Gina Miller is Back...

57Deluxe

Looks like she's fronting more big Europro backers to come back and have another go...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4275724/Gina-Miller-threatens-legal-challenge-Brexit.html

Fretwired

Pointless. Once A50 is triggered were out - Junker has confirmed it. So at the end of the negotiations she wants Parliament to vote on accepting or rejecting the deal. So what? It could mean we're out without a deal. This is all about big money and ego. I'd love to know who her backers are .... Putin? .. ;-)

Jalapeno

Good for her - unless there's a final vote in Parliament to approve the brexit terms, quite right !

Sambostar

Wish she would just piss off.

crunchman

Jalapeno said:

Good for her - unless there's a final vote in Parliament to approve the brexit terms, quite right !

As @Fretwired ; said, by that time it's absolutely pointless.  Once we trigger Article 50 we are leaving 2 years later, with or without a deal.

The only choice before Parliament will be to accept the best deal that May can get, or to reject it and go for a completely hard Brexit with no deal of any kind.  If they reject the deal May gets there won't be time to renegotiate it, and I doubt the EU would be willing to anyway.

It would also weaken May's hand in negotiations, as the EU could try and force something on her that we don't want because they know all the remoaners in Parliament would be on their side.

jellyroll

Whether or not it serves any purpose in the context of this particular stage, it seems to me that it's broadly healthy for our democracy that somebody is testing the legal boundaries of the Brexit process.

57Deluxe

/\ but what about all the other causes she could test? Housing Bill? Disability Benefits? Fracking? Nuclear Policy? Southern Rail franchise?

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

Pointless. Once A50 is triggered were out - Junker has confirmed it. So at the end of the negotiations she wants Parliament to vote on accepting or rejecting the deal. So what? It could mean we're out without a deal. This is all about big money and ego. I'd love to know who her backers are .... Putin? .. ;-)

Juncker might have said that but this entire process has been blighted by people on both sides making claims about what might happen that don't stand up to any legal scrutiny, not least the notion of PM prerogative. Given the pisspoor way in which Juncker has operated, I wouldn't sit here believing that the legal advice supplied to him is any better than that supplied to the Conservatives in the run up to the referendum. 

That Brexit will happen is not in doubt. Following the correct procedures to do it, that is what needs to be enforced. 

jellyroll

57Deluxe said:

/\ but what about all the other causes she could test? Housing Bill? Disability Benefits? Fracking? Nuclear Policy? Southern Rail franchise?

How does the absence of challenge in those areas diminish the value of the challenges she is making?

Heartfeltdawn

crunchman said:

Jalapeno said:

Good for her - unless there's a final vote in Parliament to approve the brexit terms, quite right !

As @Fretwired ; said, by that time it's absolutely pointless.  Once we trigger Article 50 we are leaving 2 years later, with or without a deal.

The only choice before Parliament will be to accept the best deal that May can get, or to reject it and go for a completely hard Brexit with no deal of any kind.  If they reject the deal May gets there won't be time to renegotiate it, and I doubt the EU would be willing to anyway.

It would also weaken May's hand in negotiations, as the EU could try and force something on her that we don't want because they know all the remoaners in Parliament would be on their side.

One has to wonder why May put such bizarre time limits on Brexit. Budget and Brexit in the same month, talk of some sittings to discuss the Budget being cancelled so Brexit can be discussed... it has the atmosphere of the end of the summer term to it, classes scrabbling around tidying up for the closedown and nobody's thought of who will look after the class hamster. 

jellyroll

Heartfeltdawn said:

it has the atmosphere of the end of the summer term to it, classes scrabbling around tidying up for the closedown and nobody's thought of who will look after the class hamster. 

Don't worry. Gove can look after himself...

Brize

jellyroll said:

Whether or not it serves any purpose in the context of this particular stage, it seems to me that it's broadly healthy for our democracy that somebody is testing the legal boundaries of the Brexit process.

It's very clear that Miller and her backers have a vested interest and are looking for any opportunity to halt Brexit. The notion that they are spending all of this money just to ensure due process is not credible.

Jalapeno

Challenging the Royal Perogative is a good thing  -  ministers should be held to account, and not enter into agreements without Parliamentary scrutiny.

jellyroll

Brize said:

jellyroll said:

Whether or not it serves any purpose in the context of this particular stage, it seems to me that it's broadly healthy for our democracy that somebody is testing the legal boundaries of the Brexit process.

It's very clear that Miller and her backers have a vested interest and are looking for any opportunity to halt Brexit. The notion that they are spending all of this money just to ensure due process is not credible.

I'm not sure I agree...but let's say you're right....I don't see her motive as relevant. I believe there is a benefit to having the legal tyres kicked. This is a huge constitutional development and should be done properly, not short circuited because people can't be bothered to think about the detail.

Brize

jellyroll said:

I'm not sure I agree...but let's say you're right....I don't see her motive as relevant. I believe there is a benefit to having the legal tyres kicked. This is a huge constitutional development and should be done properly, not short circuited because people can't be bothered to think about the detail.

The reality is that the rancour over Brexit is only harming the UK's negotiating position. We're leaving, and there are a lot of people out there who need to start reconciling themselves to that.

Fretwired

Jalapeno said:

Good for her - unless there's a final vote in Parliament to approve the brexit terms, quite right !

The PM has already said there will be a vote on the deal.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/07/theresa-may-agrees-to-let-mps-vote-on-brexit-deal-head-off-tory-revolt

jellyroll

Brize said:

jellyroll said:

I'm not sure I agree...but let's say you're right....I don't see her motive as relevant. I believe there is a benefit to having the legal tyres kicked. This is a huge constitutional development and should be done properly, not short circuited because people can't be bothered to think about the detail.

The reality is that the rancour over Brexit is only harming the UK's negotiating position. We're leaving, and there are a lot of people out there who need to start reconciling themselves to that.

There probably are people who will do anything to de-rail the process and for whom the legal process presents one opportunity to do that. However, that cannot be an excuse to bypass the legal process. If the ultra-remainers are saying "we're gonna make you do everything properly and will be watching to see if you trip up" the appropriate response form the other side should be "fine, we WILL do everything properly." The response should NOT be "we don't want to have any process because you might catch us out and that's all you really want anyway."

fretmeister

Brize said:

jellyroll said:

Whether or not it serves any purpose in the context of this particular stage, it seems to me that it's broadly healthy for our democracy that somebody is testing the legal boundaries of the Brexit process.

It's very clear that Miller and her backers have a vested interest and are looking for any opportunity to halt Brexit. The notion that they are spending all of this money just to ensure due process is not credible.

My "vested interest" would be that it's a shit idea, but if it must happen then the law should be followed.

 

Brize

jellyroll said:

There probably are people who will do anything to de-rail the process and for whom the legal process presents one opportunity to do that. However, that cannot be an excuse to bypass the legal process.

It was only right and proper that a parliamentary vote was held on Article 50 to clear up the poor drafting of the EU Referendum Bill. However, I imagine that Miller is on a hiding to nothing with further legal action.

Brize

fretmeister said:

My "vested interest" would be that it's a shit idea, but if it must happen then the law should be followed.

The law is being followed.

Sambostar

Just been listening to AK47's, wish I could post it up here, but it would probably be construed as an act of terrorism.

So I'II have to settle for the fact that I wish it was still 1997, because she could still be legally hung, drawn and quartered for treason.