Gina Miller wins at the Supreme court over Brexxit..But what is in it for her?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

I agree that MPs should vote leave ( although this shouldn't mean giving May a blank cheque to decide the nature of leave).

What I don't get is people who view having parliament get a vote on it is somehow anti democratic.

Probably because Cameron said that if the people chose to leave the E.U, he would follow the will of the people and invoke Article 50.

Sure he claimed there would be turmoil for the economy if we left and the U.K would be worse off financially. What he didn't say was that if it didn't go his way, he would resign within hours of the result and leave it to somebody else to sort out.

He also didn't explain that it would have to be debated in parliament and an act of Parliament passed in order to invoke the good old article 50.

I welcome the debate to be honest, and we need to start talking ourselves up before the self fulfilling prophecy delivers everything those who voted to remain in the E.U promised it will.

The oldest trick in the books.

If the people vote in a way you don't like, get the courts to rule in your favor anyhow.

We are all very familiar with this trick in the US.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: crazyewok
MP should vote the way there constituants voted in the referendem.

If they dont they are traiters to the people.

Why not vote for what's in the best interests of their constituents ..? Listen, If the vote was a secret ballot the majority would vote against Brexit, but as the vote result and who voted for what will be in the public domain they will vote to leave just to save there own jobs...# everyone elses job.

It would be interesting to see a graph of how constituencies the length and breadth of the country voted. That would give us an idea of how the MP's plan on voting because i'm damn sure those same MP's will be looking at the figures for direction to save there skins at the next local election.

MP job is to represent there constitutes.

If they vote against there constitutes wishes they are not doing there job

a reply to: crazyewok

That's something else we are familiar with in teh US.

a reply to: crazyewok

No they are elected to represent the best interests of their constituents. That is not always to follow the majority.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: crazyewok
MP should vote the way there constituants voted in the referendem.

If they dont they are traiters to the people.

Why not vote for what's in the best interests of their constituents ..? Listen, If the vote was a secret ballot the majority would vote against Brexit, but as the vote result and who voted for what will be in the public domain they will vote to leave just to save there own jobs...# everyone elses job.

It would be interesting to see a graph of how constituencies the length and breadth of the country voted. That would give us an idea of how the MP's plan on voting because i'm damn sure those same MP's will be looking at the figures for direction to save there skins at the next local election.

MP job is to represent there constitutes.

If they vote against there constitutes wishes they are not doing there job

And if the majority of there constituents voted to stay but the party tells them to vote leave...?

a reply to: Soloprotocol

They should ignore there party.

MP should vote exactly how there constituants voted.

There loyalty should be to there constituents not there party.

a reply to: ScepticScot

No, Treason is illegal in every country. Including this one.

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Tom Slater, who was in that video, wrote about the result this morning. It was quite interesting to see a response to his article from an expert in constitutional law.

As an Oxford educated lawyer who got a high first in constitutional law here is my opinion: paragraph 42 of the judgment: "the law is made in or under statutes, but there are areas where the law has long been laid down and developed by judges themselves: that is the common law". Next sentence, common law is subordinate to statute i.e. judges defer to parliament.

Para 45. "the Crown's administrative powers are now exercised by the executive i.e. by ministers who are answerable to the UK parliament. However, consistently with the principles established in the 17th century, the exercise of those powers must be compatible with legislation and the common law. Otherwise, ministers would be changing (or infringing) the law, which, as just explained, they cannot do". Now what's the problem with that constitutional analysis? Well the brighter ones among you will note para 42. and the crucial words "laid down and developed by the Judges themselves: that is the common law".

That is an argument that the constitutional balance goes like this: Parliament no.1; Judges no.2 (common law); Government/Executive No.3 i.e. the law as laid down and developed by Judges (in their expert non partisan/non-biased/politically blind opinions) trumps the power of government (formed from elected MP's with a majority sufficient to pass the Queen's business through parliament) and to use the royal prerogative to act on the international stage in relation to foreign affairs.

