. It is in that context that I, and again I believe many other, believe that Gina Millar is using parliamentary process to delay (overturn) a decision that she and her supporter did not want, and hence has become very unpopular. If the PM had woken up one morning and decided that everyone not born in the UK must leave by the end of the year and tried to make that law without parliaments approval, then as her decision did not have (formal) approval by the populous, that would be a different matter and the current legal process would be justified. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#252 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,483
|
Quote:
This doesn't diminish your comment however my view is she is just using parliamentary process as a smoke screen to attempt to delay Brexit.
My view, and I've no doubt many others, is that as Parliament approved the referendum and by implication the result, the PM does not have to return to Parliament to exit the EU. This decision did not originate from the PM, she didn't even want Brexit, however to her credit she is exercising (well that's still to be proven) the will of the majority of those who bothered to vote. It is in that context that I, and again I believe many other, believe that Gina Millar is using parliamentary process to delay (overturn) a decision that she and her supporter did not want, and hence has become very unpopular. If the PM had woken up one morning and decided that everyone not born in the UK must leave by the end of the year and tried to make that law without parliaments approval, then as her decision did not have (formal) approval by the populous, that would be a different matter and the current legal process would be justified. She is using legal process because parliament left things unclear. |
|
|
|
|
|
#253 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
|
Quote:
This doesn't diminish your comment however my view is she is just using parliamentary process as a smoke screen to attempt to delay Brexit.
My view, and I've no doubt many others, is that as Parliament approved the referendum and by implication the result, the PM does not have to return to Parliament to exit the EU. |
|
|
|
|
|
#254 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 4,372
|
Quote:
She isn't using parliamentary process.
She is using legal process because parliament left things unclear. |
|
|
|
|
|
#255 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,479
|
Quote:
This doesn't diminish your comment however my view is she is just using parliamentary process as a smoke screen to attempt to delay Brexit.
My view, and I've no doubt many others, is that as Parliament approved the referendum and by implication the result, the PM does not have to return to Parliament to exit the EU. This decision did not originate from the PM, she didn't even want Brexit, however to her credit she is exercising (well that's still to be proven) the will of the majority of those who bothered to vote. It is in that context that I, and again I believe many other, believe that Gina Millar is using parliamentary process to delay (overturn) a decision that she and her supporter did not want, and hence has become very unpopular. If the PM had woken up one morning and decided that everyone not born in the UK must leave by the end of the year and tried to make that law without parliaments approval, then as her decision did not have (formal) approval by the populous, that would be a different matter and the current legal process would be justified. Whatever Gina's motives, she is acting within the law, and we will soon learn if May is attempting to break the law. |
|
|
|
|
|
#256 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 4,372
|
Quote:
The fact that Parliament specifically made the referendum advisory implies the result was not approved. To overturn the 1972 Act taking us in you need an Act of Parliament to take us out and and Act for an advisory referendum ain't it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#257 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
|
Quote:
Advisory or not do you believe the result to be ambiguous? Do you not believe that the PM has been given the legal right to act on the will of the people? I actually thought that politicians are elected to carry out the will of the people?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#258 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort William
Posts: 22,270
|
Quote:
Advisory or not do you believe the result to be ambiguous? Do you not believe that the PM has been given the legal right to act on the will of the people? I actually thought that politicians are elected to carry out the will of the people?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#259 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,479
|
Quote:
Advisory or not do you believe the result to be ambiguous? Do you not believe that the PM has been given the legal right to act on the will of the people? I actually thought that politicians are elected to carry out the will of the people?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#260 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 4,372
|
Quote:
With all respect, your view, and even "many others" counts for nothing if the law says otherwise. We are a country with rule of law, and if you are in favour of all things British, then since Magna Carta, even a king or a Prime Minister is not above the law.
Whatever Gina's motives, she is acting within the law, and we will soon learn if May is attempting to break the law. I propose that in this case 'the law is an ass' as it is being used to circumvent the will of the people in this particular context. The law needs changing... |
|
|
|
|
|
#261 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,057
|
Quote:
I don't see the PM acting outside of the law and I don't believe I'm alone in this. What I do see is an opportunist attempting to delay / overturn the will of the people. Not listening to the people when they have spoken has not gone down well in the past. The subtlety here is that the PM is attempting to act on the will of the people, not a decision of her own making.
