Brexiteers Destroyed Britains Future,...
News0 min ago
Gina Miller
Is there no one out there, who can shut this woman up ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 1rovert. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// I still don't know what she's said //
She brought her case because she thought Parliament should have the final say on our leaving.
But Parliament have voted that they don't want that final say. They do not have a backbone between them.
So she is now saying she may have to go back to the Judges if Parliament refuses to do its duty.
// I have taken the horses to water, they didn't necessarily drink.
"But if they do that over and over again and for some reason are failing to scrutinise the Government on the Brexit package and the Brexit process, then I will seek the certainty of court." //
http://
She brought her case because she thought Parliament should have the final say on our leaving.
But Parliament have voted that they don't want that final say. They do not have a backbone between them.
So she is now saying she may have to go back to the Judges if Parliament refuses to do its duty.
// I have taken the horses to water, they didn't necessarily drink.
"But if they do that over and over again and for some reason are failing to scrutinise the Government on the Brexit package and the Brexit process, then I will seek the certainty of court." //
http://
“When Parliament decide they should not have a meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal, it makes you wonder what it is there for at all.”
The reason the Commons came to their senses and kicked the amendment into touch is because (and nobody seems to have mentioned it here) the only alternative if the “deal” is rejected by the Commons is to remain in the EU. There are two reasons why this cannot happen: firstly I don’t think A50 is reversible (though knowing how the EU works I would not doubt a way round that would be found) but secondly it is not what the referendum result said. So, the EU offers the UK a deal which they know will be totally unacceptable to MPs, they reject it and we remain as a member. Er...I think not.
“She brought her case because she thought Parliament should have the final say on our leaving.”
As above, the final say on our leaving has already been said. It was said on Monday night. That’s why there should not and cannot be a vote, “meaningful” or otherwise, on the leaving deal.
In her latest diatribe Ms Miller mentions “promises” on Brexit. As far as I am aware, none have been made. She says “It [Parliament] needs to be at the centre of everything and if Parliament won't stand up for themselves, and I have to say everything I have invested in this, I have taken the horses to water, they didn't necessarily drink.”
So she’s insisted Parliament make the decisions regarding Brexit and the decision they’ve made is that they will leave it to the government to settle the deal. The matter was fully tested in the Supreme Court and in its ruling the court made no stipulation about the way the deal should be concluded, saying it was a matter for Parliament. Well Parliament has decided and Ms Miller (who is clearly used to getting her own way) should, for once, accept she will not get what she wants.
The reason the Commons came to their senses and kicked the amendment into touch is because (and nobody seems to have mentioned it here) the only alternative if the “deal” is rejected by the Commons is to remain in the EU. There are two reasons why this cannot happen: firstly I don’t think A50 is reversible (though knowing how the EU works I would not doubt a way round that would be found) but secondly it is not what the referendum result said. So, the EU offers the UK a deal which they know will be totally unacceptable to MPs, they reject it and we remain as a member. Er...I think not.
“She brought her case because she thought Parliament should have the final say on our leaving.”
As above, the final say on our leaving has already been said. It was said on Monday night. That’s why there should not and cannot be a vote, “meaningful” or otherwise, on the leaving deal.
In her latest diatribe Ms Miller mentions “promises” on Brexit. As far as I am aware, none have been made. She says “It [Parliament] needs to be at the centre of everything and if Parliament won't stand up for themselves, and I have to say everything I have invested in this, I have taken the horses to water, they didn't necessarily drink.”
So she’s insisted Parliament make the decisions regarding Brexit and the decision they’ve made is that they will leave it to the government to settle the deal. The matter was fully tested in the Supreme Court and in its ruling the court made no stipulation about the way the deal should be concluded, saying it was a matter for Parliament. Well Parliament has decided and Ms Miller (who is clearly used to getting her own way) should, for once, accept she will not get what she wants.
"She brought her case because she thought Parliament should have the final say on our leaving. " - err no, she brought the case because she thought Parliament should decide when to invoke A50, not the PM. They have had that debate and passed the bill, she has had her way and parliament have given power to the PM so now she's moving the goal posts. Odious attention seeking piece of work.
