advertisement


Aristocrat guilty over Gina Miller post

I am not wrong. And Gina Miller was not attempting to reverse the Brexit vote.
I explained why you were wrong, it requires a second order analysis, a looking into the implications rather than the surface action. And what happened in Parliament demonstrates that I was correct in my assessment. The Miller court case was a waste of time, a spoiler.

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.
Whatever. It was mostly Mail borne hysteria and that's not something I consider very significant.

But I think it is quite reasonable to be upset about an attempt by an elite to usurp a popular vote.

It's also reasonable in a wider context (and see the dissenting opinions) to consider that the courts instructing the government how to deal with Parliament was an inversion of the proper relationship, Parliament is the boss, yet had to wait on the courts in an action triggered by a private party. Emasculating.

And, as we say, the court action was meaningless. Parliament had to either dissolve itself or permit the referendum to be acted upon.

So that's another time.

Paul
 
1. She won her case. The dissenting opinions are irrelevant;
Not if you consider the views of Supreme Court judges interesting.

2. She won, so not irrelevant;
The action changed nothing, it was irrelevant.

3. Until the judgement, Parliament had no intention of acting as they subsequently did otherwise they would not have contested the legal challenge;
You've confused Parliament and government.

4. So not a waste time or money (good television too);
See above for 2.

5. The "intention" was that specified in the legal challenge - what you choose to believe the motive was is irrelevant;
It's possible to reason about intentions.

6. You are wrong. You might or not be an idiot.
You've failed to illustrate your point.

Paul
 
While threats are made to throw acid in her face and a Tory hereditary peer publish incitement to kill, you posture behind your particular nosegay. There's a surprise.
I know you have trouble with objectivity, but this is a bit of a low.

Do you think legal argument should be influenced by criminal acts?

Paul
 
Your position is very telling Paul, it's a verdict you should have been happy with and TM wasted huge amounts of money first by not avoiding it and then with a vexatious appeal seeking to be 'populist'.

The Supreme Court's decision was given on appeal from the High Court's ruling that the Crown's foreign affairs prerogative, which is exercised by the government led by the prime minister, may not be used to nullify rights that parliament has enacted through primary legislation.

It was as simple as that. You may well be right that, in the circumstances the process amounted to a rubber stamp, but it was parliament's rubber stamp and not for the executive to ignore it. There is a very clear path for that sort of thing in future if May had got away with it.
 
I know you have trouble with objectivity, but this is a bit of a low.

Do you think legal argument should be influenced by criminal acts?

Paul

It would appear the woman who is subject of this thread wouldn't have even got to court to present her legal argument if some of your political bed fellows had their way.

Then of course there's the barely legal approach -


2h4ix5s.jpg


It strikes me your pirouetting has become more seedy of late ( check thread title for further information).
 
Your position is very telling Paul, it's a verdict you should have been happy with and TM wasted huge amounts of money first by not avoiding it and then with a vexatious appeal seeking to be 'populist'.

The Supreme Court's decision was given on appeal from the High Court's ruling that the Crown's foreign affairs prerogative, which is exercised by the government led by the prime minister, may not be used to nullify rights that parliament has enacted through primary legislation.

It was as simple as that. You may well be right that, in the circumstances the process amounted to a rubber stamp, but it was parliament's rubber stamp and not for the executive to ignore it. There is a very clear path for that sort of thing in future if May had got away with it.

As with most on the hard/"alt"/Tea Party fringes of the political right Paul is perfectly happy with authoritarianism, anti-science and ignoring established legal process and protocols when it suits his agenda or biases. Same story with climate science etc. For the rest of us Gina Miller holding an unbelievably arrogant and pig-headed government intent upon riding roughshod over the law of the land to account was a wonderful thing. She should be given a seat in the HoL!
 
That though, is how it looks to the nativist right. "Black, female boat jumper" defies the will of that particular elite- hence the acid attack threats and incitement to kill.
 
Your position is very telling Paul, it's a verdict you should have been happy with and TM wasted huge amounts of money first by not avoiding it and then with a vexatious appeal seeking to be 'populist'.

