DS Forums

 
 

Gina Miller hates democracy


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-01-2017, 18:20
Eurostar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 51,658
Nobody? The Irish used to be so feisty and argumentative. What's happened to them?
Mainly because people trust the High Court to deal with the appeal fairly. Even if a referendum result is overturned, then so what? Some would say that is a fine example of the legal system at work. The referendum on whatever subject can simply be held again.
Eurostar is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 01-01-2017, 18:26
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,093
Mainly because people trust the High Court to deal with the appeal fairly. Even if a referendum result is overturned, then so what? Some would say that is a fine example of the legal system at work. The referendum on whatever subject can simply be held again.
This is a joke, right? And that's the punchline. Well done, I didn't see it coming.
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 18:54
Eurostar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 51,658
This is a joke, right? And that's the punchline. Well done, I didn't see it coming.
A referendum is simply a consultation process between the government and the public where they are canvassing them on their 'advice' on a particular issue. If for some reason, the holding of the referendum was found to be legally flawed on some technical issue, the simple thing to do would be to declare the result invalid and re-run it again a few months later.

In the case of Gina Miller of course, she's not appealing the referendum result at all - her appeal is on the entirely separate matter of whether Article 50 needs to be triggered by Parliament.
Eurostar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 19:18
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 43,722
A referendum is simply a consultation process between the government and the public where they are canvassing them on their 'advice' on a particular issue. If for some reason, the holding of the referendum was found to be legally flawed on some technical issue, the simple thing to do would be to declare the result invalid and re-run it again a few months later.

In the case of Gina Miller of course, she's not appealing the referendum result at all - her appeal is on the entirely separate matter of whether Article 50 needs to be triggered by Parliament
.
Though I do wish she would pick a version of her story and stick to it

After speaking at a Mishcon de Reya diversity seminar in late June, she was approached by a partner at the law firm about bringing an Article 50 legal challenge. “Next morning I was in their office for five hours,” she said

or is it

On the night of the EU referendum Gina Miller slept for 36 minutes. “I know, because my husband gave me this watch that tracks my sleep,” she says, waving a slim wrist bearing an elegant Withings watch. Her husband and business partner, Alan Miller, went to sleep, but she sat in bed beside him in their south London home watching television

At 4am she was “physically sick” as she tried to take in what the UK had voted for. By breakfast, however, Ms Miller’s brain was clunking into gear. When her 11-year-old son heard the news, he said: “But you’re going to do something, Mummy, you always do.”

“And I said, ‘I’m not promising anything, but I will talk to some lawyers’.”
skp20040 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 19:22
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,581
Though I do wish she would pick a version of her story and stick to it

After speaking at a Mishcon de Reya diversity seminar in late June, she was approached by a partner at the law firm about bringing an Article 50 legal challenge. “Next morning I was in their office for five hours,” she said

or is it

On the night of the EU referendum Gina Miller slept for 36 minutes. “I know, because my husband gave me this watch that tracks my sleep,” she says, waving a slim wrist bearing an elegant Withings watch. Her husband and business partner, Alan Miller, went to sleep, but she sat in bed beside him in their south London home watching television

At 4am she was “physically sick” as she tried to take in what the UK had voted for. By breakfast, however, Ms Miller’s brain was clunking into gear. When her 11-year-old son heard the news, he said: “But you’re going to do something, Mummy, you always do.”

“And I said, ‘I’m not promising anything, but I will talk to some lawyers’.”
You are getting the "why" and the "what" mixed up.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 19:37
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,766
Which can include challenging the government in the courts.
I have never said it did not.
Blairdennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 19:39
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 43,722
You are getting the "why" and the "what" mixed up.
No I simply said I wish she would pick a version of how she came to bring the action and stick to it , one is that she told her son after he asked her to do something when he approached her the morning after the vote that she would speak to lawyers . She says in another interview she brought the action after she was approached by lawyers to bring the action but no mention of her son
skp20040 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 19:48
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,766
The point is that he didn't that 52-48 was satisfactorily accurately measuring the will of the people.
The point he made was that a party can still exist to have a policy of leaving the EU, just as a party can exist to have a policy of staying in or joining the EU. Either can exist and seek the electorate's support at a general election. We have never had a party whose policy was we will join the EU. All politics is unfinished business
Blairdennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 20:50
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,581
No I simply said I wish she would pick a version of how she came to bring the action and stick to it , one is that she told her son after he asked her to do something when he approached her the morning after the vote that she would speak to lawyers . She says in another interview she brought the action after she was approached by lawyers to bring the action but no mention of her son
None of which has any bearing on the rights and wrongs of the case.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 20:51
MARTYM8
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,361
The point he made was that a party can still exist to have a policy of leaving the EU, just as a party can exist to have a policy of staying in or joining the EU. Either can exist and seek the electorate's support at a general election. We have never had a party whose policy was we will join the EU. All politics is unfinished business
Apart from in the 1983 general election until UKIP came along we didn't actually have any major party standing in almost every seat supporting leaving the EU. People had no choice but to vote for pro EU parties.
MARTYM8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 20:53
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,581
The point he made was that a party can still exist to have a policy of leaving the EU, just as a party can exist to have a policy of staying in or joining the EU. Either can exist and seek the electorate's support at a general election. We have never had a party whose policy was we will join the EU. All politics is unfinished business
Indeed, as the will of the people can change. The referendum was months ago now.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 21:44
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,766
Indeed, as the will of the people can change. The referendum was months ago now.
Indeed it was and EU supporting parties can be formed and work to join the EU as a policy and be voted for at a general election. Nothing wrong with that at all, that is democracy in action and if the democratic route had been taken within the last 25 years we would not now be here. We would either never have joined or the will of the electorate would have said we wish to be in the EU. I wonder why that choice was never put to them?
Blairdennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 21:46
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,766
Apart from in the 1983 general election until UKIP came along we didn't actually have any major party standing in almost every seat supporting leaving the EU. People had no choice but to vote for pro EU parties.
Until 1992 we never really had an EU for them to make that decision about.
Blairdennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 21:54
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 43,722
None of which has any bearing on the rights and wrongs of the case.
I never said it did but it says a lot about the person bringing it when they change their story depending on who is interviewing them, whilst she may have a point don't anyone be fooled the lady is doing it for anyone's good other than that of her and her husband and their money .

