Gina Miller anti-Brexit campaign raises £250k so far

[Pariswhenitdrizzles]

Maybe I am being a bit unreasonable (I expect lots of MN 'biscuits' to come my way on this thread ), but just wanted to put this here anyway.

Gina Miller, who started the court case against the British government over Brexit, has started an online Go Fund Me campaign to support MPs who oppose hard Brexit.

It has been fairly well publicised (I'm sorry if there already another thread on this! ), but she's raised £250,000 so far (as of 22nd April) and I just wanted to link to it here in case you'd be interested in finding out more.

Thank you everyone :)

Pariswhenitdrizzles

What does her wealth have to do with starting a campaign on Go Fund Me?

I didn't say that it did, I didn't even mention the gofundme campaign.

But then I am used to posters not reading the thread properly and twisting what they see.

Sorry Boney, I apologise. I just wasn't sure what you meant when you wrote that a Gina Miller was a rich person who 'will stop at nothing to get what they want'.

Firstly, this comment comes across as quite a harsh and dismissive way to talk about someone who you've never met and who is perfectly within her right to do everything that she has been doing. Secondly, I'm not sure what her wealth has to do with what she is doing at the moment. I thought that Go Fund Me existed in order to help anyone raise money for anything, as long as people were prepared to donate. Even if Gina Miller's husband is a millionaire, £250,000 would have been an absolutely huge amount of money to give to a cause from their personal assets and finances.

I am v interested in the perception of that bus statistic.

Once you remove the rebate we paid in £250 million a week. I think many people still think that is a lot of money. I am not making a value judgement on this btw, I was a kind of fence sitter on the brexit issue (although in the interests of full disclosure I did vote leave, I could have been persuaded remain but no one managed it), but everyone talking about the fact the bus stat was a lie seems to ignore the fact that whilst it WAS a lie, we still put in more than we get out in terms of millions. And that was pointed out a lot in the press as soon as the statistic came out. There was an awful lot more press saying what a load of bollocks it was than the bloody bus got in the first place.

Back to the OP though, Gina Miller seems a good egg, and why shouldn't she crowd fund this? There is transparency about where the money is spent after all. Even though I don't particularly agree with her, it is all above board.

Are these 'go fund me' campaigns regulated at all? Like charities are regulated and are answerable to the regulators as to what happens to the donations, with a breakdown of how the donations are spent. But my understanding of 'go fund me' campaigns are that the person to whom donations are sent are basically left with their own decisions on how the money is spent, and are not monitored by any regulatory body. If this is the case, £250k plus is a hell of a lot of money to entrust to someone spend as they please. It's so open to abuse.

I agree Humphrey - I almost think they did it on purpose - the figure may have been wrong but the true figure was still massive!!! If nothing else it got it in the press everyday. To me those values promote the same response

Pariswhenitdrizzles

The thing is I haven't responded to the gofundme, she is (as you say) entitled to raise funds how she likes and argue against brexit (or whatever) as she sees fit.

I was replying to

"I wish she were standing for parliament."

Quite simply, I don't, I see her as someone that is removed from the everyday humdrum of everyday life.

She is the same as so many of the mps that we have in parliament . IMO she is doing what she is because it benefits her, it just so happens that in this case it also co-insides with what you want to happen.

@KarlosKKrinkelbeim

This is a pro-woman site

Is it? What, every woman just because they have a vigina? I guess you got on board with "it's every woman's duty to vote for Clinton because she is a woman too"?

You can strongly dislike a person and their ideals and not be sexist or what ever else.

If you're the sort of person who thinks it's ok to call a woman a cunt for standing up for what she believes in I think this is probably not the right place for you. There are, sadly, plenty of sites for woman-hating crazies and I think you might feel more at home there.
Or if you are going to stay here, invest in a dictionary.

"A woman-hating crazy".

Do grow up. I find Gina Miller absolutely abhorrent and if you're the kind of person who thinks that that extends to me hating a whole class then you have real issues, not me.

I feel very at home on MN. Congratulations to you for running such an excellent site.

Thankfully, MNHQ has deleted Devorak's vile insult. Gina Miller has had death and rape threats, so don't come on here and call her a c*nt.

Another one here who finds GM utterly abhorrent, I've been a staunch feminist my whole life. KarlosKKrinkelbeim your post epitomizes the hyperbolic name calling nastiness that shuts down debate and silences people you should apologise to Devorak

Do grow up. I find Gina Miller absolutely abhorrent and if you're the kind of person who thinks that that extends to me hating a whole class then you have real issues, not me

Can someone explain why?

She ensured that the government followed the proper legal processes to trigger Brexit.

It might seem a bit complicated or a technicality, but the government is proposing to use "Henry VIII" type sweeping legal powers to change EU law to British law. This might seem simple and common sense but actually it is very dangerous because it will be done without any checks and balances. People like Gina Miller realise this and want to make sure there are checks and balances.

Governments lie. Look at Theresa May's U turn on the "no election until 2020". She's lying about the reasons for a GE - it's to crush Labour. She already has a mandate for Brexit.

What she doesn't like it being questioned about Brexit. Well, sorry, but given that (at best) governments make mistakes and (at worst) the lie, we need all the questions we can get.

So while Gina Miller may well be a horrible person, her intentions are very valid and her concerns are very real.

