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

The womens march will be just a poor imitation of what will happen if the MP's vote against triggering Article 50.
Millions will turn up in London. people who would never dream of protesting under any other circumstance will make the effort to have their voice heard loud and clear.

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.

So in typical EU autocracy fashion you would have parliment vote against the will of the people?

What a loyal little Eurocrat you are

a reply to: UKTruth

Don't worry brexit will happen. Maximum a year later. As it was set in motion in Eton 30 (?how old are Cameron and Johnson?) years ago.
Once you realise those assuming power are mostly really just imagining they have power, bred and groomed for the roles they'll play one day...

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

See VID posted by Morrad

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you and very interesting it was, many of the questions and views I've had myself for some time and yes the unknowns about Ms Miller and her backers,. People with power rarely ever do something for the good of people unless there's a back door for them in some way, her attention to the 'process' of decision being done is a smokescreen to both hold this all up but also to try and achieve something more important to her and her backers and you can be sure its NOT in the favour of the British people in general.

Pretty much the Tony Blair get a room moment with Bush where he agreed about war with zero proof just shows this point, the ideal pushed as being about a danger to the West with these WMD's initially seemed to make him a 'concerned for the people' politician but it also gave him pretty much (with Mr Bush's help) the instant access to the Elites club that the Bush family amongst many already enjoy.

He was made an untouchable....

There's ALWAYS a self serving reason....

originally posted by: UKTruth
I would actually have more respect for her if she was honest and said her case was all about wanting to stop Brexit - because it is.

The song and dance she is doing about her noble cause to protect democracy is really quite sickening.

It won't matter in the end - parliament will vote to trigger Article 50.

I also have a feeling Farage will be talking to Trump to put some pressure on - after all a country that ignores it's people will be seen as an enemy to democracy and should really be sanctioned (or at least put to the back of the queue with any trade deal)

For your last paragraph, seeing as Trump didn't win the popular vote that would be ironic wouldn't it?

Although a lot of people on here don't like it and at least one person will somehow think I'm talking rubbish, one of the overriding reasons many claim they used to vote Leave was to protect parliamentary sovereignty, and then at the first chance to actually practice what they preach they complain about it.

This isn't about leaving or not leaving, it's about parliament being involved in the process of how we leave rather than just the government of the day.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Maybe she thinks she can carry on making obscene amounts of money off charities if we stay in the EU but might have to get a real job if we leave?

Or she could just be a rabid remainer full of hate .

I think its the former, where money grows, treachery flows...

originally posted by: Mclaneinc

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Maybe she thinks she can carry on making obscene amounts of money off charities if we stay in the EU but might have to get a real job if we leave?

Or she could just be a rabid remainer full of hate .

I think its the former, where money grows, treachery flows...

I concur

originally posted by: UKTruth
The womens march will be just a poor imitation of what will happen if the MP's vote against triggering Article 50.
Millions will turn up in London. people who would never dream of protesting under any other circumstance will make the effort to have their voice heard loud and clear.

The Women's March apart from being topical with Piers Morgan getting shirty about it also allows itself to be sponsored by undesirables like Linda Sarsour who is an extreme supporter of Sharia law, the same law that makes Women's life hell in places I think Linda has never had to live under herself yet stands along side the women's march like a hyena stalking its prey.

Sadly the Women's march does have its 'rabid feminists' (I said it before Morgan yesterday) who only march because they get to scream of their hate of men while not helping the REAL women looking for social justice and normal treatment both in life and work which we all should support..

Sadly its also infected by people there just voice an agenda contrary to the march or simply cause trouble.

If marches happen to demonstrate against article 50 or Brexxit in general yet again we will see the same attempt to destabilise both the peoples will and the use of the march.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: UKTruth
I would actually have more respect for her if she was honest and said her case was all about wanting to stop Brexit - because it is.

The song and dance she is doing about her noble cause to protect democracy is really quite sickening.

It won't matter in the end - parliament will vote to trigger Article 50.

I also have a feeling Farage will be talking to Trump to put some pressure on - after all a country that ignores it's people will be seen as an enemy to democracy and should really be sanctioned (or at least put to the back of the queue with any trade deal)

For your last paragraph, seeing as Trump didn't win the popular vote that would be ironic wouldn't it?

Although a lot of people on here don't like it and at least one person will somehow think I'm talking rubbish, one of the overriding reasons many claim they used to vote Leave was to protect parliamentary sovereignty, and then at the first chance to actually practice what they preach they complain about it.

This isn't about leaving or not leaving, it's about parliament being involved in the process of how we leave rather than just the government of the day.

I think most people understand the Trump popular vote argument (i..e not relevant). The fact of the matter is that Farage will be back in the game if he thinks that political and corporate elites are going to try to overturn the referendum result. He WILL call on his allies.

This is not just about article 50 either, it is about ensuring a hard BREXIT. Out means out.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: UKTruth
I would actually have more respect for her if she was honest and said her case was all about wanting to stop Brexit - because it is.

The song and dance she is doing about her noble cause to protect democracy is really quite sickening.

It won't matter in the end - parliament will vote to trigger Article 50.

I also have a feeling Farage will be talking to Trump to put some pressure on - after all a country that ignores it's people will be seen as an enemy to democracy and should really be sanctioned (or at least put to the back of the queue with any trade deal)

For your last paragraph, seeing as Trump didn't win the popular vote that would be ironic wouldn't it?

Although a lot of people on here don't like it and at least one person will somehow think I'm talking rubbish, one of the overriding reasons many claim they used to vote Leave was to protect parliamentary sovereignty, and then at the first chance to actually practice what they preach they complain about it.

