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 isn't using parliamentary process.
She is using legal process because parliament left things unclear.

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.

Apologies if I've used incorrect terminology however my point still stands.

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.

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?

The moral right maybe, but an advisory referendum legally can't override an Act of Parliament.

No, the PM hasn't been given that right. That belongs to parliament.

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.

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...

So if you are removing the people's right to challenge the Government over issues with the law, who keeps the Government in check?

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?

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?

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.

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.

Agreed. I've read the European Union referendum Act 2015. It's shoddy legislation. There's no reference to Article 50, an agreed question or an agreed process.

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.

OK, so we move on to the method of withdrawal. Of course the referendum didn't give options for exit with plan A, B, C etc. as I hope all will agree that was totally unworkable. What is unambiguous about the result is that we are leaving. The campaign to stay heralded that if we vote out it would mean leaving the single market, financial turbulence mandating an emergency budget, plague of locusts.... And the majority of people still voted out. Out without conditions, out without delay.

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.

No she doesn't hate democracy, she is challenging the procedures. That she is entitled to do, particularly as the referendum was advisory. Furthermore the spirit and principle of the law blathered about in this thread and which has existed for at least 250 years is, Parliament, Lords , tested by the judiciary. Little acknowledged fact that new legislation can in fact be deemed illegal if it is in conflict with existing legislation or legal principles. The government challenging the high court ruling backfired big time because the argument then turned to whether the British government could unilaterally break a treaty in the name of the UK, and what it meant for the treaties keeping the UK together.

Can I ask, do you believe that the will of the majority of the people who voted in this 'advisory' referendum should be ignored?

Any thoughts why camerons ref bill he put before parliament he did not write in the bill it would be legally binding ?

Are you a professional politician? You appeared to avoid answering my question.

Or why the referendum bill didn't contain details of how the UK would exit the EU if thats how the vote went.

Do you believe that Parliament have the right to vote against the will of the people on this particular issue?

Doesn't matter what the government 'intend' to do if Parliament are allowed to vote on the issue and decide to vote against the EU referendum result thus triggering a constitutional crises.

Inconvenient truth: http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...&postcount=129

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/