Forum Topic

Gina Miller

Why Gina Miller would think that a letter from her to Boris would make him concede to her demand that he informs her before he puts into action any plans he has for No Deal, I fail to see.  She isn't even a politician.  All in the name of democracy, of course.

Barbara Shillabeer ● 2677d24 Comments

"Why Gina Miller would think that a letter from her to Boris would make him concede to her demand that he informs her before he puts into action any plans he has for No Deal, I fail to see."Depends what else she writes in the letter. She is a woman, and Boris is a man (what a man!). She may be a tad too mature for him though, on current evidence.

David Ainsworth ● 2677d

I'd like to know who her wealthy backers are? The lawyers she uses are very prestigious and their costs must be enormous. Last time she took the Government to the High Court a crowdfunded smoke screen was set up. I never could find out how much it (allegedly) raised, neither could I find out how much her lawyers charged for their services. Anybody got the answers?

Sue Hammond ● 2677d

No Sue, I have no idea.But I agree with Gina Miller.  Nobody is above Parliament and not prospective PM has the right to prorogue Parliament for their benefit.Like her or dislike her, one thing she is really correct on is that Parliament is paramount, not politicians.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2677d

But no one has prorogued parliament and I hope and believe no one will. If Boris does I believe all bets are off. I voted leave for our Parliament to take decisions

Andy Pike ● 2677d

Proroguing Parliament in order to enable a no deal Brexit  would be undemocratic so should be challenged. Those promoting Brexit in 2016 said it would be easy to negotiate a deal. Well, it wasn't so they were obviously wrong. So the logical action is to suspend A50 while a people's vote takes place to confirm what the public wants now that the Brexit negotiations have failed. I doubt Ms Miller will get a response from Mr Johnson but as a voter she has as much right as any of us to write to him. I've no idea who contributed to her previous crowd funded legal action. No deal will risk the collapse of the GFA and serious damage to the UK economy, and Trump has shown he's no real friend after his recent comments about our ambassador and prime minister. If the people's vote agrees no deal then so be it.

Michael Ixer ● 2677d

I dont agree a second referendum but if Boris or anyone else prorogueds parliament then anything can happen. People may think he us daft but I hope not that daft to try.but in negotiating with the EU he is entitled to tell them everything is possible. Dont mean he will use it.

Andy Pike ● 2677d

"but in negotiating with the EU he is entitled to tell them everything is possible. Dont mean he will use it."I think that it is idiotic to threaten that you will do something, when you really will not. It is something an adolescent might do, and then find theirself forced into carrying out, by their own pride.

David Ainsworth ● 2677d

The principle Andy is that Parliament is paramount.  It may sound silly, but that is the premise of our unwritten Constitution.However, the 2016 referendum voted for taking back control.BUT, no PM is above Parliament.  This is the basic principle Gina Miller is fighting for and I agree with her and the principle wholeheartedly. This is what made British democracy unique.  Let us keep it that way.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2677d

“I think that it is idiotic to threaten that you will do something, when you really will not. It is something an adolescent might do, and then find theirself forced into carrying out, by their own pride.”As idiotic as saying we’ll accept any deal you offer us so might as well make us a vassal state?  As idiotic as pushing said agreement through three parliamentary votes to try and get something so corrupt through?  That would have resulted in a greater loss of parliamentary power.Remainers in parliament (and several in here of course) have never accepted the result of the referendum, or of course we wouldn’t still be having this endless discussionOf course where it might more likely lead is to a general election and then we will see how things stand.  Parliament has tarnished its reputation somewhat here, I wonder if constitutional reform will be on the name i with a vengeance after this has played out

Mike Warman ● 2677d

Hello Mike,"Remainers in parliament (and several in here of course) have never accepted the result of the referendum, or of course we wouldn’t still be having this endless discussion."Well, well, it seems nobody is listening to each other.As Remainer, I can tell you my breath was taken away when I heard that the Leave camp were winning the referendum. I will never deny it.However, may I say HOWEVER!!! When the Withdrawal Agreement was submitted to Parliament and it was rejected, THREE times.  Have you really considered why?It was not Parliamentary loss of power, to the contrary.  After careful consideration of the Agreement, most concluded it went against UK's interests.Now, hand in heart, do you not think that Parliament should hold the country's interests at heart?  Or just the vote by the 52% without considering the damage to the country?

Ivonne Holliday ● 2677d

Our democracy died when remainers refused to accept they had lost the vote.  All troubles descend from that one fact.  Hypocrites all of them.Dot't try and wrap it up with it's good for the country.  More people thought it wasn't than thought it was. Whether it is or whether it isn't is a moot point. Democratically Leavers won the vote.

Barbara Shillabeer ● 2677d

Really good points Sue and Mike.The Remainers keep on about Farage funding but I wonder who is funding this out-of-touch snob?Remember when Andrew Neil showed her up on This Week? (One of the few BBC programmes worth watching with Neil and Portillo) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NpD8RFl3zQI'm confident Boris will deliver Brexit. He has to or else the Tory party will die.It's our last hope, otherwise Westminster will be a museum within the next twenty years after we hand over the remainder of power.Still I guess the museum would make a fortune in terms of tax receipts for the government from tourism?

