DS Forums

 
 

Gina Miller hates democracy


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 31-12-2016, 14:16
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,218
Most politicians are saying that the EU is the bee's knees. Most politicians have to compromise, in a democracy I would expect no less.
I did not ask you that, i did not ask about the EU. I asked . Do you believe David Davis is a trustworthy and honest and will stick by what he believes ?
tim59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 31-12-2016, 14:17
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
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.
It would have been nice if the populous had had the right to challenge the method of joining the EU but we did not why on earth would we get a say in how to leave. That duty belongs in Parliament. We should have had a say whether we should join and we did have a say as regards leaving.
Blairdennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 14:17
Aurora13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,592
What is the point of a vote after the negotiations are complete? We leave the EU two years after triggering A50, whether we've agreed to a deal or not. She could negotiate the worse deal on Earth that pleases no one and voting against it will just mean the chaos of no deal at all when we leave, and probably 1000 court cases being launched to challenge anything anyone tries to do. Utter madness.

I didn't mention Stalin. There are many flavours of dictatorships.
ECJ will have ruled that A50 can be untriggered by then 😉

It will be Tory deal / UKIP not supporting deal just wanting to fall out of EU / other parties wanting to untrigger A50 so that we stay in or get a better deal. Likely vote of no confidence in Tory government to put options to British public at general election.
Aurora13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 14:21
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
I did not ask you that, i did not ask about the EU. I asked . Do you believe David Davis is a trustworthy and honest and will stick by what he believes ?
I answered, he may compromise in his beliefs as every politician did who did not want to join the EU in the first place. Trustworthy and honest? I have no reason to believe he is less trustworthy and honest than most and have reason to believe he is more trustworthy and honest than many.
Blairdennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 14:25
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
I disagree, I think Parliament should be supreme, I don't want to be more like Switzerland.
No parliament is supreme because it draws that power from the electorate. It is the electorate that lend that sovereignty to parliament to act in the best interests of the electorate. That is why any act by Parliament to dilute or change the sovereignty of the electorate should seek the permission of the electorate to do so. That has always been the way until the the EEC arrived.
Blairdennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 14:25
kidspud
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,490
Most politicians are saying that the EU is the bee's knees. Most politicians have to compromise, in a democracy I would expect no less.
i don't think any politician has said that.
kidspud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 14:28
kidspud
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,490
No parliament is supreme because it draws that power from the electorate. It is the electorate that lend that sovereignty to parliament to act in the best interests of the electorate. That is why any act by Parliament to dilute or change the sovereignty of the electorate should seek the permission of the electorate to do so. That has always been the way until the the EEC arrived.
are you just making stuff up?
kidspud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 14:31
Kiteview
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,812
Most politicians are saying that the EU is the bee's knees. Most politicians have to compromise, in a democracy I would expect no less.
MPs & Peers are there to make decisions on our laws based on what THEY believe is in our national interest. They don't have to "compromise" - a nice euphemism for them
voting against what they may (or may not) believe is in the national interest.

The vast majority of them will be perfectly aware that measures such as tax hikes and spending cuts are rarely ones that a majority of the electorate support yet frequently in the national interest.
Kiteview is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 14:37
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,218
I answered, he may compromise in his beliefs as every politician did who did not want to join the EU in the first place. Trustworthy and honest? I have no reason to believe he is less trustworthy and honest than most and have reason to believe he is more trustworthy and honest than many.
Yet becoming part of the government, meant throwing away what he believed in and was and did take the government to court not. But now to stay in his job he must back the government against the people which he said he was fighting for. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...Yi5ud4hoh1JfWA
tim59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 15:21
Zaphodski
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 4,372
Is that because you don't like outright lies being pointed out to you?
Please elaborate on how this specific slogan is a lie? 'We send the EU £350M a week. Let's fund our NHS instead' I interpreted it as the net balance of payments to the EU could be used to increase the NHS budget. They could be split across a number sectors (eg research grants etc). Personally, I believe that initially all UK recipients of EU (ie UK) grants should remain at 100%, to be reviewed in a few years time as part of the normal budgetary review process. Of course it makes emotive headlines to accuse the originators of lying when the money is not yet even available, nor do they have the power to spend it!

