Nic Robinson
Moderator
Maybe now is the time to remind the extreme Brexiteer ****wits that Gina Miller did not attempt to reverse the referendum result.
Mull
Quite. Why anyone should take issue with her actions is beyond me.
Maybe now is the time to remind the extreme Brexiteer ****wits that Gina Miller did not attempt to reverse the referendum result.
Mull
They won't understand. They're thick...Maybe now is the time to remind the extreme Brexiteer ****wits that Gina Miller did not attempt to reverse the referendum result.
Mull
If that wasn't her aim then she is spectacularly stupid.Maybe now is the time to remind the extreme Brexiteer ****wits that Gina Miller did not attempt to reverse the referendum result.
Mull
What is that meant to mean?
Jack
Did you read the Supreme Court judgement? Particularly the dissent.Indeed, that's why she won! She was legally and constitutionally correct.
Did you read the Supreme Court judgement? Particularly the dissent.
Whether she won or not was irrelevant, Parliament was bound to act as it has done. So the case was a colossal waste of time and money.
The only explanation for her bringing the case was the hope that Parliament, which largely disagreed with the referendum result, would act to inhibit or reverse the implementation. (Which demonstrates a failure to comprehend the constitution and where sovereignty starts)
Hence either Miller was attempting to reverse the result, or she is a complete idiot. Mull is wrong as I don't think she's an idiot.
Paul
Certainly there was hope Parliament would reverse the result. But was this a wrong thing to hope? The question is indeed constitutional. It basically is a question of whether Parliament is supreme, or whether it can be bound. You want it bound this time, but I'm not at all sure you always would....
Yes. To reverse it the question needed to go back to the people.Certainly there was hope Parliament would reverse the result. But was this a wrong thing to hope?
Parliament isn't supreme, because it is elected, it is a temporary vesting of the sovereignty or the people. And it is routinely bound by the wholesale delegation of sovereignty to the EU, and the consequent supremacy of the ECJ. Which is where we came in. So I'm not sure what your point was.The question is indeed constitutional. It basically is a question of whether Parliament is supreme, or whether it can be bound. You want it bound this time, but I'm not at all sure you always would....
It's not just about whether it's dangerous to eat; some of us have higher standards than that.Apparently the EU protects us from the risks of US sourced chicken, is it dangerous to eat?
.
I've read some offensive shit on here from time to time but that above is way beyond the pale.
Did you read the Supreme Court judgement? Particularly the dissent.
Whether she won or not was irrelevant, Parliament was bound to act as it has done. So the case was a colossal waste of time and money.
The only explanation for her bringing the case was the hope that Parliament, which largely disagreed with the referendum result, would act to inhibit or reverse the implementation. (Which demonstrates a failure to comprehend the constitution and where sovereignty starts)
Hence either Miller was attempting to reverse the result, or she is a complete idiot. Mull is wrong as I don't think she's an idiot.
Paul
Brexit legal challenge
Main article: R (Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
In June 2016, in the aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, Miller privately engaged the City of London law firm Mishcon de Reya to challenge the authority of the British Government to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union using prerogative powers, arguing that only Parliament can take away rights that Parliament has granted.[20]
On 3 November 2016, the High Court of Justice ruled that Parliament had to legislate before the Government could invoke Article 50.[26][27] Miller said outside the High Court: "The judgment, I hope – when it's read by the Government and they contemplate the full judgment – that they will make the wise decision of not appealing but pressing forward and having a proper debate in our sovereign Parliament, our mother of parliaments that we are so admired for all over the world".[28]
Miller stated why she was pressing on with the legal action in a newspaper article published the day before the Supreme Court appeal hearing opened on 5 December. She was not a committed Europhile, but she did have a legal training, a job in investment management, and "years of campaigning for transparency and accountability". She was concerned that experienced, senior politicians appeared not to know that only Parliament can take away from people rights that Parliament had granted; and were instead proposing to trigger withdrawal from the EU, without parliamentary authority, by using the royal prerogative, which she described as "an ancient self-serving right that Kings and Queens once used to rid themselves of their enemies". It was not the idea of Brexit that filled her with dread but the idea of an unchallenged, unanswerable government taking "us" back to 1610, "and ripping a hole through our democratic structures".[29]
Yes. To reverse it the question needed to go back to the people.
Parliament isn't supreme, because it is elected, it is a temporary vesting of the sovereignty or the people. And it is routinely bound by the wholesale delegation of sovereignty to the EU, and the consequent supremacy of the ECJ. Which is where we came in. So I'm not sure what your point was.
Paul
Apparently the EU protects us from the risks of US sourced chicken, is it dangerous to eat?
The idea that Mull or Jay are somehow more knowledgeable on our constitution than JR-M is most amusing.
You need to be more specific. Modern day constitution, or 17th Century?
12th? 13th?For the comedy to flow you need to be more specific. Modern day constitution, or 17th Century?