Brexit

[LostKiwi]

You are struggling to support your argument somewhat if you feel the need to discount Ms Millars and Mr Mullins involvement he has got rather "dressy" hair though

Oh forgot to mention - Charlie Mullins wasn't a complainant as far as I can see - he was only a financial contributor.
Ms Miller was the main complainant in the case and also a major contributor. Not discounting her involvement at all and can't see anything which suggest I have?

 

[geraldrobins]

I wonder if she has any stake in some City law partnerships?

Maybe Mrs May does.

 

[Craiglxviii]

Maybe Mrs May does.

But she didn't bring the motion...

 

[davemercedes]

Oh, No!

Mrs May just wasted a lorra taxpayers money on a political diversion that was totally unnecessary and an absolute legal fiasco by launching an appeal that her advisers must have told her she would lose. If they didn't tell her, then she should get rid of them much sooner than later and get some with a modicum of intelligence!

Ordinary taxpayers had no say in that shambles, and in so doing, she and her cronies created one of those "injustices" she says she will fight against! - That is presuming that throwing taxpayers (the much vaunted "hard working ordinary plebs err sorry, people) money away without the "will of the people" comes under such a heading! But of course it won't.

 

[geraldrobins]

But she didn't bring the motion...[/QUO
She didn't indeed, but Mrs May could have responded by going through the process of parliament which she did last week, when the constitutional issue was brought to her attention. The timetable is still the same. Maybe Mrs May wanted to buy time.

 

[Frontstep]

You could look at what else Ms Millar does and what stances she has taken in the past. Whilst its true she hasn't challenged the PM in the past that may purely be because she hasn't seen the need.

I suggest you look to her past achievements, her 'ethos' and then decide if this was anti Brexit or not.

For example:
She has campaigned against board bonuses.
She has campaigned for more transparency, and an end to hidden fund charges and mis-selling in the City of London’s fund management industry.
She has campaigned against the amount charities take in administration costs.
She has campaigned against domestic abuse.
She is a major contributor to the Margaret Thatcher Infirmary at the Royal Hospital Chelsea (even though she has always voted Labour apparently).
She and her husband have set up a foundation to make it easier for 'time poor' philanthropists to donate responsibly.
She has taken on the city with regard to the practises employed in the financial sector in order to try and get better protection for small investors.

From her own LinkedIn page (https://www.linkedin.com/in/ginamillerscm) she says she is concerned with:
Civil Rights and Social Action
Economic Empowerment
Education
Environment
Human Rights
Politics
Poverty Alleviation

I see no conflict of interest in what she did with respect to taking on the government in terms of her previous activities and causes. She was simply ensuring our human rights were protected and that the correct process was adhered to.
Clearly the courts agreed with her.

So thats just a very very long winded no she hasn't then,

as I said she and her supporters have not (unless you can show me to be wrong) on any other issue questioned the powers.

It is blindingly obvious she is a frustrated remainer exercising her right to try and disrupt the outcome of the referendum vote.

She has a pyrrhic victory anecdote to excite the Islington dinner parties.

Takes allsorts I suppose.

 

[PovertySpec]

For example:
She has campaigned against board bonuses.
She has campaigned for more transparency, and an end to hidden fund charges and mis-selling in the City of London’s fund management industry.
She has campaigned against the amount charities take in administration costs.
She has campaigned against domestic abuse.
She is a major contributor to the Margaret Thatcher Infirmary at the Royal Hospital Chelsea (even though she has always voted Labour apparently).
She and her husband have set up a foundation to make it easier for 'time poor' philanthropists to donate responsibly.
She has taken on the city with regard to the practises employed in the financial sector in order to try and get better protection for small investors.

