DS Forums

 
 

Gina Miller hates democracy


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-01-2017, 14:47
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
What would stop them?
Whatever stopped May from delivering on Cameron's "tens of thousands" non EU immigration promise for the last six years; net non EU migration is now higher than EU.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 04-01-2017, 15:01
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,071
Whatever stopped May from delivering on Cameron's "tens of thousands" non EU immigration promise for the last six years; net non EU migration is now higher than EU.
That would be controlled immigration, though.
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:06
Penny Crayon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,494
That would be controlled immigration, though.
Would that make much difference to the things people are complaining about though? Isn't it the lack of infastructure and strain on vital services like health, housing and education that seems to be people's concerns. If the numbers remain the same or similar after Brexit what difference does it make whether it's controlled immigration or not?
Penny Crayon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:12
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,071
Would that make much difference to the things people are complaining about though? Isn't it the lack of infastructure and strain on vital services like health, housing and education that seems to be people's concerns. If the numbers remain the same or similar after Brexit what difference does it make whether it's controlled immigration or not?
The numbers won't remain the same, though, if EU immigration is curtailed.

See, this is why I find this forum so frustrating. Eurostar said we may not be able to control immigration post Brexit.. I asked why we wouldn't, and instead of answering, remainers expect me to answer them!

I don't know - you tell me!
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:33
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
That would be controlled immigration, though.
No, controlled would be if you were actually in control, events turned out like you said they would.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:42
Eurostar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 51,606
What would stop them?
The UK needs immigration including many unskilled workers to do menial jobs that Britons don't want to do. A country that needs large numbers of immigrants in order to have a thriving economy has a right job on its hand in that case to introduce some form of "controlled immigration".
Eurostar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:53
Ennerjee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 4,453
I can't see the problem in our parliament exercising due diligence re the democratic process of Article 50, isn't that part of the 'taking back control' slogan?

No, it isn't. The referendum resulted in a decision to LEAVE the EU and that is the initial control already executed.

We all know as well as you do, Mr Moritz, that the court case and subsequent ruling are about preventing BREXIT and trying to force the UK to remain in the Single Market and keep FoM. It's a ruse and you are patently aware of Miller's intentions.

If LEAVE means keeping both of those systems, keeping our ties to Brussels and paying the EU a membership fee then it's only LEAVE by another name, otherwise known as "staying in".

You know it, I know it, Miller knows it and so do those who've put her up to this (could it be Blair and Merkel?) manipulation of democracy.

Taking back control won't return until we've left the EU and cut all ties with it. That will hopefully happen before 2019, but if not then prepare for a revolutionary realignment of the political landscape in the UK as 2020's election will be a fight between BREXIT MPs/electorate and the rest who've ignored the referendum result.
Ennerjee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:56
GibsonSG
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,772
No, it isn't. The referendum resulted in a decision to LEAVE the EU and that is the control already executed.

We all know as well as you do, Mr Moritz, that the court case and subsequent ruling are about preventing BREXIT and trying to force the UK to remain in the Single Market and keep FoM. It's a ruse and you are patently aware of Miller's intentions.

If LEAVE means keeping both of those systems, keeping our ties to Brussels and paying the EU a membership fee then it's only LEAVE by another name otherwise known as staying in.

You know it, I know it, Miller knows it and so do those who've put her up to this (could it be Blair and Merkel?) manipulation of democracy.

Full control won't return until we've left the EU and cut all ties with it.

....... and what exactly does that mean?
GibsonSG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 16:11
Ennerjee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 4,453
....... and what exactly does that mean?
Oh, I didn't know it had to be explained to you. It means repealing all the Treaties we've signed and renegotiating how we'll trade with the EU and/or each individual country
Ennerjee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 16:35
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
Oh, I didn't know it had to be explained to you. It means repealing all the Treaties we've signed and renegotiating how we'll trade with the EU and/or each individual country
Thus re-tying ourselves to it. Brilliant!
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 16:42
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
As another poster said, two children was the benchmark.

