Editor's Blog7 mins ago
No Contest For Smug &^%$ Of The Year Award!
72 Answers
Answers
The negative side is that it was unnecessary. I agree it was a perfectly acceptable option for any citizen to exercise (though I agree with earlier sentiments that it was unlikely to be entertained from anybody without the necessary connections)
18:25 Wed 25th Jan 2017
As I said in an earlier question, I don’t disagree with the point that has just been tested by the Supreme Court, nor do I disagree with the outcome. I’d far rather have that check available than be the electorate be subject to an executive over which they have no control. The fault with the current situation lies squarely with Mr Cameron (remember him?) who, through accident or design, neglected to have included in the Referendum Bill (which MPs passed by six to one) a clause which made it legally binding.
However, what I do doubt, in the strongest terms, is the motive behind Ms Miller’s action. She has stated that she is only interested in seeing Parliamentary Democracy hold sway. That is a load of things that are used to play tennis and football with. If she was interested in the UK Parliament being sovereign she would not want the UK to remain a member of an organisation that has done so much to erode that sovereignty over the last forty years. No, she and her chums are interested in derailing Brexit by any means at their disposal. They cannot bear to see a decision made by the “ordinary people” upset the smooth passage of their lives. Fortunately yesterday’s ruling has set out the government’s obligations far clearer than she would have hoped and if I were her I would have been disappointed in yesterday’s ruling.
However, what I do doubt, in the strongest terms, is the motive behind Ms Miller’s action. She has stated that she is only interested in seeing Parliamentary Democracy hold sway. That is a load of things that are used to play tennis and football with. If she was interested in the UK Parliament being sovereign she would not want the UK to remain a member of an organisation that has done so much to erode that sovereignty over the last forty years. No, she and her chums are interested in derailing Brexit by any means at their disposal. They cannot bear to see a decision made by the “ordinary people” upset the smooth passage of their lives. Fortunately yesterday’s ruling has set out the government’s obligations far clearer than she would have hoped and if I were her I would have been disappointed in yesterday’s ruling.
oh, a war without actual weapons, right, that sort of war.
Like this maybe
http://
That's begun already, thanks to the sore winners.
Like this maybe
http://
That's begun already, thanks to the sore winners.
I agree with much of what NJ posted at 13:32 - I'll pinch some of his words to save typing them again and interpolate a few of my own :
I don’t disagree with the point that has just been tested by the Supreme Court, nor do I disagree with the outcome.
What I do doubt, in the strongest terms, is the motive behind Ms Miller’s action. She has stated that she is only interested in seeing Parliamentary Democracy hold sway - that is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys. She and her backers are purely interested in derailing Brexit by any means at their disposal.
However I voted in the referendum, the result is what it is - and was intended to be binding on the Government - whatever the result.
Fortunately yesterday’s ruling has set out the Government’s obligations far more clearly than Ms Miller would have hoped, and if I were her I would have been disappointed in the detail of yesterday’s ruling.
I don’t disagree with the point that has just been tested by the Supreme Court, nor do I disagree with the outcome.
What I do doubt, in the strongest terms, is the motive behind Ms Miller’s action. She has stated that she is only interested in seeing Parliamentary Democracy hold sway - that is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys. She and her backers are purely interested in derailing Brexit by any means at their disposal.
However I voted in the referendum, the result is what it is - and was intended to be binding on the Government - whatever the result.
Fortunately yesterday’s ruling has set out the Government’s obligations far more clearly than Ms Miller would have hoped, and if I were her I would have been disappointed in the detail of yesterday’s ruling.
ToraToraTora
/// so the democratic will of the majority can be derailed by this attention seeking self publicist harridan and you guys reckon that's ok do you? right oh, speaks volumes. ///
Be very careful what you say TTT.
http://
/// so the democratic will of the majority can be derailed by this attention seeking self publicist harridan and you guys reckon that's ok do you? right oh, speaks volumes. ///
Be very careful what you say TTT.
http://
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles34 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles94 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles112 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.