I propose that in this case 'the law is an ass' as it is being used to circumvent the will of the people in this particular context. The law needs changing... |
|
|
|
|
|
#262 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 4,372
|
Quote:
The moral right maybe, but an advisory referendum legally can't override an Act of Parliament.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#263 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 4,372
|
Quote:
So if you are removing the people's right to challenge the Government over issues with the law, who keeps the Government in check?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#264 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,479
|
Quote:
I don't see the PM acting outside of the law and I don't believe I'm alone in this. What I do see is an opportunist attempting to delay / overturn the will of the people. Not listening to the people when they have spoken has not gone down well in the past. The subtlety here is that the PM is attempting to act on the will of the people, not a decision of her own making.
I propose that in this case 'the law is an ass' as it is being used to circumvent the will of the people in this particular context. The law needs changing... No one cares what you "see" or if you are alone. We have a legal system, and the Supreme Court will decide if May would be breaking the law if she uses RP to trigger A50. There is no subtlety here at all. Everyone has to obey the law, no exceptions, not even the Prime Minister, since Magna Carta. Yes, the correct process if the law needs changing is to change it, and guess what, that needs parliament! So either way May can't ignore parliament or the law and just do what she likes, whatever subtleties you see. |
|
|
|
|
|
#265 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,057
|
Quote:
No, in general I am not removing the right to challenge, I am merely suggesting that in this unique situation that right is redundant as it was the people who authorised the government to proceed. That is necessary for almost all situations however not this one. Are you saying that the populous have the right to challenge the government on it's decision to carry out what the populous just approved the government to do?
Which is what is happening here. |
|
|
|
|
|
#266 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North London
Posts: 15,449
|
Quote:
The moral right maybe, but an advisory referendum legally can't override an Act of Parliament.
This Act was invitation for legal challenges and a shop soiled referendum result. I was silly enough to endorse this whole shambolic process, by voting on 23 June 2016. |
|
|
|
|
|
#267 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 4,372
|
Quote:
I'm saying that the populous have the right to challenge the method and detail of the withdrawal, and not to give the government or the PM a blank cheque.
Which is what is happening here. I agree that the populous did not give the PM / government a blank cheque as I will be spitting feathers if any sort of freedom of movement of people is retained. So we leave asap, the government negotiate privately on a new arrangement with the EU and then when it believes that it has it's best deal presents it to Parliament for debate / amendment / ratification. What is not in the UKs interest is showing all our cards to the EU negotiators in advance by having Parliament debate every nuance of our proposals in advance. |
|
|
|
|
|
#268 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,772
|
Quote:
This women is so evil and she is a friend of Merkel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#269 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 4,372
|
Quote:
You seem to have a highly exaggerated view of th importance of your own views.
No one cares what you "see" or if you are alone. We have a legal system, and the Supreme Court will decide if May would be breaking the law if she uses RP to trigger A50. There is no subtlety here at all. Everyone has to obey the law, no exceptions, not even the Prime Minister, since Magna Carta. Yes, the correct process if the law needs changing is to change it, and guess what, that needs parliament! So either way May can't ignore parliament or the law and just do what she likes, whatever subtleties you see. |
|
|
|
|
|
#270 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,218
|
Quote:
Any thoughts on why Cameron didn't come out that morning and tell the worlds press that the referendum was actually advisory, he's considered the will of the people and has decided that in his view the UK is best served by remaining in the EU and hence it's business as usual?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#271 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 4,372
|
Quote:
Any thoughts why camerons ref bill he put before parliament he did not write in the bill it would be legally binding ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#272 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,483
|
Quote:
Any thoughts why camerons ref bill he put before parliament he did not write in the bill it would be legally binding ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#273 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 4,372
|
Quote:
No, the PM hasn't been given that right. That belongs to parliament.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#274 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 4,372
|
Quote:
She clearly hasn't been given the "legal right" to do anything. It was advisory, and the government said it intended to implement the result, but that doesn't change the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#275 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Retford
Posts: 20,450
|
Quote:
Interview with Andrew Marr she said 'the case was now not about the referendum result, but "how we leave the EU".
"The elephant in the room is actually about leaving the EU, it is not about reversing leaving the EU' So who's bullsh1ting? Quote:
Have you read her interview in "The Week"? It blatantly has her confirming that she wanted to stop Brexit. What she has said in interviews since is clearly spin as directed by her lawyers. All the lawyers representing her are pro-EU.
Maybe, just maybe... what Miller says in the public realm on a major broadcaster and what she tells other people elsewhere might be two different things, the latter being her true intention. Oh, and there'll be another court action to stop Brexit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...ed-high-court/ |
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:21.