No-one childless I know was influenced at all by overpopulation.
The fact you do not know anyone who has said to you that they were influenced, even if they did not know they were, does not in any way mean they were not. Over population was the benchmark, how one personally tackled it was up to the individual. Two was reckoned to be reasonable. Three OK and four or more rather selfish. Having none was seen as making the grand sacrifice.
Blairdennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 16:58
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
The fact you do not know anyone who has said to you that they were influenced, even if they did not know they were, does not in any way mean they were not. Over population was the benchmark, how one personally tackled it was up to the individual. Two was reckoned to be reasonable. Three OK and four or more rather selfish. Having none was seen as making the grand sacrifice.
Only by you. If you just don't want kids like all the childless couples I know no amount of "influence" makes any difference.

As you say, two was reckoned to be reasonable.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 17:05
Ennerjee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 4,453
Thus re-tying ourselves to it. Brilliant!
You really don't get it, do you? Either that or you're deliberately misunderstanding it in order to remain on the sinking sand you're standing on.
Ennerjee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 17:48
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
You really don't get it, do you? Either that or you're deliberately misunderstanding it in order to remain on the sinking sand you're standing on.
Unless you can explain what we can sell more of to where with our own trade deals we'll still be exporting around 45% to the EU so we'll still sink with it.

We just lose any influence over it.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 18:42
Ennerjee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 4,453
Unless you can explain what we can sell more of to where with our own trade deals we'll still be exporting around 45% to the EU so we'll still sink with it.

We just lose any influence over it.

You're looking at it from within the confines of the EU as it exists now. The EU is a shrinking market and has been for many years due to its over governance and over regulation.

The UK's future lies beyond, and in trading with, the global economy and negotiating terms that are good for her in individual cases. It does not lie with the cumbersome and over-regulated EU, which has the ambitions of creating a federation and political/economic Union. It's a politician's dream based on absolute fantasy.
Ennerjee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 18:49
Eurostar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 51,606
You're looking at it from within the confines of the EU as it exists now. The EU is a shrinking market and has been for many years due to its over governance and over regulation.

The UK's future lies beyond and in trading with the global economy and negotiating terms that are good for her in individual cases. It does not lie with the cumbersome and over-regulated EU, which has the ambitions of creating a federation and political/economic Union. It's a politician's dream based on absolute fantasy.
....ie. the UK's 27 closest friends and neighbours.

Good luck with that one, shunning a huge trading bloc of 500m people on your doorstep while seeking to establish free trade deals with countries 10,000 miles away instead.
Eurostar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 19:04
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
Only by you. If you just don't want kids like all the childless couples I know no amount of "influence" makes any difference.

As you say, two was reckoned to be reasonable.
Well people will do all sorts of things to do their bit to save the planet. Are you saying being asked to 'save the planet' will not sway anyone one iota?
Blairdennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 19:11
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
The government might not be able to "control immigration" after Brexit, particularly given its position as a major economy and a post colonial power. This could well turn out to be one of the great fallacies and falsehoods of the referendum. Saying 'membership of EU = out of control immigration : leave the EU = controlled immigration" seems incredibly simplistic.
Then you have missed the point which I stressed. In the EU controlled immigration not possible, out of the EU controlled immigration possible. It is for the electorate to then decide if a government has controlled immigration sufficiently. Which is of course how it should be.
Blairdennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 19:18
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
No, controlled would be if you were actually in control, events turned out like you said they would.
Controlled is having the ability to control the numbers arriving. Governments are then judged on how well they have controlled it if that is important to the electorate. The lack of applying effective control by May was for the electorate to judge at the last election set against the choice of the alternatives. Overall the Tory package, with all its demonstrable failures won out. That is democracy for you.
Blairdennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 19:33
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
You're looking at it from within the confines of the EU as it exists now. The EU is a shrinking market and has been for many years due to its over governance and over regulation.
Wrong, our exports to the EU are growing.
The UK's future lies beyond, and in trading with, the global economy and negotiating terms that are good for her in individual cases.
Name one of these "individual cases" you've decided we're better off inhibiting 45% of our exports for.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 19:35
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
Well people will do all sorts of things to do their bit to save the planet. Are you saying being asked to 'save the planet' will not sway anyone one iota?
As you and others have said, the "save the planet" figure was 2 children.