Can you explain your legal background in thinking this, as you are obviously an experienced legal mind with extensive knowledge of parliamentary law?
Ah sarcasm, one of my favourite modes of communication. Sorry to disappoint you however I am not a member of the bar. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what crime she would be guilty of committing? Could she be put on trial by standard jury? What if her jury just happened to be Brexiters who found her innocent as she was not acting against the will of the people!

Because he's a sniveling git?
Which is your opinion of his character, not an explanation of his decision. What do you think he should have done that morning?


When was this plan agreed, if there were no plans on the table?
I'm not aware of any official plan, however this is how I would play it out.

It shouldn't be, and it won't be. However, even though Brexit means Brexit and is red, white and blue, no-one actually knows what Brexit involves.
The ballot said should the UK leave the EU or remain in the EU. I, and the majority of those who voted, ticked leave. Based on the question on the ballot paper I expect the UK to leave, unconditionally, the EU. A new relationship can then be negotiated with the remaining EU states collectively, or individually should their country wish to leave the EU too. I am happy for these negotiations to commence earlier as long as they do not delay our departure.

They have the right to vote against an advisory referendum, as it is only advisory. However, it is unlikely they will ignore the advice.
I didn't fully read the government leaflet that was sent to every house in the country. Did it boldly indicate that the referendum was advisory and that the government could ignore the result if it didn't like it?
If, as you say, Parliament are unlikely to vote against the public, as the PM / government have said all along, they will present the new proposed EU relationship to Parliament for ratification prior to any agreement with the EU and therefore I see no need for the legal challenge on this specific issue. Total waste of public money.

Do you think MPs should just hand over all decision making to May (who became PM on the say so of fewer then 200 Tory MPs) on everything?
This last statement of yours just hits the nail on the head as to why so many people are hacked off with this legal challenge. No, Parliament is there to debate and vote on all legislation initiated solely by the government. As I've said previously, this is essential to prevent a stealthy rise of dictatorship hysterically voiced in this thread. I agree with the process in general. However.... this issue is unique as Parliament approved the referendum without mandating that Remain was the only valid outcome. Therefore the PM, and her government, have been told directly by the electorate to leave the EU. Parliament represent the constituents however on this occasion the constituents have indicated their desired outcome directly to the government. Therefore the UK government have a direct mandate from the people to take the UK out of the EU. Parliaments does not need to be consulted again on this unique issue.
Zaphodski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 15:21
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
i don't think any politician has said that.
You know what I mean.
Blairdennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 15:24
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
are you just making stuff up?
That is the nature of the consensus upon which parliament has sovereignty. If you think it is something else then it would be interesting to know what.
Blairdennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 15:32
Zaphodski
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 4,372
Ask niceguy1966...

2. Maybe so, but until it is changed it requires Parliament to overturn an act, in this case the 1972 Act.
If this is the legal situation then as PM I would quickly and simply create a bill stating only, and without any qualification, that Parliament overturn the 1972 Act. This should have been rushed through Parliament as soon as the legal challenge was made. This will put challenge Parliament to fall in line with the people who elected them and demonstrate what a complete ass and waste of money this situation is. Should Parliament do the unthinkable then a constitutional crises looms.
Zaphodski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 15:35
Zaphodski
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 4,372
Parliament is sovereign, not the people. That goes for all issues unless parliament explicitly binds itself to the outcome of a referendum.
It didn't in this case.
One of many oversights in the enabling legislation.
So Parliament can act against the will of the people? I thought Parliament was created in its current form to represent the people, not oppress them?
Zaphodski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 15:40
Zaphodski
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 4,372
Sorry, but you are going to have to remind me what it was.
'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?'
Zaphodski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 15:48
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,483
So Parliament can act against the will of the people? I thought Parliament was created in its current form to represent the people, not oppress them?
Thats why we have elections - to get rid of governments.
They are elected to govern - the clue is in the name.
Referendums are advisory as has been pointed out, but it would be a suicidal government that ignored the result.
The activity in the High Courts is not about ignoring the referendum. Its about making sure that it happens legally so that it can't be challenged later. Parliament fell down badly when it framed the referendum bill. It is fairly common for poor legislation to be clarified later in the courts. And that is what is happening here.
All the drama and hyperbole whipped up by some parts of the press is from ignorance. Journalists are not constitutional lawyers.
Oppression is a very real problem in some countries. Not in ours.
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 15:56
Zaphodski
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 4,372
Because he decided that we should leave but that he wasn't the person to do it.

