Chicken Drumstick, Pork Pie, Glass Of...
News1 min ago
Gina Miller, Enemy Of Democracy.....
58 Answers
http://
Why is this woman so determined to thwart the democratic will of the majority?
Why is this woman so determined to thwart the democratic will of the majority?
Answers
Gott Im Himmel ven vill zee peoples underztant!! Come on Gromit, pure and simple by the rules of the referendum and the way it was staged BREXIT won the vote, neither you Mikey or any of our other resident lefty europhiles can question that yet the same drum is forever sounding. This woman has the money and now the notoriety to challenge this where ever she feels...
16:40 Thu 29th Dec 2016
I voted in a referendum against having an elected Mayor in Manchester.
// The people of Manchester have voted against having a directly-elected mayor to run their city.
The referendum saw 48,593 people vote to retain the status quo. Manchester City Council leader Sir Richard Leese said a majority of almost 6,000 was "a very clear rejection" by the people of Greater Manchester. //
Guess what? The referendum result was totally ignored and on 4 May 2017 we now have to elect a Mayor.
I am not advocating ignoring the EU referendum result, merely pointing out that they are not binding.
// The people of Manchester have voted against having a directly-elected mayor to run their city.
The referendum saw 48,593 people vote to retain the status quo. Manchester City Council leader Sir Richard Leese said a majority of almost 6,000 was "a very clear rejection" by the people of Greater Manchester. //
Guess what? The referendum result was totally ignored and on 4 May 2017 we now have to elect a Mayor.
I am not advocating ignoring the EU referendum result, merely pointing out that they are not binding.
erm during the first case in the Supreme Court
their Lordships asked the milling QCs ( their fee clocks racked up to regulo mark 7) " are you saying that the Brexit vote has legal force ?"
and none - yes none of the expensive QCs said "yes you old fools that is what we are saying exactly" - even the ones retained by the govt....
and 3T you can use the courts to litigate whatever you like - but you have to pay
their Lordships asked the milling QCs ( their fee clocks racked up to regulo mark 7) " are you saying that the Brexit vote has legal force ?"
and none - yes none of the expensive QCs said "yes you old fools that is what we are saying exactly" - even the ones retained by the govt....
and 3T you can use the courts to litigate whatever you like - but you have to pay
“…our Brexit will be final and irreversible.”
Not necessarily so. Only Parliament, it has been decreed, can taketh away our membership, so presumably it can also strive to restoreth it.
Article 49 of the Maastricht Treaty says that any European state that respects the "principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law", may apply to join the Union. (That's clearly how Turkey became a candidate nation). A party could stand at the next General election with a manifesto to reapply for EU membership. The 48% of those who voted to Remain could vote for them in 2020 and assuming they hold sway and that party would form a government and we could put our bid in (provided both Houses of parliament concur, natch). I’m sure we would qualify as a candidate nation and be welcomed with open arms (thus increasing the number of “net contributor” nations back up to five out of, probably around 32 by then). Our application could only be considered, of course, once those of Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey and possibly Kosovo have been determined. It took Estonia only eight years so we could be back in well before 2030.
That is, if the EU still exists by then.
Not necessarily so. Only Parliament, it has been decreed, can taketh away our membership, so presumably it can also strive to restoreth it.
Article 49 of the Maastricht Treaty says that any European state that respects the "principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law", may apply to join the Union. (That's clearly how Turkey became a candidate nation). A party could stand at the next General election with a manifesto to reapply for EU membership. The 48% of those who voted to Remain could vote for them in 2020 and assuming they hold sway and that party would form a government and we could put our bid in (provided both Houses of parliament concur, natch). I’m sure we would qualify as a candidate nation and be welcomed with open arms (thus increasing the number of “net contributor” nations back up to five out of, probably around 32 by then). Our application could only be considered, of course, once those of Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey and possibly Kosovo have been determined. It took Estonia only eight years so we could be back in well before 2030.
That is, if the EU still exists by then.
Gott Im Himmel ven vill zee peoples underztant!!