I can't imagine that anyone decided whether or not to have kids the same way they choose their light bulbs.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 19:37
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
Controlled is having the ability to control the numbers arriving. Governments are then judged on how well they have controlled it if that is important to the electorate. The lack of applying effective control by May was for the electorate to judge at the last election set against the choice of the alternatives. Overall the Tory package, with all its demonstrable failures won out. That is democracy for you.
i.e. most people didn't really give a stuff about immigration.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 20:45
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
i.e. most people didn't really give a stuff about immigration.
Well that is not what the polls indicate. It is a balance, parties are appearing and winning votes where the level of immigration and its apparent lack of control are an issue. That is why the Tories had the policy, if people did not give a stuff the policy would not have been there, it was, and again for the 2015 election. It remains to be seen what effect that inability of them to meet their stated aims will have on the next GE.
Blairdennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 20:50
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
As you and others have said, the "save the planet" figure was 2 children.

I can't imagine that anyone decided whether or not to have kids the same way they choose their light bulbs.
No save the planet figure was to stop the world's population running out of control. 2 was seen as reasonable at a time when 2.4 was the average. The whole point was the world was overpopulated and heading for doom.
Saving the planet is a life style choice, if it was only lightbulbs it would be saved.
Blairdennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 07:27
Mr Moritz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 806
No, it isn't. The referendum resulted in a decision to LEAVE the EU and that is the initial control already executed.

We all know as well as you do, Mr Moritz, that the court case and subsequent ruling are about preventing BREXIT and trying to force the UK to remain in the Single Market and keep FoM. It's a ruse and you are patently aware of Miller's intentions.

If LEAVE means keeping both of those systems, keeping our ties to Brussels and paying the EU a membership fee then it's only LEAVE by another name, otherwise known as "staying in".

You know it, I know it, Miller knows it and so do those who've put her up to this (could it be Blair and Merkel?) manipulation of democracy.

Taking back control won't return until we've left the EU and cut all ties with it. That will hopefully happen before 2019, but if not then prepare for a revolutionary realignment of the political landscape in the UK as 2020's election will be a fight between BREXIT MPs/electorate and the rest who've ignored the referendum result.
I believe correct me if I'm wrong, Parliament can repeal the 1972 European Communities Act ( legislation that brought the UK into the Europe Union) a right confirmed via holding a referendum.
The act in question gives EU law supremacy over UK national law

From the IFG
Are there any legal complications with repealing the 1972 Act?

Currently the UK Government is bound by international treaty obligations, which it has entered into via the 1972 Act and subsequent pieces of legislation passed by the UK Parliament. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty sets out an agreed process for an EU member state wishing to relieve itself of these obligations. While it is open to Parliament to exercise its sovereignty by simply repealing the 1972 Act without engaging with the Article 50 process, it has been argued that this would place the UK Government in breach of its treaty obligations under international law. It could also create practical problems, such as confusion over whether powers repatriated from the EU would return to the UK Government or devolved administrations.
So taking back control isn't about a 'Leave' decision in isolation as it wasn't legally binding, it does mean to my mind that Parliament must start the process of repealing and amending legislation whilst triggering Article 50

So in case you're not clear, the court case basically states that it is Parliament that should control our exit strategy not a small cabal of MP's, the supreme court may see it differently.

Re Ms Miller I don't know her, so I can't say with 100% surety what her real intentions are or what mysterious entity controls her.

So please give the Vulcan Mind Meld a miss and comment on what I post, because truth be known I'm interested in the legalities not the personalities or the conspiracy theories, that's what I do know.
Mr Moritz is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


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