DS Forums

 
 

Gina Miller hates democracy


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 29-12-2016, 16:43
LakieLady
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,157
If the UK is leaving then why do you need parliament to vote on it?
Sigh .... because: -

1. The European Communities Act 1972 (ECA) was an act of parliament

2. only parliament can repeal an act of parliament

3. triggering A50 effectively repeals the ECA, so:

4. only parliament can decide trigger A50.

QED.

(This is a simplified version without going into when use of the Royal Prerogative is appropriate and other constitutional matters, but the whole topic has been discussed on here at great length and in great detail.)
LakieLady is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 29-12-2016, 16:51
Annsyre
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 97,109
People know what she is doing but as most people do not have the funds to ever exercise their legal rights generally its not surprise the criticism she has got.
She was acting legally which she has a right to do. Are you saying that jealous people resent her for being well off?
Annsyre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 16:53
Emyj74
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 590
When votes are cast ''for" and "against" a motion, and there is dissent, then the dissenters cannot be deemed to have 'agreed'.

It is dictatorships that seek to supress dissent, not Parliamentary democracies.

Which do you think is the system that the referendum vote sought to restore power to, according to the leave campaign at any rate?

Do you think the 48% should no longer be heard?
Of course the 48% should be heard the same way as if the vote had gone the other way.

I personally have nothing against what Gina Miller is doing as she is using the letter of the law and her wealth to get what she wants something wealthy people have been years and the reason why certain parts of society voted for brexit.

Its not a surprise therefore that when someone like Gina Miller uses the letter of the law and her wealth to try to derail a process that there are going to be a lot of unhappy people who wont think much of her.
Emyj74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 16:56
smudges dad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort William
Posts: 22,266
Of course the 48% should be heard the same way as if the vote had gone the other way.

I personally have nothing against what Gina Miller is doing as she is using the letter of the law and her wealth to get what she wants something wealthy people have been years and the reason why certain parts of society voted for brexit.

Its not a surprise therefore that when someone like Gina Miller uses the letter of the law and her wealth to try to derail a process that there are going to be a lot of unhappy people who wont think much of her.
Are you going to explain what the process is that she is trying to derail?
(see post at top of the page)
smudges dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 16:59
Emyj74
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 590
Are you going to explain what the process is that she is trying to derail?
(see post at top of the page)
Shes as far many people see it is using the legal system to try and derail brexit.
Emyj74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 16:59
wizzywick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 27,887
Yes she is. She even said so herself in an interview with a journalist from The Week.

Journalist: But isn't this an attempt to stop Brexit by the back door?
Miller: Darling, I do nothing by the back door!

The "democracy" bullshit is just that. Bullshit. She wants to stop Brexit. Simple.
wizzywick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 17:04
wizzywick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 27,887
She was actig legally which she has a right to do. Are you saying that jealous people resent her for being well off?
It isn't jealousy that is the issue. It is the fact that a wealthy hedge fund manager (normally the kind of person the lefties loathe - but now seem to herald her as some kind of saviour) is using her status and wealth to try and get what she wants rather than accepting what the majority wants. It is this kind of wealthy, spoilt brat behaviour, legal or otherwise, that incited people to vote for Brexit in the first place.
wizzywick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 17:04
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,197
Shes as far many people see it is using the legal system to try and derail brexit.
Well my be these people need to watch the court case and then they might understand what the case is all about.. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0196.html
tim59 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 17:09
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,066
So does the opposite apply: Leavers are so unpleasant and cynical that they trust no one?
No, but they see things as they are. (Which is why they voted leave in the first place).

(I am assuming Remainers actually believe in St Gina, and aren't lying).

Funny because this court case is about UK parliament and is being dealt with by the highest court in the uk, would have thought that would please the leavers
Why do you think that? We voted, and the Government has a mandate to leave the EU. What else is necessary?

Do you really think Miller is doing it for altruistic motives? You can't have read how she decided to bring the case in the first place.

You probably believe that her partner in this venture voted leave, don't you?

No, she is trying to make sure it is watertight and the lawyers can't mess withnit later.
Amusing post, but it proves my point. Remainers are either naïve or being disingenuous.

When votes are cast ''for" and "against" a motion, and there is dissent, then the dissenters cannot be deemed to have 'agreed'.

It is dictatorships that seek to supress dissent, not Parliamentary democracies.

Which do you think is the system that the referendum vote sought to restore power to, according to the leave campaign at any rate?

Do you think the 48% should no longer be heard?
Well, they certainly yell loudly enough, so they can definitely be heard, I'm not sure their views can be taken into consideration though. How would it work? We'll only half leave?
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 17:21
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,197
No, but they see things as they are. (Which is why they voted leave in the first place).

(I am assuming Remainers actually believe in St Gina, and aren't lying).



Why do you think that? We voted, and the Government has a mandate to leave the EU. What else is necessary?

Do you really think Miller is doing it for altruistic motives? You can't have read how she decided to bring the case in the first place.

You probably believe that her partner in this venture voted leave, don't you?



Amusing post, but it proves my point. Remainers are either naïve or being disingenuous.