Civil Rights and Social Action
Economic Empowerment
Education
Environment
Human Rights
Politics
Poverty Alleviation

She is Mrs. P R Wales and I claim my £5

 

[AMGeed]

She is Mrs. P R Wales and I claim my £5

That was actually very funny

 

[davemercedes]

But she didn't bring the motion...[/QUO
She didn't indeed, but Mrs May could have responded by going through the process of parliament which she did last week, when the constitutional issue was brought to her attention. The timetable is still the same. Maybe Mrs May wanted to buy time.

Of course she didn't need to go to appeal.

I wonder if Mrs May's backers - i.e.: you, me, et al taxpayers wanted to buy time?
- I certainly didn't want any of my money feeding the legal jackals.

Utterly disgraceful. Nothing less. And in the fulness of time the facts will emerge (they always do - Downing Street is as leaky as a sieve!) i.e.: the facts of how she was undoubtedly told she would lose. We'll probably also have it confirmed as a diversion thought up by some muppet or other just like a lot of the other clap trap.

 

[LostKiwi]

So thats just a very very long winded no she hasn't then,

as I said she and her supporters have not (unless you can show me to be wrong) on any other issue questioned the powers.

It is blindingly obvious she is a frustrated remainer exercising her right to try and disrupt the outcome of the referendum vote.

She has a pyrrhic victory anecdote to excite the Islington dinner parties.

Takes allsorts I suppose.

So the FACT she has campaigned on human rights issues, is concerned about the average man's savings and investments and is a philanthropist is conveniently ignored because you think (with no FACT to support your assertions) she did it as a sour and bitter remain loser.

I guess that puts you in blinkered Brexiters camp. I'm glad not all Brexiters think as you do (cheers Yugguy) as it gives some hope that maybe we'll be ok when the cord is cut.
If the rest of the country thinks along the same lines as those Brexiters who were so narrow minded as to make rape and death threats against her then this society is one I wouldn't want to be a part of.

Fundamentally for whatever reason she did it the courts agreed with her which means Mrs May had no right to take unilateral action to invoke A50. Or do you think the courts are as bad as Gina Miller and are sore losers too?

 

[Frontstep]

So the FACT she has campaigned on human rights issues, is concerned about the average man's savings and investments and is a philanthropist is conveniently ignored because you think (with no FACT to support your assertions) she did it as a sour and bitter remain loser.

I guess that puts you in blinkered Brexiters camp. I'm glad not all Brexiters think as you do (cheers Yugguy) as it gives some hope that maybe we'll be ok when the cord is cut.
If the rest of the country thinks along the same lines as those Brexiters who were so narrow minded as to make rape and death threats against her then this society is one I wouldn't want to be a part of.

Fundamentally for whatever reason she did it the courts agreed with her which means Mrs May had no right to take unilateral action to invoke A50. Or do you think the courts are as bad as Gina Miller and are sore losers too?

So thats just another very very very long winded no she hasn't.

As I said she and her supporters have not (unless you can show me to be wrong) on any other issue and this questioned the powers.

They are still untouched and the great democracy campaigner didn't even have a scratch at them.

She certainly had her moment at our expense but to deny her intention wasn't to try and derail the Brexit process is pointless.

And when you clear the sand from your remaining feathers perhaps her own words in an interview with the Guardian might persuade, please no more this is cringeworthy;


"The businesswoman at the centre of the legal challenge to ensure parliament is consulted before Theresa May triggers Brexit has said the landmark case was motivated by her fear that the UK faced a “treacherous future”.


"In an interview with the Guardian, Gina Miller said she knew the ruling would leave her unpopular with many EU referendum voters, but believed that the UK had failed itself and the rest of Europe by voting to leave the bloc rather than reform it from within.

“I was never binary remain or leave. I was very much of the sentiment, and still am, that it was about remain, reform and review,” Miller said. “The UK actually has a very powerful place in Europe ... and we have not just let ourselves down but I think the whole of Europe down by not taking up that challenge.”

 

[LostKiwi]

So thats just another very very very long winded no she hasn't.

As I said she and her supporters have not (unless you can show me to be wrong) on any other issue and this questioned the powers.

