DS Forums

 
 

Gina Miller hates democracy


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 29-12-2016, 13:12
Beanybun
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,739
The spirit of the law means literally nothing.
This thread means literally nothing.

Time for the mods to eliminate the crayon chompers, methinks.
Beanybun is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 29-12-2016, 13:19
MARTYM8
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,276
While I don't approve of the OPs personal comments this latest effort to get the Lords to vote down article 50 is just too much.

The elected Commons will have spoken and the people will have spoken via a referendum - the unelected appointed Lords have no business voting down article 50. It would create a constitutional crisis and would be a democratic outrage.

I am sick of politicians saying they respect the vote on 23 June. It's time they just OBEYED it.

http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/gina...11364128312060
MARTYM8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 13:22
Beanybun
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,739
While I don't approve of the OPs personal comments this latest effort to get the Lords to vote down article 50 is just too much.

The elected Commons will have spoken and the people will have spoken via a referendum - the unelected appointed Lords have no business voting down article 50. It would create a constitutional crisis and would be a democratic outrage.

I am sick of politicians saying they respect the vote on 23 June. It's time they just OBEYED it.

http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/gina...11364128312060
I'm afraid you have no idea what a parliamentary democracy is, means or what this case is actually about. Specifically, this is not (in any way shape or form) about "voting down" Article 50. Even your use of language is off; the SC dont "vote" for anything.
Beanybun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 13:24
Ads
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Pimlico, central London, UK
Posts: 14,870
OP - please expand on why Miller is 'evil'- or are you simple throwing insults around as you don't have the intelligence to make cogent arguments?
Ads is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 13:32
Eurostar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 51,589
She correctly called the Leave side out on their BS and hypocrisy for claiming they wanted sovereignty restored to the British courts from the EU, but who then started attacking the judges and even calling them "traitors".
Eurostar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 13:36
Mr Oleo Strut
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,307
This women is so evil and she is a friend of Merkel.
Do you know her that well, if at all? Or are you being guided by outside anti-democratic influences? ? And what gives you the right to comment on her choice of friends? Bigotry and prejudice will not provide you with the answers.
Mr Oleo Strut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 13:39
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,197
She correctly called the Leave side out on their BS and hypocrisy for claiming they wanted sovereignty restored to the British courts from the EU, but who then started attacking the judges and even calling them "traitors".
Makes you wonder if some people would sooner live under a dictatorship system in the uk were the government cannot not be held accountable to anyone, ie parliement house of lords or the courts, and the courts are no more than puppets for the government just for show with no real powers at all
tim59 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 13:51
Dotheboyshall
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,307
Ensuring the government is keeping to the law is evil apparently
Dotheboyshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 14:30
MARTYM8
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,276
I'm afraid you have no idea what a parliamentary democracy is, means or what this case is actually about. Specifically, this is not (in any way shape or form) about "voting down" Article 50. Even your use of language is off; the SC dont "vote" for anything.
Do you think Gina Miller and co are great champions of democracy - they didn't seem too worried when the royal prerogative was used to push through EU laws and regulations.

In the end it's just a tactic to attempt to derail and delay article 50 and thus Brexit. This speech by Jacob Rees Mogg makes the point excellently.

There is nothing democratic about the House of Lords - it's the antithesis of it. We need an elected second chamber not a bunch of appointed political hasbeems, party donors, mates of party leaders and party officials who no one ever voted for. Let alone the 90 or so hereditaries who are only there as their ancestors were mates of Henry VIII.

http://youtu.be/pgSPNcKbttM
MARTYM8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 14:39
smudges dad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort William
Posts: 22,266
Do you think Gina Miller and co are great champions of democracy - they didn't seem too worried when the royal prerogative was used to push through EU laws and regulations.

In the end it's just a tactic to attempt to derail and delay article 50 and thus Brexit. This speech by Jacob Rees Mogg makes the point excellently.

There is nothing democratic about the House of Lords - it's the antithesis of it. We need an elected second chamber not a bunch of appointed political hasbeems, party donors, mates of party leaders and party officials who no one ever voted for. Let alone the 90 or so hereditaries who are only there as their ancestors were mates of Henry VIII.

http://youtu.be/pgSPNcKbttM
There's nothing democratic about the HoL at all. It needs abolishing.