Having said that about her she certainly did not deserve the morons who have threatened her safety
skp20040 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 22:20
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,581
Indeed it was and EU supporting parties can be formed and work to join the EU as a policy and be voted for at a general election. Nothing wrong with that at all, that is democracy in action and if the democratic route had been taken within the last 25 years we would not now be here.
What makes you come to that, er, counter intuitive conclusion?
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 22:28
Kiteview
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,814
Until 1992 we never really had an EU for them to make that decision about.
The decision to work towards creating the EU was made in 1972 at a Paris Summit which was the first one attended by all the political heads of government of the about to be expanded three European Communities. So opponents of the creation of the EU had the 1975 referendum and multiple general elections to persuade the public of the merits of their opposition to it. If they were too incompetent to do so the blame for their incompetence lies with them.
Kiteview is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 22:35
Kiteview
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,814
Apart from in the 1983 general election until UKIP came along we didn't actually have any major party standing in almost every seat supporting leaving the EU. People had no choice but to vote for pro EU parties.
We are a democracy. We had literally decades in which people could have organised and voted for anti-ECs/EU parties had they so desired.

UKIP to give them some credit did precisely that (and I speak as a person diametrically opposed to their beliefs).

Likewise they were free to campaign within the existing political parties for them to advocate an anti-ECs/EU membership line as indeed Labour did in 1983.
Kiteview is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 23:56
chloeb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 6,319
A referendum is simply a consultation process between the government and the public where they are canvassing them on their 'advice' on a particular issue. If for some reason, the holding of the referendum was found to be legally flawed on some technical issue, the simple thing to do would be to declare the result invalid and re-run it again a few months later.

In the case of Gina Miller of course, she's not appealing the referendum result at all - her appeal is on the entirely separate matter of whether Article 50 needs to be triggered by Parliament.
And it will be , so s total waste of time and money.

Also the govt STATED on literature sent out at the time that they would abide by the result.
This was not an advisory referendum.
chloeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 23:58
James2001
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 27,530
Also the govt STATED on literature sent out at the time that they would abide by the result.
And the Leave campaign put on leaflets that they would give £350 million a week to the NHS. It's all as meaningless.
James2001 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 00:00
chloeb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 6,319
Indeed, as the will of the people can change. The referendum was months ago now.
It won't.
I suspect that having seen the rude and downright sulky behaviour of the EU after June the brexit vote would increase in another referendum, not that that is going to happen
chloeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 00:03
chloeb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 6,319
And the Leave campaign put on leaflets that they would give £350 million a week to the NHS. It's all as meaningless.
Most of us appreciated that as a sound bite.
We will have 350 million we could spend it how we want.
Even as an out voter I never for one minute believed that 350 a week would go to the nhs, neither do any of my Brexit friends.
It just meant we would have that money to do with as the uk govt choose not the EU
chloeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 00:03
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,581
It won't.
I suspect that having seen the rude and downright sulky behaviour of the EU after June the brexit vote would increase in another referendum, not that that is going to happen
You haven't seen any sulky behaviour from the EU, unless that's what you call them explaining that we can't have our cake and eat it, we can't have the benefits without the commitments.

What you've probably seen is people lying about who or what has said what and uncritically believed it; that's why referenda are a bad idea.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 00:04
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,581
Most of us appreciated that as a sound bite.
We will have 350 million we could spend it how we want.
Even as an out voter I never for one minute believed that 350 a week would go to the nhs, neither do any of my Brexit friends.
It just meant we would have that money to do with as the uk govt choose not the EU
No, you won't have 350 million for anything, it never existed.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 00:07
smudges dad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort William
Posts: 22,293
Most of us appreciated that as a sound bite.
We will have 350 million we could spend it how we want.
Even as an out voter I never for one minute believed that 350 a week would go to the nhs, neither do any of my Brexit friends.
It just meant we would have that money to do with as the uk govt choose not the EU
"Why don't we spend it on the NHS instead" seems a pretty clear promise to me. Not ambiguous in the slightest, so all this wriggling like slimy things to deny the promise is laughable.
smudges dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 00:10
James2001
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 27,530
"Why don't we spend it on the NHS instead" seems a pretty clear promise to me. Not ambiguous in the slightest, so all this wriggling like slimy things to deny the promise is laughable.
There was "let's spend it on the NHS too", which is also pretty much a promise.

However much leavers want to squirm over the 350 million thing, it was splashed over buses, leaflets, websites... would have been a major factor in how many people voted. You can't just brush it off however much you'd like to.
James2001 is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:39.