DS Forums

 
 

Gina Miller hates democracy


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 29-12-2016, 19:05
wizzywick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 27,888
I also think Gina Miller gets too much credit for halting Brexit. It was not just one South American who halted the process, it was two. Amazing - I wonder how many people now will call casual gossip in hairdressers meaningless.. it seems a hairdresser's outrage is stronger than the largest democratic result in the history of the British Isles. It speaks volumes of our society. All I know is I need a new hairdresser!

Deir Tozetti Dos Santos, 37, who works at a salon in Belgravia, was the first person to lodge a legal complaint against Theresa May’s plan to trigger Article 50 without a parliamentary vote. The whole case was actually titled: R (Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.

Brazil-born Mr Dos Santos, who holds Brazilian and British passports and lives in Notting Hill, was not in court yesterday to celebrate the landmark victory with Gina Miller and fellow campaigners.
He's the chap who stated he voted Remain back in June but who now says he voted Leave!
wizzywick is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 29-12-2016, 19:08
Palafrugel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,169
He's the chap who stated he voted Remain back in June but who now says he voted Leave!
One in the same. Here is what his own lawyer said about him:

“My client is fine, he is really pleased about the result.

"He has always maintained a low profile and now intends to fade back into the shadows. But he also wants to see it through to the end,” said the lawyer.
An interesting duo indeed.
Palafrugel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 19:10
Penny Crayon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,494
So, you believe the result should be honoured, but ONLY if Remain had won?
No. But I do think - regardless of 'promises' this should be done properly. I don't think it should be solely for Mrs May and the three stooges to push through. EVERYONE should be considered in this.
Penny Crayon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 19:14
Thiswillbefun
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,582
It is a lighthearted one for a female no one likes.
I like her
Thiswillbefun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 19:14
seventhwave
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,850
Freedom of movement is disgusting. It is the one fundamental element of immigration that I object to, not immigration itself.
Why "disgusting"? (Genuinely curious; not questioning the point)
seventhwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 19:21
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
No. But I do think - regardless of 'promises' this should be done properly. I don't think it should be solely for Mrs May and the three stooges to push through. EVERYONE should be considered in this.
Everyone is considered, we had a General Election and the electorate voted for the Tories in the full knowledge that we would have a referendum on the EU and in the full knowledge that the Tories would be the government after said referendum irrespective of the outcome. The government, and parliament, asked the electorate for a decision, that decision was given. It is not a case of May and the three stooges it is the government following the will of the people.
Blairdennon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 19:21
Thiswillbefun
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,582
Yes. We did all know it was advisory. But we also ALL knew that the result would be honoured, which in common sense terminology suggests that whatever the result, the mandate to carry out the result would be genuine. It is remainers who have since moved the goalposts.
Thank you! Finally a Brexiter who actually admits it was advisory and not binding.

The "honouring" came from a complusive liar who didn't have the authority to say what he did, then ran away when he was found out.
Thiswillbefun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 19:25
Palafrugel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,169
Thank you! Finally a Brexiter who actually admits it was advisory and not binding.

The "honouring" came from a complusive liar who didn't have the authority to say what he did, then ran away when he was found out.
I think Nick Clegg said repeatedly - and repeatedly, this decision from the people would be final - 'no going back.' I think what the went wrong is the result didn't go way he expected, so then he and Tim began all this muddying - 'the people voted for the direction but not the destination' nonsense.
Palafrugel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 19:28
wizzywick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 27,888
Why "disgusting"? (Genuinely curious; not questioning the point)
Freedom of movement is discriminative against anyone who isn't European. It makes poorer EU nations more dependent on wealthier ones rather than trying to equalise the wealth amongst ALL EU nations. It exploits poorer EU citizens by allowing them to work via an agency at lower rates than the minimum wage of the country they are in stipulates. It allows squalid living conditions where you often find 30 young blokes living in one house. It does not prevent criminals entering countries even though there are supposed systems to do exactly this. It limits a member states sovereignty on immigration policy and is, in effect potentially very dangerous. 12 deaths in Germany is 12 deaths too many, and if the perpetrator was a "refugee" who could potentially travel freely across Europe in years to come, heaven help us against people like that.
wizzywick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 19:30
seventhwave
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,850
Freedom of movement is discriminative against anyone who isn't European. It makes poorer EU nations more dependent on wealthier ones rather than trying to equalise the wealth amongst ALL EU nations. It exploits poorer EU citizens by allowing them to work via an agency at lower rates than the minimum wage of the country they are in stipulates. It allows squalid living conditions where you often 30 young blokes living in one house. It does not prevent criminals entering countries even though there are supposed systems to do exactly this. It limits a member states sovereignty on immigration policy and is, in effect potentially very dangerous. 12 deaths in Germany is 12 deaths too many, and if the perpetrator was a "refugee" who could potentially travel freely across Europe in years to come, heaven help us against people like that.
Ah, I thought you meant generally (not just in the EU) - but that's a very fair point, thank you
seventhwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 19:30
wizzywick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 27,888
Thank you! Finally a Brexiter who actually admits it was advisory and not binding.

