Having taken the government to the Supreme Court regarding the validity of the Brexit vote she is now threatening to go to court again to push for the matter to be fully discussed in the House of Lords
Is this democracy in action or is she taking the 'piss' out of the UK democratic process?
By the way, the initial case was not about the 'validity of the Brexit vote'.
Thought this was another RIP
POLITICS FORUM PLEASE "BOSS" :xmashehe::xmashehe:
Ms Miller is the founder and chairman of Miller Philanthropy, which she launched with her husband Alan, the original “Mr Hedge Fund”, who made more than £30 million in the City.
Peoples champion obviously.
Only those who have known darkness can truly appreciate the light
I wonder who her puppeteer is?
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood.'"
What I can't stomach are Bolshies, skivers, scrimshanks, and boghouse barristers!
A woman a dog and a walnut tree the more you beat them the better they be.
On reflection, do you think some of the folk voted leave thought they were voting for or against breakfast , which might explain a lot of outpouring of emotion on this matter from folk who don't usually know where the ballot box is situated or how to vote .
I am glad we live in a country where the government is required to act within the law.
Quote Originally Posted by Llanedeyrnblue View Post
Brexit means Brexit
Quote Originally Posted by Llanedeyrnblue View Post
Brexit means Brexit
Sorry for the repeat post, it's cold outside and, of course we all know that this slows down your Internet connection to an absolute snail's pace when that happens. Also, the cold means that when you are told that websites cannot be reached, they actually can be, but, very, very slowly - hence my multiple attempts over a fifteen minute period to post one short message, BT broadband, what a winner!
Last edited by the other bob wilson; 30-12-16 at 06:01.
The other side being she and her mate 'the pimlico plumber' are obviously doing this for the express reason of slowing down the already slow process and trying to get it all bogged down in red tape. What is there to stop the Govt from passing a law to say that they will have the final say and not the supreme court etc.
It's all political gesturing and whether you approve or not is down to your stand point I guess.
It could however be a whole lot worse, Prime Minister Corbyn idea of Brexit would be
The Brexit vote meant leave the EU, with the ability to create UK laws which could not be usurped by any EU institution and as such striek trade deals, claim back fishing rights etc etc etc and everything else - so anything or anybody within the EU which stops that - we should not be part of.
Like it or not that was what was voted for - and the UK needs to ensure that happens.
Personally - the whole question should never have been asked - and it was an impossible answer (internal EU reform was needed, free movement of people pre Maastright etc as an example ), but the result happened, anything else and we may not be as democratic as we tell others to be.
UK growth forecast to go from 2.2 to 1.4% , Germany forecast to go from 1.4% growth to 1.0% in 2017. Uncertain times ahead for all it seems. I guess no one saw the ex Australian commissioner interview about what happened the week after Brexit - it seems there is a queue forming. Very interesting times ahead full of opportunity, maybe upsetting the apple cart was needed for reform all round
Gina Miller goes to court to prove a point of law
As long as there is a parliamentary will - then the Govt can enact law to make what she is trying to do illegal.
Ironically - this could go all the way the to the EU courts - and how bizarre would that be
This whole argument is having the exact outcome Gina Miller wanted though - red tape followed by procedural law semantics etc etc and as I said the oriny or irony - it going to the EU court to decide.
Monty Python could only have dreamed of stuff like this
It amazes me that there are people, whether you agree with the outcome to this particular one or not, who think that she (and by extension any of us) shouldn't be allowed to challenge the government. We're so lucky to be able to do this, I imagine the majority of global citizens can't (I haven't researched the numbers).
Perhaps one day UK citizens won't be able to do it. That's not going to make our lives any better.
Not really - Remember Tony Blair ? Tuition fees were introduced by a law that no one wanted and certainly were not part of the platform they were elected on. David Blunkett pushed through the first fees of £1,000 per year but said there would be no further top up fees etc . They then introduced a law doing the exact opposite.
So a Govt can do very roughly what it wants with regards to new laws (they can always get voted out in 5 years time) PLUS any laws passed by the Commons can only be sent back to the commons before being forced through the House of 'lords'.
The opposite end of this is have referendums for everything like they do in Switzerland.
If its as simple as you say, I have two questions.
1. Why didn't the government do this (just change the law)?
2. Why have I never seen a political commentator suggest this action as an option?
So of course it isn't possible. It goes without saying that if the government isn't already doing 'roughly what it wants' regarding this then it can't.
The Govt would react to this decision - rather than proactively go about changing laws - as that can take forever and a day - and they dont have that long.
Secondly if you (like I do) watch the Daily Politics show on the BBC - I have seen various political 'experts' on procedural process of the house of commons etc talking about what measures are at hand for the Govt to do this. I always thought that laws had to go first. second, third reading, then the green paper process before erc. But according to some boffins on there - there are a few options open to them - including one where it has to be completed in one day. It's NYE so I wont be googling it today.
Will the UK leave and adopt a Norway/Switzerland/Canada relationship with the EU? Will it follow some other model? Will we leave the EU and its institutions and have no trade, 'security', environmental.... agreements in place. Will Brexit be hard or soft? I hate the terms, but they do attempt to describe the range of relationships, agreements and treaties that could replace what we have now.
The most annoying thing about 'Brexit means brexit' is that it means nothing. It is (as others have said on this thread) a vacuous soundbite. When challenged Brexiteers pile in to explain to simpletons like me what the vote really meant - and every one of them puts their own spin and interpretation on a ballot question that was deliberately open and vague, and produces mutually contradictory answers on both process and outcome. Most of them would be disasterous in my view - with the UK lunatics screwing up our asylum.
Yes leave - but you can be out and yet still have ties to the EU like other non-EU states, and many on the leave side were advocating these alternative models during the campaign. Then a few campaigners for constitutional and legal clarity come along and get destroyed by the mainstream press and the alt squad for daring to say this is not as simple as 'Brexit means brexit'!
there are fascists pretending to be humanitarians like cannibals on a healthkick eating only vegetarians (Roger McGough)
Forget the question on the ballot paper for a moment, as it boils down to this, if you want to be able to trade with whoever you want, you want to control who comes into your country, you dont want free movement of people and you want Parliament to be the sovereign body when it comes to Govt / laws etc - then you have no option than the default position of completely out of the EU - that is your starting point.
And - seeing as the above is what people voted for - then the only option is we come out completely. The EU wont allow any country to control the free movement of people and the EU will not allow you to strike trade deals with other countries - so that means out of the single market and customs union.
In my humble opinion if the EU went back to a pre maastright situation where you had to apply to go and work in another EU country etc - and you could be deported from that country if you were a naughty boy - then that may appease most people - but the EU will never go back to that as if anything they want to expand the EU to include Kosovo, Macedonia and the 3 other countries - all of who have massive unemployment problems.