So when Iain Duncan Smith and David Davis say this decision is of enormous constitutional significance it is because the judges in their own words and in their own judgment have just said they have the right not just to apply and interpret statutory law but that their role is actually to 'lay down and develop' their own law - according to them that is the common law and that ministers and government come third in their pecking order. That requires an enormous constitutional re-evaluation! If Judges now believe actively that rather than deferring to Parliament and to Ministers in the exercise of the Queen's prerogative powers in relation to foreign affairs that they 'lay down and develop their own law' and that that Judge made law trumps the executive then we need to seriously think about the process by which Judges are appointed and in particular their political / social / economic and other views (as in the United States). When I studied law at Oxford Judges were extremely wary of ever trespassing either in the realm of statute or minister's exercise of the prerogative. It now seems that since Factortame in 1990 our judiciary have taken a liking to the power grabbing antics of the ECJ (some of whom have served on it) and that is very worrying development.

In terms of the next steps for the Government I'd actually use the Judgment against the Judges and the Remainers themselves. Paragraph 60 of the Judgment is explicit that "the 1972 Ac can be repealed like any other statute". The Supreme Court also recognises the argument of duality i.e. that International Treaties exist on one plain and domestic legislation on another. Therefore if I were the government I'd repeal the 1972 Act now. Replace it with a short Act preserving existing EU rights under that act AND THEN trigger Article 50. That would take the legal challenges out at the knees.

This is not a victory for parliamentary sovereignty

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Well, being one of those "people" of Holland, I can tell you what message she sends me: that democracy, thank Goodness, is far more resilient against populism than the populists hope it is.

It is popular sovereignty that gives parliamentary sovereignty legitimacy ie it is a privilege given by the people. You need to reread your statement. Populism and democracy are not enemies. I am a Populist as I believe 100% parliamentary representation to be wrong (it should be mixed ie 50% direct democracy).

Political parties and politicians often use the terms populist and populism as pejoratives against their opponents. Such a view sees populism as merely empathising with the public, (usually through rhetoric or unrealistic proposals) in order to increase appeal across the political spectrum (cf. demagogy).[2]

Populism is most common in democratic nations. Political scientist Cas Mudde wrote that, "Many observers have noted that populism is inherent to representative democracy; after all, do populists not juxtapose 'the pure people' against 'the corrupt elite'?"[3]

Populism - Wkipedia

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: ScepticScot

No, Treason is illegal in every country. Including this one.

Disagreeing with the government is treason? What a scary world view.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: UKTruthWhat message do they think this is sending to the people of France and Holland, Germany, with elections coming up..?

Well, being one of those "people" of Holland, I can tell you what message she sends me: that democracy, thank Goodness, is far more resilient against populism than the populists hope it is.

And I thought democracy WAS populism. I guess its democracy if you think it and populism if I do?

populism

/ˈpɒpjʊlɪz(ə)m/

noun: populism

support for the concerns of ordinary people.

Anyway MP's would not dare block brexit.

Short term the country will erupt in violence. We will see riots on a scale not seen before in the UK. # will get #ed up.

Long term the country will be thrown into political turmil that would not more damage than leaving the EU ever would.

First a General election would be called.
Conservatives would be decimated and labour all but wiped out except in the far north with likely huge UKIP wins. At best we end up with a tory/ukip collation. Worse a hung parliament that cant form any government.

Then you have the paramilitary groups like britain first that will spring into action, we really could see domestic terrorism, though hopefully it would be directed at the EU goverment and traitorous mps rather than innocent civilians.

a reply to: ScepticScot

No. Intentionally and willingly selling out and weakening your own country for the benefit of foreign powers who are openly hostile to your people is treason.

originally posted by: Mclaneinc

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Mclaneinc

It's a time game. The only desired outcome is to stall a while. More time to liquidate the assets.

Its that but there's more, I can feel it..

Marketing strategy maybe. Before she brought the court case and other than a few disgruntled financiers, who ever heard of Gina Miller?

She is now a household name, standing up to bankers and empowering women to enter the financial sector. Go brand Gina?

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: ScepticScot

No. Intentionally and willingly selling out and weakening your own country for the benefit of foreign powers who are openly hostile to your people is treason.

What on earth are you talking about?

Believing that membership of the EU is to the benefit of the UK is not 'selling out to ostile powers'.

Take a deep breath and get some perspective