wyjsar
Nothing but heart
Ah no, no irony in your post.Ah yes irony miss.
Ah no, no irony in your post.Ah yes irony miss.
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.I am not wrong. And Gina Miller was not attempting to reverse the Brexit vote.
Whatever. It was mostly Mail borne hysteria and that's not something I consider very significant.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.
Not if you consider the views of Supreme Court judges interesting.1. She won her case. The dissenting opinions are irrelevant;
The action changed nothing, it was irrelevant.2. She won, so not irrelevant;
You've confused Parliament and government.3. Until the judgement, Parliament had no intention of acting as they subsequently did otherwise they would not have contested the legal challenge;
See above for 2.4. So not a waste time or money (good television too);
It's possible to reason about intentions.5. The "intention" was that specified in the legal challenge - what you choose to believe the motive was is irrelevant;
You've failed to illustrate your point.6. You are wrong. You might or not be an idiot.
I know you have trouble with objectivity, but this is a bit of a low.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.
But I think it is quite reasonable to be upset about an attempt by an elite to usurp a popular vote.
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.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.
This is ignorant bollocks start to end. Why do you feel the need to spew falsehoods all over your forum?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!
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
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
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
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
This is ignorant bollocks start to end. Why do you feel the need to spew falsehoods all over your forum?
Paul
Which is obviously why we need a court to make a decision. Decision, means a choice. Did you read the dissenting opinions?The courts didn't choose anything, parliament sets the rules and the courts enforce them.
What?you are upset that someone disagreed with you and are basically having a tantrum.