Post-Brexit Thread

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by denphone

Whether one agrees with her or not this is totally unacceptable in a civilised society.

which part ?
1 the threats
2 running away from a problem that is a result of what she instigated in court
3 both

[denphone]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

which part ?
1 the threats
2 running away from a problem that is a result of what she instigated in court
3 both

The threats but you knew that anyway papa.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by denphone

The threats but you knew that anyway papa.

i just wanted to clarify your position and of course you are right ,but there is an element out there that clearly think differently .
death threats and other threats of violence will solve nothing but people still make them .

Originally Posted by papa smurf

which part ?
1 the threats
2 running away from a problem that is a result of what she instigated in court
3 both

You seriously think that she should accept death threats as a consequence of ensuring democracy takes its proper course .What about the brexiter that went to court with her ,is he receiving death threats

[techguyone]

Whilst I don't think she should be getting death threats, she's a bit silly & naive to think the entire country was going to be clapping and cheering her on, should have stayed anonymous - silly moo.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

i just wanted to clarify your position and of course you are right ,but there is an element out there that clearly think differently .
death threats and other threats of violence will solve nothing but people still make them .

Sadly as we know there is a element of this in every country in the world and has been since the dawn of time and that will still be there when we have all gone the way of the dodo sadly..

Originally Posted by techguyone

Whilst I don't think she should be getting death threats, she's a bit silly & naive to think the entire country was going to be clapping and cheering her on, should have stayed anonymous - silly moo.

she wasn't silly or naive at all ,her only fault was crediting people with more intelligence and there were plenty of people on here baying for her blood because they thought she was trying to reverse the result

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by denphone

Sadly as we know there is a element of this in every country in the world and has been since the dawn of time and that will still be there when we have all gone the way of the dodo sadly..

sadly so true there are those who will not tolerate a view or action that differs from their own ,they resort to veiled and not so veiled threats ,they try to bully others into accepting their warped views ,and use tools like the internet to press their bullying agenda and viewpoint onto others ,they follow others around the internet/ social media constantly trying to provoke them into arguments by misquoting or deliberately misinterpreting what people have said or done ,but thankfully most of these keyboard warriors tend to stay hidden in their bedrooms .

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by denphone

The threats but you knew that anyway papa.

I think there's a touch of victim-blaming going on here.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by martyh

she wasn't silly or naive at all ,her only fault was crediting people with more intelligence and there were plenty of people on here baying for her blood because they thought she was trying to reverse the result

She may not have been trying to reverse the result, she couldn't do that. But she was certainly trying to obfuscate it.

In reality she has put herself through all this trauma, it has no doubt cost her, or somebody, and the tax payer thousands and it achieved nothing.

article 50 will be triggered, as originally stated, by the end of May, ok so parliament have to vote on it, they won't block it. We've already had a dry run on this vote and went through. So unless lots of MPs have suddenly had a change of mind it will be the same, and if many do change their mind, then good luck at the next election - which would be in a few months.

Originally Posted by Pierre

She may not have been trying to reverse the result, she couldn't do that. But she was certainly trying to obfuscate it.

In reality she has put herself through all this trauma, it has no doubt cost her, or somebody, and the tax payer thousands and it achieved nothing.

article 50 will be triggered, as originally stated, by the end of May, ok so parliament have to vote on it, they won't block it. We've already had a dry run on this vote and went through. So unless lots of MPs have suddenly had a change of mind it will be the same, and if many do change their mind, then good luck at the next election - which would be in a few months.

What she did ,and lets not forget the brexit voter that accompanied her, is make sure the government didn't overstep their authority.The court case was the public's assurance that Parliament and thus democracy is followed at all times .If you truly believe that she achieved nothing then you are another brexiter that didn't know what they voted for .The reality is that the UK government caused the obfuscation by trying to bypass Parliament ,if they had sat down and thought about it for 5 mins they would have realised that she perfectly correct in what she said but they decided to pursue matters through appeal and in doing so wasted taxpayers money.
All she did was return Democracy to the people which is exactly what you and I voted for.

[techguyone]

Daft mare (and her shadowy backers) actually did us a favour, they have completely legitimised the process, so now in times to come it can't stall because of some 'new' legal issues.

Send her a death threat?

I'm more likely to buy her a pint.

Originally Posted by techguyone

Daft mare (and her shadowy backers) actually did us a favour, they have completely legitimised the process, so now in times to come it can't stall because of some 'new' legal issues.

Send her a death threat?

I'm more likely to buy her a pint.

That was her intention.

[techguyone]

Originally Posted by martyh

That was her intention.

If you say so

Originally Posted by martyh

What she did ,and lets not forget the brexit voter that accompanied her, is make sure the government didn't overstep their authority.The court case was the public's assurance that Parliament and thus democracy is followed at all times .If you truly believe that she achieved nothing then you are another brexiter that didn't know what they voted for .The reality is that the UK government caused the obfuscation by trying to bypass Parliament ,if they had sat down and thought about it for 5 mins they would have realised that she perfectly correct in what she said but they decided to pursue matters through appeal and in doing so wasted taxpayers money.
All she did was return Democracy to the people which is exactly what you and I voted for.

I think you're being rather charitable to Ms Miller if you don't mind my saying so.

Her high-minded appeal to democracy was nothing of the sort. As with so many of the entitled, they love democracy to the extent that they believe it serves them. The referendum was tolerable only so long as she and her set believed the outcome would be that we would remain in the EU. Once the result was Leave, and everyone started thinking seriously for the first time about what that might actually mean, it was perfectly understandable that remainers with the resources to do so would begin to seek ways to restrain Brexit from going to its logical conclusion (you know, the one many of us were absolutely up front about all along, though we have repeatedly been accused of not understanding, namely that leaving the EU means actually leaving the EU and not trying to keep one foot inside the very institutions that make it intolerable).

In those very early days post-vote, putting Parliament front and centre was an attractive option because firstly, the court process promised a way of holding the whole thing up and secondly parliament did, and still does, have a natural remain majority of about 75-25. It has only begun to become clear in the last couple of months, long after the court action was initiated, that most MPs, certainly enough of them at any rate, value their seats enough to listen to their constituents on this issue rather than pleasing themselves.

I don't believe for one moment that Gina Miller spent even a second contemplating the outcome of the English Civil War and the way the relationship between Crown and parliament has subsequently developed.