This isn't about leaving or not leaving, it's about parliament being involved in the process of how we leave rather than just the government of the day.

I think most people understand the Trump popular vote argument (i..e not relevant). The fact of the matter is that Farage will be back in the game if he thinks that political and corporate elites are going to try to overturn the referendum result. He WILL call on his allies.

This is not just about article 50 either, it is about ensuring a hard BREXIT. Out means out.

No, to your argument about Trump talking about the people having spoken (in your dreamed up scenario) when the majority of Americans didn't vote for him is relevant to your comment. You don't have to like it, I don't have to care about that.

There wasn't a vote for hard v soft brexit, but now I guess you are now going to insist that's what everyone wanted. Johnson was very clear about how of course there would be free access to the EU - he made that point very, very clear. That does not equate to hard brexit so I'm not sure why you think no one would have been swayed by his argument.

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.

In the old days betraying your own country in the interests of foreign powers was called treason. That sums up my views on this. Shame on these judges.

Hard Brexit. We leave, get out before the whole thing collapses, and that day is drawing ever closer.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: UKTruth
I would actually have more respect for her if she was honest and said her case was all about wanting to stop Brexit - because it is.

The song and dance she is doing about her noble cause to protect democracy is really quite sickening.

It won't matter in the end - parliament will vote to trigger Article 50.

I also have a feeling Farage will be talking to Trump to put some pressure on - after all a country that ignores it's people will be seen as an enemy to democracy and should really be sanctioned (or at least put to the back of the queue with any trade deal)

For your last paragraph, seeing as Trump didn't win the popular vote that would be ironic wouldn't it?

Although a lot of people on here don't like it and at least one person will somehow think I'm talking rubbish, one of the overriding reasons many claim they used to vote Leave was to protect parliamentary sovereignty, and then at the first chance to actually practice what they preach they complain about it.

This isn't about leaving or not leaving, it's about parliament being involved in the process of how we leave rather than just the government of the day.

I think most people understand the Trump popular vote argument (i..e not relevant). The fact of the matter is that Farage will be back in the game if he thinks that political and corporate elites are going to try to overturn the referendum result. He WILL call on his allies.

This is not just about article 50 either, it is about ensuring a hard BREXIT. Out means out.

No, to your argument about Trump talking about the people having spoken (in your dreamed up scenario) when the majority of Americans didn't vote for him is relevant to your comment. You don't have to like it, I don't have to care about that.

There wasn't a vote for hard v soft brexit, but now I guess you are now going to insist that's what everyone wanted. Johnson was very clear about how of course there would be free access to the EU - he made that point very, very clear. That does not equate to hard brexit so I'm not sure why you think no one would have been swayed by his argument.

Whatever, go off on your sidebar about irrelevant liberal talking points. I'll mark you down as someone else to laugh at.

There was a vote to leave the EU, not to stay in the European market and agree to open borders as some want us to do with a soft Brexit.

Brexit really does mean Brexit and that means no legal commitment to the fascist EU.

a reply to: UKTruth


I was responding to comments you made and the fact they were invalid, the fact your invalid comments are something you find laughable is interesting, clinically interesting.

originally posted by: Ohanka
In the old days betraying your own country in the interests of foreign powers was called treason. That sums up my views on this. Shame on these judges.

Hard Brexit. We leave, get out before the whole thing collapses, and that day is drawing ever closer.

That would be the old days only if you previously lived in a dictorship.

Fortunately we live in a functioning parliamentary democracy where having a different view from the government of the day is perfectly acceptable.

Legislation regarding the exit from the E.U has to be debated in Parliament and I really can't see it being blocked by M.P's. The House of Lord's will be a different story, but the act will pass through the Commons. Most of us realised that the referendum was advisory and we also knew it would mean leaving the single market, despite what the Lib Dems keep spewing.

Of course there are a number of M.P's who have said they will vote against the decision their constituents delivered on June 23rd 2016, but that will cost them their job come next General Election.

If it does not pass through Parliament then Mrs May will have no choice but to call a General Election. If this is the case, then as much as I hate the thought, UKIP will prosper from this, as a vote for them will guarantee an exit from the E.U.

So, over to our elected representatives to deliver the will of the people. We voted for leaving and leaving means leaving everything that the E.U offers their members.

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: UKTruth


I was responding to comments you made and the fact they were invalid, the fact your invalid comments are something you find laughable is interesting, clinically interesting.

When you start making sense, I'll revert back to you.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Ohanka
In the old days betraying your own country in the interests of foreign powers was called treason. That sums up my views on this. Shame on these judges.

Hard Brexit. We leave, get out before the whole thing collapses, and that day is drawing ever closer.

That would be the old days only if you previously lived in a dictorship.

Fortunately we live in a functioning parliamentary democracy where having a different view from the government of the day is perfectly acceptable.

Agreed.

However, the majority of U.K citizens voted to leave and many of these people hold differing views from the Government of the day.

The people have spoken and their will should be delivered.

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.

I must make it perfectly clear AGAIN. These court cases have absolutely NOTHING to do with the "will of the people" or ANY way or form changing the Brexit result.
It's about ONE thing only, the deal that's made and how to leave. ie. the deal MUST be acceptable to ALL the parliament not just the Tories. The court cases are the way to force the Tories to accept that fact.
Now in answer to the poster, yes it does beg the question just why has she done this? It just might be that she is allied to the Labour party and she doesn't want just the Tories to decide the fine details.