Paul Game ● 2677d

Spot on Barbara.A country can only call itself a democracy if the losing side accept the result!

Paul Game ● 2677d

Hi Ivonne,I think most of us were surprised and shocked.I was also shocked that the government didn’t in the aftermath go for a renegotiation and put it back to the country to ask if it were sure,  that would have been supported by many given the closeness of the vote,Instead what they did was run away (Cameron), elect a PM who promised a real brexit then back on it supported by a chancellor who refused to fund no deal preparations and a Labour Party whose manifesto said to leave the SM and CU, who then said leave but in a mystical form only that was remain, and then submit the withdrawal agreement that the people who had supported brexit in government resigned over (boris, Davis, baker etc)Cameron should not have offered the ref without the gumption to have a plan if people voted out, but here we are three years on with parliament led by people who voted to remain still in.Disaster May then offered something clearly worse than remain - as I’ve said here before I would vote for remain against may’s travesty, but the process has polarised us all.It could easily be said that mps who voted for A50 voted to leave without a deal as that was part of it.A positive case can, and I’m sure has, many times been made for leaving or staying, but this limbo in which we find ourselves is getting us nowhere.

Mike Warman ● 2677d

Gina Miller herself is very wealthy. From humble origins, she is a partner in a business which has made millions for her. In a free country, we tend to let people who have made money spend it how they wish - within reason - cocaine and having journalists beaten up are no-no's.It is an interesting contrast with Farage who has only ever been a relative failure in business and has got modestly rich out of being a politician - google "UKIP Ashford call centre" for example.

Michael Winstanley ● 2677d

Pleas re read my post Iyvonne I think we agree

Andy Pike ● 2677d

This is getting boring. Why have we failed to negotiate a leaving deal after three plus years? Surely it's because those proposing Brexit hadn't defined exactly what they wanted? Classic scenario for a project failing. To rescue a failing project: put it on hold and discuss and review what the objectives are, and once agreed then redefine the project and reschedue. (Look at the delays in Crossrail because of poor design coordination between the different parts. It's been delayed while they redefine and reschedule, no one's going to argue with that - we don't want a train crash!) I'd also say aborting a failing project is a good outcome, it usually avoids bankruptcy, and surely we don't want to wreck the UK's economy, or pout another way WE DON'T WANT A TRAIN CRASH DO WE 😈? I have to say I've seen some bad projects in my time but Brexit is one of the worst project failures I've seen. If you think it's a success, please explain why, I hope you're correct 😱 Alternatively, perhaps explain why you're happy with a trasun crash?

Michael Ixer ● 2677d

Couldn't have put it better myself Michael.

Lucille Grant ● 2676d

I genuinely believe this country will be worse off after Brexit.  Any form of Brexit in fact, but especially the hard Brexit now likely to be government policy.What should I do?  Meekly accept it or encourage our MP and others to rethink the whole thing?  Why is it in any way undemocratic to try to change a course of action which will leave ALL of us worse off than before, puts the entire country into uncharted waters and threatens the unity of the United Kingdom itself.  Not to mention risk the return of civil unrest or worse in Northern Ireland?There is no winning side and no losing side.  We are all losers if a hard Brexit goes ahead.A democratic outcome would be to attempt a consensus on an exit strategy, then put it to another vote, leave vs remain.

Jonathan Callaway ● 2676d

@Andy 14/7 21.34"But no one has prorogued parliament and I hope and believe no one will."But Major did in 1997 in order to suppress the "Cash For Questions" sleaze scandal. https://order-order.com/2019/07/10/john-major-prorogued-parliament-1997-avoid-cash-questions-scrutiny/However, Major has recently threatened to take the Government to Court to stop them proroguing Parliament. The hypocrisy of this man is staggering. I wouldn't be surprised if he is one of Miller's wealthy backers.

Sue Hammond ● 2676d

I wholeheartedly agree with you Michael.  Sometime ago I did mention that I believed we should start all over again.  I still hold this view.As you indicate very wisely, aborting a failing project is a good outcome.  I would also add a positive one.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2676d

Yes Sue, John Major did prorogue Parliament in 1997 because he called for an election.Do you see any similarities between proroguing Parliament for an election and proroguing Parliament to shut it up for Brexit?I see an incredibly big difference.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2676d

Agreed, Ivonne. Interesting that these days with fixed term governments Parliament would have to vote in favour of having another election before it could be prorogued.

Michael Ixer ● 2676d

@Ivonne 13.09Ivonne, yes a GE was due to be called in 1997 because the fixed term was coming to an end but the point I am making is that Major prorogued Parliament earlier than usual for political purposes, i.e. in order to delay the publication of a report into the "Cash for Questions" scandal. He prorogued Parliament to suit his own agenda. Boris might seek to do the same to suit his Brexit agenda. Are you saying Major was right to prorogue whereas Boris would be wrong? Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Sue Hammond ● 2676d