Luckily the glorious British public voted to reduce democracy by getting rid of elected MEPs and letting the unelected HoL have more influence. I suppose that's what sovereignty is about these days. Luckily people like Gina Miller are making sure the elected HoC still has some power, rather than a government elected by 36% making all the decisions.
smudges dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 15:06
niceguy1966
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,479
This women is so evil and she is a friend of Merkel.
hyperstarsponge smells of wee and has no friends.

I thought I'd try to raise the level of debate in this thread, I think I succeeded.
niceguy1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 15:08
bspace
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,776
hyperstarsponge smells of wee and has no friends.

I thought I'd try to raise the level of debate in this thread, I think I succeeded.
Having looked back through the thread that's pretty much the level of existing debate, so no you failed.
bspace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 15:09
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,197
Do you think Gina Miller and co are great champions of democracy - they didn't seem too worried when the royal prerogative was used to push through EU laws and regulations.

In the end it's just a tactic to attempt to derail and delay article 50 and thus Brexit. This speech by Jacob Rees Mogg makes the point excellently.

There is nothing democratic about the House of Lords - it's the antithesis of it. We need an elected second chamber not a bunch of appointed political hasbeems, party donors, mates of party leaders and party officials who no one ever voted for. Let alone the 90 or so hereditaries who are only there as their ancestors were mates of Henry VIII.

http://youtu.be/pgSPNcKbttM
Well the ref act was left very open and far from being a sound legal act it did not really deal with the after vote process. The act made no provision for the result to be legally binding on the government or on any future government. The result of the referendum was to be a single majority vote of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar with no super majorities, double majorities of the constituent countries or any minimum turnout threshold required for the vote to pass. The act did not specify any specific consequences that would follow the result of the referendum. In the event of a "Leave" vote, the government would decide whether, when, and under what circumstances, the UK would invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union to begin a two-year process of negotiations for Britain to leave the EU. Since the act is also silent on the question of executive prerogative, the question of whether the government or Parliament must invoke Article 50 is the subject of ongoing court proceedings, currently on Appeal at the Supreme Court
tim59 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 15:14
fefster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,840
The biggest issue I have with Gina Miller is that she is a liar and a deceiver.
We all know that she cares nothing about the rule of law. She simply wants to stop our exit from the EU and is manipulating our justice system to do so.
I would have more respect for her if she was honest about this.
fefster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 15:14
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,066
Oh, yes, she is.
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 15:19
Emyj74
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 590
Well the ref act was left very open and far from being a sound legal act it did not really deal with the after vote process. The act made no provision for the result to be legally binding on the government or on any future government. The result of the referendum was to be a single majority vote of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar with no super majorities, double majorities of the constituent countries or any minimum turnout threshold required for the vote to pass. The act did not specify any specific consequences that would follow the result of the referendum. In the event of a "Leave" vote, the government would decide whether, when, and under what circumstances, the UK would invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union to begin a two-year process of negotiations for Britain to leave the EU. Since the act is also silent on the question of executive prerogative, the question of whether the government or Parliament must invoke Article 50 is the subject of ongoing court proceedings, currently on Appeal at the Supreme Court
People voted in the referendum to either stay or leave the EU. The result was clear and that's what we should now do. Once we leave then people can argue over the terms of leaving.

The legal system in general is there to support wealthy people who can afford the best legal experts to fight their corner. Miller is an example of this and for me is no different to rich celebrities who have used the best legal experts to get themselves of charges by using loopholes in the law which are not available to the ordinary person.