The Supreme Court's decision was given on appeal from the High Court's ruling that the Crown's foreign affairs prerogative, which is exercised by the government led by the prime minister, may not be used to nullify rights that parliament has enacted through primary legislation.

It was as simple as that. You may well be right that, in the circumstances the process amounted to a rubber stamp, but it was parliament's rubber stamp and not for the executive to ignore it. There is a very clear path for that sort of thing in future if May had got away with it.
I was primarily unhappy that the courts chose to get in between Parliament and government, at the behest of a private citizen. It seemed to be a question that didn't need answering, because if Parliament is sovereign then it doesn't need the courts to tell the government how to behave.

You can read the full judgement at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf it is quite interesting.

Paul
 
As with most on the hard/"alt"/Tea Party fringes of the political right Paul is perfectly happy with authoritarianism, anti-science and ignoring established legal process and protocols when it suits his agenda or biases. Same story with climate science etc. For the rest of us Gina Miller holding an unbelievably arrogant and pig-headed government intent upon riding roughshod over the law of the land to account was a wonderful thing. She should be given a seat in the HoL!
This is ignorant bollocks start to end. Why do you feel the need to spew falsehoods all over your forum?

Paul
 
I was primarily unhappy that the courts chose to get in between Parliament and government, at the behest of a private citizen. It seemed to be a question that didn't need answering, because if Parliament is sovereign then it doesn't need the courts to tell the government how to behave.

You can read the full judgement at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf it is quite interesting.

Paul

You really have no understanding about Parliament, Government, and the Law.

The Court did not choose to "get in the way" of anything. The Court decides matters of Law which are brought before them.

You link to a judgement which you have either not read or, if read, do not understand....
 
I was primarily unhappy that the courts chose to get in between Parliament and government, at the behest of a private citizen. It seemed to be a question that didn't need answering, because if Parliament is sovereign then it doesn't need the courts to tell the government how to behave.

You can read the full judgement at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf it is quite interesting.

Paul

The courts didn't choose anything, parliament sets the rules and the courts enforce them.

you are upset that someone disagreed with you and are basically having a tantrum.
 
I was primarily unhappy that the courts chose to get in between Parliament and government, at the behest of a private citizen. It seemed to be a question that didn't need answering, because if Parliament is sovereign then it doesn't need the courts to tell the government how to behave.

Paul

Nonsense. Parliament is sovereign and sets the laws, but is still subject to the laws it has itself set and to that end has to abide by any court decisions relating to the law.
 
I was primarily unhappy that the courts chose to get in between Parliament and government, at the behest of a private citizen. It seemed to be a question that didn't need answering, because if Parliament is sovereign then it doesn't need the courts to tell the government how to behave.

You can read the full judgement at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf it is quite interesting.

Paul

My recollection is that all the noises coming out of government were that it was not intending to give Parliament the chance to fulfil the role it clearly had, on the subject. Parliament, at the time, seemed to be so shellshocked it appeared to be passively rolling over and accepting that. Faced with this, it is surely right that somebody stood up and got the courts to insist that both sides of the executive did the thing they were supposed to do, and had been elected to do. For which, various parties were branded enemies of the people.
 
This is ignorant bollocks start to end. Why do you feel the need to spew falsehoods all over your forum?

Paul

Your delusional beliefs re: possession of a holy grail of all knowledge will be your undoing.
 
The courts didn't choose anything, parliament sets the rules and the courts enforce them.
Which is obviously why we need a court to make a decision. Decision, means a choice. Did you read the dissenting opinions?

It was completely within the court's power to step back from interposing itself between Parliament and government.

you are upset that someone disagreed with you and are basically having a tantrum.
What?

I'm upset about the idiocy and ignorance on display here and elsewhere, but in this particular case I had it exactly right.

Looking forward to seeing those threatening Gina Miller in court and then jail, a direct threat is much more serious than our looney aristocrat's criminal activity.

Paul
 


advertisement


Back
Top