advertisement


Aristocrat guilty over Gina Miller post

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.

In any case her case (!) demonstrated a marked incomprehension of the constitution. An incomprehension that appears widespread.

(We've been over it literally times, so I see no point in reiterating)

Paul
 
What is that meant to mean?

Jack

It's a reference to the case mentioned upthread, in which the argument is whether a video of a dog trained to react to the phrase "gas the Jews" is a permissible cuteness, or a sneaky way to express a hateful Nazi sentiment.
 
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
 
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....
 
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....

Doh, you noticed. I'm sure Paul would have been just as keen to have Parliament bypassed had it been on a matter he was opposed to. How very dare you. :D

Just like his fellow travellers on this journey to UK irrelevance, we must assume he will also be happy to trash the UK economy on some spastic notion of 'sovereignty'.
 
Certainly there was hope Parliament would reverse the result. But was this a wrong thing to hope?
Yes. To reverse it the question needed to go back to the people.

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....
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.

In any case the government only persists with the will of Parliament, Article 50 could only be invoked with the consent, either tacit or explicit, of Parliament. But this Parliament was bound to consent because it asked the question of the electors. So the court case was irrelevant to the process.

So that's another repetition...

Apparently the EU protects us from the risks of US sourced chicken, is it dangerous to eat?

Paul
 
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

I am not wrong. And Gina Miller was not attempting to reverse the Brexit vote.

From Wiki.

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]


It is also blindingly obvious to anyone who wishes to see, that much of he press hysteria against Miller and the judges who found in her favour, had its real root, not in the Brexit debacle, but in entrenched vested and corrupt interests, implacably opposed to her 'True and Fair' campaign.

Mull
 
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

JR-M has it nailed as usual.

https://youtu.be/7o3RuxoX5dU
 
Apparently the EU protects us from the risks of US sourced chicken, is it dangerous to eat?


The example of Nigel Farge suggests it's a bad idea
Anyway, eating the EU would certainly result in severe dyspepsia.
 
The idea that Mull or Jay are somehow more knowledgeable on our constitution than JR-M is most amusing.

Perhaps they'd care to enlighten us on which part of the premise that the repeal of the European Communities Act of 1972 will restore parliamentary sovereignty to Westminster is incorrect?
 
You need to be more specific. Modern day constitution, or 17th Century?

Hard to say with nothing written down. Also all this talk of the return of sovereignty does p*** off Scotland, Wales and some parts of N. I.
 
For the comedy to flow you need to be more specific. Modern day constitution, or 17th Century?
12th? 13th?

DD-FHxrXUAArZZe.jpg
 


advertisement


Back
Top