Come on Gromit, pure and simple by the rules of the referendum and the way it was staged BREXIT won the vote, neither you Mikey or any of our other resident lefty europhiles can question that yet the same drum is forever sounding.
This woman has the money and now the notoriety to challenge this where ever she feels like it and is typically another left wing elitist who will fight to get what SHE wants. This is just another step in the erosion of democracy and use of our vote, they country voted, lets make it happen
Come on Gromit, pure and simple by the rules of the referendum and the way it was staged BREXIT won the vote, neither you Mikey or any of our other resident lefty europhiles can question that yet the same drum is forever sounding.
This woman has the money and now the notoriety to challenge this where ever she feels like it and is typically another left wing elitist who will fight to get what SHE wants. This is just another step in the erosion of democracy and use of our vote, they country voted, lets make it happen
bang on ninefingers, they simply cannot accept that the public gave the "wrong" answer so they must correct our "flawed" thinking for us, they know what is best the public are too dim to understand what is best for them. The Liberal Elite must override the will of the majority for our own good. That's what its all been about, all the myriad of *** since June 23rd has been to find ways of cheating the public out of the result.
Mikey: "You can take a horse to water, etc, etc. " - indeed as you ably demonstrate by continually ignoring the point. I don't give a rats plaster about the delaying tactics of idiots like miller, the courts, parliament. the people elect parliament and they have voted on a simple 1 word binary choice, it does not get any simpler. The Government must now implement the result, end of, anything else is just delaying the inevitable.
Mikey444 //Jack....when the result of the appeal to the Supreme Court is known, early in January, we will all find out.
But I suspect that TTT will, even then, dispute the result.
You can take a horse to water, etc, etc. //
Please place a mark in the relevant box: Do you Britain to remain part of the European Union?
YES
NO
How complex is that for you to understand? How difficult is it to understand that of THOSE WHO BOTHERED TO VOTE a majority said NO and elected to leave the EU. How difficult is that t understand. The Will of the people MUST be honoured other wise simple democracy has failed
But I suspect that TTT will, even then, dispute the result.
You can take a horse to water, etc, etc. //
Please place a mark in the relevant box: Do you Britain to remain part of the European Union?
YES
NO
How complex is that for you to understand? How difficult is it to understand that of THOSE WHO BOTHERED TO VOTE a majority said NO and elected to leave the EU. How difficult is that t understand. The Will of the people MUST be honoured other wise simple democracy has failed
Ninefingers....I have made my position quite clear on this issue, many times before, but because you asked me reasonably nicely, I am willing to do it one more time.
No, I would have preferred to stay in the EU.
But I accept the result of the referendum. I don't want another re-run of the Ref.
However, as the Court ruling has already said, it should be Parliament that decides.
I fully expect that the appeal before the Supreme Court will uphold the lower Courts ruling. Mrs May will have to then proceed, in Parliament, to start the withdrawal process.
I'm not sure if I can make this any clearer. Lets wait for the outcome of the Supreme Court, and then proceed from there.
No, I would have preferred to stay in the EU.
But I accept the result of the referendum. I don't want another re-run of the Ref.
However, as the Court ruling has already said, it should be Parliament that decides.
I fully expect that the appeal before the Supreme Court will uphold the lower Courts ruling. Mrs May will have to then proceed, in Parliament, to start the withdrawal process.
I'm not sure if I can make this any clearer. Lets wait for the outcome of the Supreme Court, and then proceed from there.
Sucks to have the rule of law and due process followed, doesn't it?
But while we are on the subject, let's take the following to be true: the referendum result on June 23rd "must", as Ninefingers put it, be respected. Fine, fair enough. But what does this mean? That those who didn't like the result should now shut up and abdicate their responsibility to put their position forward? Certainly not. It is part of a democracy that (a) there is a losing side, but (b) that losing side is still free to voice its opinion and position. And, perhaps too, they have a right to use any democratic and legal means at their disposal to do so. You may not like it, you may think it a frustration of the end result, but to describe it as a rejection of democracy, or those who try this as enemies of democracy, is absolutely wrong.