They are still untouched and the great democracy campaigner didn't even have a scratch at them.

She certainly had her moment at our expense but to deny her intention wasn't to try and derail the Brexit process is pointless.

And when you clear the sand from your remaining feathers perhaps her own words in an interview with the Guardian might persuade, please no more this is cringeworthy;


"The businesswoman at the centre of the legal challenge to ensure parliament is consulted before Theresa May triggers Brexit has said the landmark case was motivated by her fear that the UK faced a “treacherous future”.


"In an interview with the Guardian, Gina Miller said she knew the ruling would leave her unpopular with many EU referendum voters, but believed that the UK had failed itself and the rest of Europe by voting to leave the bloc rather than reform it from within.

“I was never binary remain or leave. I was very much of the sentiment, and still am, that it was about remain, reform and review,” Miller said. “The UK actually has a very powerful place in Europe ... and we have not just let ourselves down but I think the whole of Europe down by not taking up that challenge.”

Oh dear.
It must upset you greatly that the highest courts in the land agreed she was right.

I'll clear the sand from my feathers when you pull your head from that place the sun don't shine and realise she actually did Brexit a favour no matter what her motives (and as far as I'm concerned I think she did us all a favour by reminding Mrs May that she doesn't have absolute power and enshrining that in law).

 

[LostKiwi]

So thats just another very very very long winded no she hasn't.

As I said she and her supporters have not (unless you can show me to be wrong) on any other issue and this questioned the powers.

They are still untouched and the great democracy campaigner didn't even have a scratch at them.

She certainly had her moment at our expense but to deny her intention wasn't to try and derail the Brexit process is pointless.

And when you clear the sand from your remaining feathers perhaps her own words in an interview with the Guardian might persuade, please no more this is cringeworthy;


"The businesswoman at the centre of the legal challenge to ensure parliament is consulted before Theresa May triggers Brexit has said the landmark case was motivated by her fear that the UK faced a “treacherous future”.


"In an interview with the Guardian, Gina Miller said she knew the ruling would leave her unpopular with many EU referendum voters, but believed that the UK had failed itself and the rest of Europe by voting to leave the bloc rather than reform it from within.

“I was never binary remain or leave. I was very much of the sentiment, and still am, that it was about remain, reform and review,” Miller said. “The UK actually has a very powerful place in Europe ... and we have not just let ourselves down but I think the whole of Europe down by not taking up that challenge.”

Also from the Guardian:
“The Santos and Miller claim is and has always been about the process for exit from the EU. No more no less. Many see it as an attempt to forestall the exit but Mr Santos voted for Brexit and supports that goal."

And...

"Miller argued that the case was not about stopping Brexit, but simply ensuring that a precedent was not set under which the government could bypass parliament on any issue it chose.

She also said she was baffled that the government had taken the case to the supreme court, because that had allowed the Scottish and Welsh governments to raise the devolution settlement. They had added unnecessary “twists and turns”, she said."

BBC:
"Ms Miller argued that only Parliament could make a decision leading to the loss of her "rights" under EU law.
But she has stressed throughout that the challenge was not an attempt to overturn the referendum decision, telling BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We are all leavers now.""

Not that any of it matters. The courts still agreed.

 

[Frontstep]

So to sum up Ms Millar's sole reason for her and the Pimlico plumber et als action was to frustrate the outcome of a Democratic vote which she/they disagreed with.
In the process wasting our money why do you persist in trying to paint black as white its pointless ?


You got it wrong why not just admit it and move on ?


Her own words point clearly to her reasons for starting the action which she won I don't deny it but it was a pointless Pyrrhic victory and joins the many other actions to try and disrupt democracy through the house of commons.

The Lib Dum rump in the Lords will no doubt try to disrupt the process as well.
They have have campaigned on many issues one wonders what irrelevance will be dragged up to go to their motive

I don't blame her/them for having a go if she/they feel so strongly about leaving the EU.