None of that affects the law one iota.
Yet another attempt to avoid answering my question. He didn't change his mind and join the Leave camp. From what I'm being told on this forum he had every right to disregard the outcome of the referendum and soldier on against public opinion. Why didn't he do that? After all we are learning that it was only an advisory referendum.
Zaphodski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 16:00
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
Yet another attempt to avoid answering my question. He didn't change his mind and join the Leave camp. From what I'm being told on this forum he had every right to disregard the outcome of the referendum and soldier on against public opinion. Why didn't he do that? After all we are learning that it was only an advisory referendum.
He lost an argument where he'd strongly backed the other side. He had to resign. That's why he didn't stay on.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 16:01
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,483
Yet another attempt to avoid answering my question. He didn't change his mind and join the Leave camp. From what I'm being told on this forum he had every right to disregard the outcome of the referendum and soldier on against public opinion. Why didn't he do that? After all we are learning that it was only an advisory referendum.
Electoral suicide, and it would break the "trust" that is needed between the voters and parliament.
And I reckon he knew he had screwed up big time and didn't have a fekkin clue about implementing the outcome. Not a clue.
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 16:03
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
Please elaborate on how this specific slogan is a lie? 'We send the EU £350M a week.
We only send the EU about 250m a week. The 350 is a lie.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 16:04
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
Ask niceguy1966...
You said the law needs changing, I asked which one.

If this is the legal situation then as PM I would quickly and simply create a bill stating only, and without any qualification, that Parliament overturn the 1972 Act. This should have been rushed through Parliament as soon as the legal challenge was made. This will put challenge Parliament to fall in line with the people who elected them and demonstrate what a complete ass and waste of money this situation is. Should Parliament do the unthinkable then a constitutional crises looms.
That's exactly what is required.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 16:06
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
So Parliament can act against the will of the people? I thought Parliament was created in its current form to represent the people, not oppress them?
It's to lead. So a Tory govt elected with less than 50% of the electorate can make laws the other parties representing over 50% of the electorate oppose.

It's the Parliamentary democracy we have instead of the endless Coalitions they often have in systems where the MPs better represent the electorate.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 16:07
Zaphodski
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 4,372
If the SC rules that, under our constitution, a decision on whether or not we leave the EU is entirely up to Parliament then we clearly would not have a "constitutional crisis" should Parliament make such a decision (and irrespective of what it so decides).
I agree with you entirely if Parliament and the people hold the same opinion. However should Parliament vote against the will of the people (who elected them to represent their views) then only an idiot would be convincing themselves that all is well in the world.

In fact, the SC ruling may well bring our "constitutional crisis" to an end as it will establish what the correct procedure should be. And, it should be noted that our leading Leave politicians literally had decades in which they could have brought legislation to Parliament in which a procedure for leaving the EU could have been voted upon which would have made the job of the SC much simpler and saved everyone the current court cases.
Please explain how leading Leave Labour / Tory politicians could have brought such legislation when the nether party endorsed leaving the EU in the first place. Think it through.....
Zaphodski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 16:14
Zaphodski
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 4,372
No, they didn't vote for that. That may have been what some wanted but it wasn't on the ballot paper. And I'm sure there's plenty of leavers who'd like enough "delay" to thrash out a proper deal with the EU.
...and neither did the ballot paper say 'use up endless parliamentary time fannying around over the definition of Brexit until everyone agrees or hell freezes over, and then leave.'

May must press the button now and everyone should talk while the clock is running. Better still, as a so called expert on international law explained it, there is no need to invoke article 51 and it's 2 year negotiation period, the UK could leave tomorrow. If true, that would certainly focus everyone rather than procrastinate until the next global extinction...
Zaphodski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 16:16
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,483
MPs are not elected to represent peoples' views.
That has never been the case in the UK.
They are elected to represent their constituents best interests, and if they win the general election, to act in the nation's best interests.
They aren't and never have been puppets.
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:21.