And besides -- returning to the court judgement in question, "you lost, get over it". Only I don't see anyone who was on the losing side, effectively, in the High Court judgement shutting up. I don't see the government deciding not to exercise its legal right to appeal. I don't see those angered by the judgment rushing to say "oh that's fine, we were on the losing side and we totally and utterly respect that". I don't see those on AB condemning the government and its lawyers for rushing to thwart the will of the judiciary.
And I don't see, for that matter, that many people moaning at Gina Miller who seem also capable of appreciating the difference between due process and outcome. The Supreme Court decision, as and when it comes, will not be about overturning the result of the referendum. It will be about ensuring it goes ahead in the correct manner. If that means further legislation, as it very likely will do, then it naturally follows that the Lords will have to contribute as well.
You are calling Gina Miller an enemy of Democracy? You're too scared to let our democratically-elected representatives vote on it! You're too scared to allow the Lords to have a say, as they have done in this country for hundreds of years, and as constrained by our standard democratic rules.
Either ask yourself who the real enemy of democracy is, here, if you seem so determined to reject the one the UK has had for decades. Or, perhaps, should stop pretending that leaving the EU is the actual issue here, and start fighting for change in the way we make decisions. Starting with forming proper rules on referenda in the future; long-term reform of the upper Chamber; and better ways of electing to the Commons.
But for goodness' sake stop moaning. A time will come when the shoe's on the other foot and you'll be grateful for due process being followed, when the government was trying to force through stuff you didn't like without any kind of mandate in our Constitution. In this case, it's only about formalities anyway.
But while we are on the subject, let's take the following to be true: the referendum result on June 23rd "must", as Ninefingers put it, be respected. Fine, fair enough. But what does this mean? That those who didn't like the result should now shut up and abdicate their responsibility to put their position forward? Certainly not. It is part of a democracy that (a) there is a losing side, but (b) that losing side is still free to voice its opinion and position. And, perhaps too, they have a right to use any democratic and legal means at their disposal to do so. You may not like it, you may think it a frustration of the end result, but to describe it as a rejection of democracy, or those who try this as enemies of democracy, is absolutely wrong.
And besides -- returning to the court judgement in question, "you lost, get over it". Only I don't see anyone who was on the losing side, effectively, in the High Court judgement shutting up. I don't see the government deciding not to exercise its legal right to appeal. I don't see those angered by the judgment rushing to say "oh that's fine, we were on the losing side and we totally and utterly respect that". I don't see those on AB condemning the government and its lawyers for rushing to thwart the will of the judiciary.
And I don't see, for that matter, that many people moaning at Gina Miller who seem also capable of appreciating the difference between due process and outcome. The Supreme Court decision, as and when it comes, will not be about overturning the result of the referendum. It will be about ensuring it goes ahead in the correct manner. If that means further legislation, as it very likely will do, then it naturally follows that the Lords will have to contribute as well.
You are calling Gina Miller an enemy of Democracy? You're too scared to let our democratically-elected representatives vote on it! You're too scared to allow the Lords to have a say, as they have done in this country for hundreds of years, and as constrained by our standard democratic rules.
Either ask yourself who the real enemy of democracy is, here, if you seem so determined to reject the one the UK has had for decades. Or, perhaps, should stop pretending that leaving the EU is the actual issue here, and start fighting for change in the way we make decisions. Starting with forming proper rules on referenda in the future; long-term reform of the upper Chamber; and better ways of electing to the Commons.
But for goodness' sake stop moaning. A time will come when the shoe's on the other foot and you'll be grateful for due process being followed, when the government was trying to force through stuff you didn't like without any kind of mandate in our Constitution. In this case, it's only about formalities anyway.
"You are calling Gina Miller an enemy of Democracy? You're too scared to let our democratically-elected representatives vote on it! You're too scared to allow the Lords to have a say, as they have done in this country for hundreds of years, and as constrained by our standard democratic rules. " - am simply concerned that these self serving troughers will cheat us out of the referendum result.
Latest Posts
Body & Soul8 mins ago
Computers10 mins ago
Religion & Spirituality - What...
ChatterBank17 mins ago
Crosswords18 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.