Government should not need Parliament to invoke article 50 because as far as the general public were concerned thats what the referendum was for. Its not really surprising that people are bit annoyed that wealthy person armed with some of the best legal experts is trying to derail that process.
Emyj74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 15:25
Eurostar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 51,589
The biggest issue I have with Gina Miller is that she is a liar and a deceiver.
We all know that she cares nothing about the rule of law. She simply wants to stop our exit from the EU and is manipulating our justice system to do so.
I would have more respect for her if she was honest about this.
If she has spotted a glaring legal loophole, she is perfectly within her rights to mount a legal challenge - her personal political beliefs wouldn't be of much consequence (even though it would be safe to assume she is probably a strong Remainer). She doesn't need to justify her legal appeal to anyone.
Eurostar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 15:25
jjwales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,422
People voted in the referendum to either stay or leave the EU. The result was clear and that's what we should now do. Once we leave then people can argue over the terms of leaving.

The legal system in general is there to support wealthy people who can afford the best legal experts to fight their corner. Miller is an example of this and for me is no different to rich celebrities who have used the best legal experts to get themselves of charges by using loopholes in the law which are not available to the ordinary person.
Wasn't the case funded by a crowd-funding campaign rather than Ms Miller's personal wealth? And which "loophole" in the law do you think it is using?
jjwales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 15:27
jjwales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,422
The biggest issue I have with Gina Miller is that she is a liar and a deceiver.
We all know that she cares nothing about the rule of law. She simply wants to stop our exit from the EU and is manipulating our justice system to do so.
I would have more respect for her if she was honest about this.
We know nothing of the sort. You are indulging in unpleasant speculation.
jjwales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 15:28
Ledecestre
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 27
Government should not need Parliament to invoke article 50 because as far as the general public were concerned thats what the referendum was for. Its not really surprising that people are bit annoyed that wealthy person armed with some of the best legal experts is trying to derail that process.
That's the fault of the press and the government for not making it clear enough in the first place, and the fault of those dense enough not to take any interest in the mechanics of leaving the EU.

Essentially leave voters called the Conservatives bluff and they've been found out, but that isn't an excuse to lurch headlong deeper into the mess we're already in. If we trigger Article 50 we should do it on the best terms put before the authority of our sovereign parliament, the one that people were so keen for when campaigning for "Brexit".
Ledecestre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 15:31
Eurostar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 51,589
We know nothing of the sort. You are indulging in unpleasant speculation.
If Remain had won the referendum, but a Leave campaigner spotted some glaring loophole in the law that could possibly render the entire result invalid, they would be straight down to the High Court with an appeal and Farage would be saying it was "a great day for British democracy".
Eurostar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 15:37
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,197
People voted in the referendum to either stay or leave the EU. The result was clear and that's what we should now do. Once we leave then people can argue over the terms of leaving.

The legal system in general is there to support wealthy people who can afford the best legal experts to fight their corner. Miller is an example of this and for me is no different to rich celebrities who have used the best legal experts to get themselves of charges by using loopholes in the law which are not available to the ordinary person.

Government should not need Parliament to invoke article 50 because as far as the general public were concerned thats what the referendum was for. Its not really surprising that people are bit annoyed that wealthy person armed with some of the best legal experts is trying to derail that process.
Well saying the court case is nothing to do with trying to stop the uk leaving the EU, and it was the government who did the ref act and that it was not legally binding in any way. I dont see how you can blame her. She has said that the law needs changing so that referendums are legally binding so if i were you i would take this fight up with your MP,
tim59 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 15:38
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,066
The biggest issue I have with Gina Miller is that she is a liar and a deceiver.
We all know that she cares nothing about the rule of law. She simply wants to stop our exit from the EU and is manipulating our justice system to do so.
I would have more respect for her if she was honest about this.
You and I can see this clearly, but remainers are so sweet and naïve they trust everyone. I tremble for them when they have to face life without the security blanket of the EU.
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 15:39
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,197
If she has spotted a glaring legal loophole, she is perfectly within her rights to mount a legal challenge - her personal political beliefs wouldn't be of much consequence (even though it would be safe to assume she is probably a strong Remainer). She doesn't need to justify her legal appeal to anyone.
And it was a glaring legal loophole as it was debated on DS before the vote was taken.
tim59 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 15:40
jjwales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,422
You and I can see this clearly, but remainers are so sweet and naïve they trust everyone. I tremble for them when they have to face life without the security blanket of the EU.
So does the opposite apply: Leavers are so unpleasant and cynical that they trust no one?
jjwales is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:30.