Well, they certainly yell loudly enough, so they can definitely be heard, I'm not sure their views can be taken into consideration though. How would it work? We'll only half leave?
And this mandate you speak of came from were might i ask ?
tim59 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 17:29
hyperstarsponge
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: North East
Posts: 12,253
I start threads to try and get the dumbed down audience to join in, Like say people on Twitter. May get worse when the new forum comes as GIFs and pictures come in.
hyperstarsponge is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 17:33
wizzywick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 27,887
And this mandate you speak of came from were might i ask ?
The referendum result, for which we were told, and that no one objected to when casting their vote, that the result, whatever it would be, would be honoured. Have the goalposts moved since 23rd June? Or, is it that when you casted your vote, knowing the result would be implemented regardless, you naively assumed, as did everyone else, that Remain would win and you'd get the result you preferred?

Are you the type of person who is perfectly happy when your party of choice wins a General Election but then calls for electoral change when they don't?
wizzywick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 17:35
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,066
And this mandate you speak of came from were might i ask ?
The electorate. Did you miss it?
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 17:36
Annsyre
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 97,109
It isn't jealousy that is the issue. It is the fact that a wealthy hedge fund manager (normally the kind of person the lefties loathe - but now seem to herald her as some kind of saviour) is using her status and wealth to try and get what she wants rather than accepting what the majority wants. It is this kind of wealthy, spoilt brat behaviour, legal or otherwise, that incited people to vote for Brexit in the first place.
BIB in your opinion.

No one was incited to vote. People exercised their democratic right to vote any way that they wanted.

If she had been poor and claimed legal aid then that would be OK would it?
Annsyre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 17:38
Annsyre
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 97,109
The referendum result, for which we were told, and that no one objected to when casting their vote, that the result, whatever it would be, would be honoured. Have the goalposts moved since 23rd June? Or, is it that when you casted your vote, knowing the result would be implemented regardless, you naively assumed, as did everyone else, that Remain would win and you'd get the result you preferred?

Are you the type of person who is perfectly happy when your party of choice wins a General Election but then calls for electoral change when they don't?
The referendum was not a general election. It was specific. Miller has acted legally.

And we will leave the EU regardless.
Annsyre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 17:40
Mr Moritz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 804
Yes she is. She even said so herself in an interview with a journalist from The Week.

Journalist: But isn't this an attempt to stop Brexit by the back door?
Miller: Darling, I do nothing by the back door!

The "democracy" bullshit is just that. Bullshit. She wants to stop Brexit. Simple.
Interview with Andrew Marr she said 'the case was now not about the referendum result, but "how we leave the EU".
"The elephant in the room is actually about leaving the EU, it is not about reversing leaving the EU'
So who's bullsh1ting?
Mr Moritz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 17:41
wizzywick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 27,887
BIB in your opinion.

No one was incited to vote. People exercised heir democratic right to vote any way that they wanted.

If she had been poor and claimed legal aid then that would be OK would it?
There is no lawyer in the land who would take on her case for "legal aid". Cases of this type require money!
wizzywick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 17:41
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,197
The electorate. Did you miss it?
Well not i did not miss it but from a legal point the referendum was only advisery so the term mandate does not really apply


mandate an official order or commission to do something., so the true term is request
tim59 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 17:43
wizzywick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 27,887
Interview with Andrew Marr she said 'the case was now not about the referendum result, but "how we leave the EU".
"The elephant in the room is actually about leaving the EU, it is not about reversing leaving the EU'
So who's bullsh1ting?
Have you read her interview in "The Week"? It blatantly has her confirming that she wanted to stop Brexit. What she has said in interviews since is clearly spin as directed by her lawyers. All the lawyers representing her are pro-EU.
wizzywick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 17:45
wizzywick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 27,887
Well not i did not miss it but from a legal point the referendum was only advisery so the term mandate does not really apply


mandate an official order or commission to do something., so the true term is request
Yes, it's funny how "advisory" is always branded about these days! Wonder if it would be just advisory if Remain hadwon and Brexiteers were sulking?
wizzywick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 17:45
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,197
There is no lawyer in the land who would take on her case for "legal aid". Cases of this type require money!
You would be surprised as some law firms do alot of Bona fides cases as the government took alot of cases out of the "legal aid" process
tim59 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 17:48
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,197
Yes, it's funny how "advisory" is always branded about these days! Wonder if it would be just advisory if Remain hadwon and Brexiteers were sulking?
Well saying that the government themselves admitted it was only advisory, and again said so in court. Which of cause anyone who read the ref act would have known and was debated on DS well before the vote was taken.
tim59 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 17:49
kidspud
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,488
When the out campaign claimed they were interested in the uk controlling its own laws, I didn't think they meant it.

However, I didn't realise they would be caught out so quickly.
kidspud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 17:53
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,066
Have you read her interview in "The Week"? It blatantly has her confirming that she wanted to stop Brexit. What she has said in interviews since is clearly spin as directed by her lawyers. All the lawyers representing her are pro-EU.
Now, wizzy, you're trying to argue with remainers, and you know it's a lost cause. They'll believe any old guff if it suits them. Obviously.
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 17:55
wizzywick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 27,887
When the out campaign claimed they were interested in the uk controlling its own laws, I didn't think they meant it.

However, I didn't realise they would be caught out so quickly.
When Remainers are trying to defend the indefensible, they always come up with this old chestnut.
wizzywick is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


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