The "honouring" came from a complusive liar who didn't have the authority to say what he did, then ran away when he was found out.
In the eyes of millions of voters it most certainly was binding. To not honour it would be catastrophic for UK democracy.
wizzywick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 19:36
kidspud
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,490
In the eyes of millions of voters it most certainly was binding. To not honour it would be catastrophic for UK democracy.
So people really did vote with ignorance. Quite a worry.
kidspud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 19:56
Joe1500
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 578
Freedom of movement is discriminative against anyone who isn't European. It makes poorer EU nations more dependent on wealthier ones rather than trying to equalise the wealth amongst ALL EU nations. It exploits poorer EU citizens by allowing them to work via an agency at lower rates than the minimum wage of the country they are in stipulates. It allows squalid living conditions where you often find 30 young blokes living in one house. It does not prevent criminals entering countries even though there are supposed systems to do exactly this. It limits a member states sovereignty on immigration policy and is, in effect potentially very dangerous. 12 deaths in Germany is 12 deaths too many, and if the perpetrator was a "refugee" who could potentially travel freely across Europe in years to come, heaven help us against people like that.
And with FoM in the EU we cannot automatically exclude anyone who has a criminal record.
Joe1500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 20:21
Mr Oleo Strut
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,311
Freedom of movement is discriminative against anyone who isn't European. It makes poorer EU nations more dependent on wealthier ones rather than trying to equalise the wealth amongst ALL EU nations. It exploits poorer EU citizens by allowing them to work via an agency at lower rates than the minimum wage of the country they are in stipulates. It allows squalid living conditions where you often find 30 young blokes living in one house. It does not prevent criminals entering countries even though there are supposed systems to do exactly this. It limits a member states sovereignty on immigration policy and is, in effect potentially very dangerous. 12 deaths in Germany is 12 deaths too many, and if the perpetrator was a "refugee" who could potentially travel freely across Europe in years to come, heaven help us against people like that.
All of those abuses could and should have been cracked down on and stopped on by the enforcement of national laws. Freedom of movement is one of the foundations of a free and peaceful Europe and it has provided unity and mutual respect, free of prejudice and bigotry, except in the UK where as usual it is used, abused and vilified at the same time.
Mr Oleo Strut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 21:10
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
All of those abuses could and should have been cracked down on and stopped on by the enforcement of national laws. Freedom of movement is one of the foundations of a free and peaceful Europe and it has provided unity and mutual respect, free of prejudice and bigotry, except in the UK where as usual it is used, abused and vilified at the same time.
If the UK electorate think that freedom of movement is not for them then that seems like a reasonable democratic decision. I think the French are not too keen on it either.
Blairdennon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 21:18
niceguy1966
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,479
If the UK electorate think that freedom of movement is not for them then that seems like a reasonable democratic decision. I think the French are not too keen on it either.
I think you are confusing freedom of movement for EU citizens with mass migration from outside the eu.

As far as I'm aware, the French have little problem with freedom of movement.

Or maybe you are confusing freedom of movement with the Schengen Area? Either way, you appear confused.
niceguy1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 21:22
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
So people really did vote with ignorance. Quite a worry.
I have no recollection of the stronger in Europe campaign contradicting the official government leaflet that put the government's advice to the electorate and stating that they would implement what was decided. It may have happened but seems to have been low key if it did.
Blairdennon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 21:29
Dr. Claw
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,742
why does her husband allow her to become the face of this? she's become the hate figure and her husband cowers in the corner allowing it to happen without doing anything about it
Dr. Claw is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 21:29
niceguy1966
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,479
I have no recollection of the stronger in Europe campaign contradicting the official government leaflet that put the government's advice to the electorate and stating that they would implement what was decided. It may have happened but seems to have been low key if it did.
We are leaving the EU. Why do so many Brexit supporters assume that following a legal process as per the UK constitution is in any way going to prevent the government triggering A50.

Total paranoia. Tin foil hats all round.
niceguy1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 21:30
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
I think you are confusing freedom of movement for EU citizens with mass migration from outside the eu.

As far as I'm aware, the French have little problem with freedom of movement.

Or maybe you are confusing freedom of movement with the Schengen Area? Either way, you appear confused.
No I was not I said if the UK electorate so decide that is a democratic decision. I also said the French are not too keen either and as it is raised specifically as an issue by some, who receive significant electoral support, then that seems like a reasonable assumption.
Blairdennon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 21:31
niceguy1966
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,479
why does her husband allow her to become the face of this? she's become the hate figure and her husband cowers in the corner allowing it to happen without doing anything about it
What do you want him to do, keep his little lady at home?

We don't live in Victorian times any more, he doesn't "allow" his wife do anything, she is her own person.
niceguy1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 21:35
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
We are leaving the EU. Why do so many Brexit supporters assume that following a legal process as per the UK constitution is in any way going to prevent the government triggering A50.

Total paranoia. Tin foil hats all round.
You seem to be having a little difficulty. I said the Official Remain campaign did not contradict the stated official government intent to act on the decision made by the electorate. That means that the electorate were not ignorant (as indicated) but were misled by both the Government and the official Stronger in Europe campaign.
Blairdennon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 21:37
kidspud
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,490
I have no recollection of the stronger in Europe campaign contradicting the official government leaflet that put the government's advice to the electorate and stating that they would implement what was decided. It may have happened but seems to have been low key if it did.
What did the official government leaflet state regarding the legal status of the referendum? I've lost my copy of the leaflet so maybe you can help me?
kidspud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 21:39
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,217
You seem to be having a little difficulty. I said the Official Remain campaign did not contradict the stated official government intent to act on the decision made by the electorate. That means that the electorate were not ignorant (as indicated) but were misled by both the Government and the official Stronger in Europe campaign.
But did the leaflet was not a legal document it did not state how we would leave the eu fact is it could not as the ref was not legally binding. And its just like party Manifesto are not legally binding.
tim59 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 21:43
Dr. Claw
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,742
What do you want him to do, keep his little lady at home?

We don't live in Victorian times any more, he doesn't "allow" his wife do anything, she is her own person.
the way he doesnt stand up for his wife who gets attacked all the time. he also doesnt put himself forward to be interviewed either despite him being just as involved as she is. same goes for the pimlico plumber boss, they're allowing her to get all the hate. some men they are
Dr. Claw is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:08.