Pointing out that she has also bought the big issue and said some people get paid to much etc doesn't really go to the motive question for this action does it ?

 

[LostKiwi]

There were more of her own words (reported by the same paper what's more) also saying the motive was not political or to disrupt Brexit, and do you not think it odd that if she was trying to disrupt Brexit her co-complainant had voted in favour of Brexit? Or is that bit a tad inconvenient so you're ignoring it?

The whole point is irrespective of her motives she has ensured the proper process is not only followed but seen to be followed.

As for denigrating those things she champions just what have you accomplished on behalf of others? I admire someone who can stand up and question the system. I don't belittle it as 'having bought the big issue'.

 

[Frontstep]

There were more of her own words (reported by the same paper what's more) also saying the motive was not political or to disrupt Brexit, and do you not think it odd that if she was trying to disrupt Brexit her co-complainant had voted in favour of Brexit? Or is that bit a tad inconvenient so you're ignoring it?

The whole point is irrespective of her motives she has ensured the proper process is not only followed but seen to be followed.

As for denigrating those things she champions just what have you accomplished on behalf of others? I admire someone who can stand up and question the system. I don't belittle it as 'having bought the big issue'.

She and others didn't like the referendum outcome she/they tried and succeeded to frustrate it fair enough, you have now nearly accepted her motives just move on......

I won't come back to this point its gone beyond sane discussion some while ago.

I leave you to have the last word.

 

[LostKiwi]

She and others didn't like the referendum outcome she/they tried and succeeded to frustrate it fair enough, you have now nearly accepted her motives just move on......

I won't come back to this point its gone beyond sane discussion some while ago.

I leave you to have the last word.

And still you ignore that one of the two complainants was a pro Brexit voter. Just no answer for that is there in your fantasy black and white 'Anyone daring to question any part of Brexit is anti-Brexit' world.

 

[davidsl500]

As far as Charlie Mullins is concerned : "the court giveth and the court taketh away" (ref him losing his court appeal on an employee claim)

Whatever the real reason for Gina Millers claim it did us a favour in sorting out the poison dwarfs position in Scotland and her attempts at sticking spokes in wheels..

 

[PovertySpec]

You got it wrong why not just admit it and move on ?

Are you sure? You sure you didn't just misunderstandquotemisreadputwordsinmouth? :lol:

I watched this last night http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08dx4lz/this-world-after-brexit-the-battle-for-europe (1hr)

Excellent documentary explaining how and why the EU is a basket case.

 

[davemercedes]

So to sum up Ms Millar's sole reason for her and the Pimlico plumber et als action was to frustrate the outcome of a Democratic vote which she/they disagreed with.
In the process wasting our money why do you persist in trying to paint black as white its pointless ?


You got it wrong why not just admit it and move on ?


Her own words point clearly to her reasons for starting the action which she won I don't deny it but it was a pointless Pyrrhic victory and joins the many other actions to try and disrupt democracy through the house of commons.

The Lib Dum rump in the Lords will no doubt try to disrupt the process as well.
They have have campaigned on many issues one wonders what irrelevance will be dragged up to go to their motive

I don't blame her/them for having a go if she/they feel so strongly about leaving the EU.

Pointing out that she has also bought the big issue and said some people get paid to much etc doesn't really go to the motive question for this action does it ?

Do you realise that by your accusation that she was motivated politically, you are are implying that the High Court judges (verdict 8 to 3 which is a heck of a lot higher percentage than the Brexit referendum result!) are therefore politically motivated against this Tory government?

It's academic but it's you who should admit it - you're wrong (not LK) - by 8:3 the judges agreed that no PM has the right to take such action without parliamentary approval - we don't have the Executive Order option in this country, yet!

Ms Mullen and others paid their own real money to go to court - Mrs May used ours on a diversionary tactic giving a nice little earner to the legal eagles. Personally, I think you should be more indignant at the flagrant waste of taxpayers money on the appeal which left the government having to do what they should have done in the first place!