I wouldn't mind if she was doing this off her own back but she isn't. shes just a front to the faceless cowards who are really driving her campaign. who are the anonymous backers she has? why do they want to stay anonymous? if they want to engage in driving political change then they should be made to be open and transparent and not hide. if they want to try and sway great numbers of people then they should be open about it - not hide in the dark shadows and use the courts to protect their identity.

so all those people who have put money towards her campaign - you aren't supporting her - you are supporting her anonymous backers...

shes just a front to the faceless cowards who are really driving her campaign

What is her campaign?

"A vile insult". Grow up. It's a word. Calling a man "dick" isn't misandry. It's an insult.

"Gina Miller has had death and rape threats, so don't come on here and call her a c*nt."

What does the first phrase have to do with the second? Because some people have been vile, no one else can disagree with her?

@believeitornot

"She ensured that the government followed the proper legal processes to trigger Brexit."

She spent a lot of money and wasted time making the government follow a technicality. When they passed the bill, no party objected or rebelled i.e. it was pointless exercise.

"People like Gina Miller realise this and want to make sure there are checks and balances."

No, she is on a patronising crusade, thinking she knows better and treating anyone who disagrees with her with contempt as opposed to sensible reasoning. Look where that got the Remain campaign.

Do you realise the impossibility of debating every law before passing it before we leave the EU?

You may think she's lying about the reasons, but only one person knows for sure. As for the U turn, I admire the ability to change your mind or stance or opinion as situations change. Don't you?

The two things that make me really, really pissed off with Miller and others like her are:

• vote swapping, trading and mass tactical voting. Morally dubious at best. One person, one vote. Campaigning is one thing but voting for a candidate you don't believe in to try to stop another being elected doesn't feel like the democracy I want.

• the idea that either of the opposition parties' leaders would negotiate well against the remaining EU countries.

• the idea that Miller has that Brexit is unfair, that it should be stopped and that being a thorn in the side of May is the way to get the best for the country in any negotiations. It isn't. She's a pointless distraction and should be dealt with in the same way May, as a strong female leader, dealt with Sturgeon and her self-interested push for another referendum.

"What is her campaign"

Her campaign is a tactical voting one (morally poor, IMO) to push for a "real final vote on Brexit". We had a real final vote on Brexit. Remember it? Many of the losing remainers said that complicated things like that shouldn't have been put to general vote because it's too complex. Do you think the average person can look at extremely complex outcomes of negotiations and vote easily in the short time span we have?

"Do what's best for Britain"? Yes. Tell whiny arseholes (acceptable or still vile insult?) to stop campaigning to disrupt democracy.

She spent a lot of money and wasted time making the government follow a technicality. When they passed the bill, no party objected or rebelled i.e. it was pointless exercise

Then why did the government fight it so? Because they knew there was a chance that there would be some challenge on the way. So no it was not a mere technicality.

Do you realise the impossibility of debating every law before passing it before we leave the EU?

I do however I think it's incredibly dangerous for the government to be given sweeping powers. I don't believe for a second that they will pass the law without any "small" changes or tinkering. The task is huge, so the more chance for mistakes. For me, this is about giving parliament the chance to make sure that the change from EU to British law really is a straight forward switch. If it is as government say, then they can make their case to Parliament. Parliament represents the people - that's why any government, when making certain changes, has to get it voted through.

We didn't have a final vote on Brexit. We had an opening gambit. First question:
"Should we leave the EU?"
Second question
"What does that actually look like and how do we enact it?" That's where parliament comes in.

Leaving the EU is not simple. I suggest you do some research into the complex myriad of relationships we have with EU bodies.

For that very reason, we need to make sure that we check the final position on what leave looks like.

You wouldn't buy a house without doing a survey even if you loved it at first sight.

She won't be getting a penny from me.

The house analogy says it all. GM is funding a survey hoping to find that/prove it's not a great house so let's not buy it. Well it is a great house and we want it, not subject to survey we've looked we're ok with the problems we've had a vote on it let's buy it.

Well it is a great house and we want it, not subject to survey we've looked we're ok with the problems we've had a vote on it let's buy it

What problems are you ok with? You don't know all the problems - how can you when no survey has been done

We've had forty years surveying it, considering it and th I king about it we are well pass ready to decide

Let me get this straight - a post is deleted because poster called GM a Cunt, yet I have seen dozens and dozens of posts all over MN calling Tory voters Cunts - often Evil Cunts - and those posts are NOT deleted by MN???

They are only deleted if they get reported. I Guess no one is reporting the Tory Cunt posts.

BelieveItOrNot

Then why did the government fight it so?

I'm the boss of around 400 staff. A couple of years ago, a member of staff asked to meet with me to discuss "something". I did. The issue was so trivial that rather than fight with them or entertain the argument, I offered them a generous redundancy including a very good reference or, they could get out and we both pretend that they had thought this was worth the battle or confrontation*. If it gets out that you'll discuss every single possibility and decision with every junior who want to, you're setting a prescident that will waste a lot of time. Miller is just one of those time wasters and rather than bother with her personally, May was able to send lawyers to deal with her. When the very biased judges found against May, it was simple to go through the hoop that was set.

What do you think it achieved other than Miller announcing her 'arrival'?

Leaving the EU is not simple. I suggest you do some research into the complex myriad of relationships we have with EU bodies.

I was completely pleasant in my reply to you so some reciprocation would be appreciated.

Was't it my point that leaving the EU is a complex scenario where strong leaders need their eye on the ball, not swatting away 'mosquitos'. I think it is too complex to be given to the public when negotiations are likely to run right up to the last minute. Besides which, and I'd like to use the buying a house analogy, we have told them we will buy a house and have agreed to a legally binding contract that we will within 2 years. The vote would be more about if we take the house or not...

Now, I've just had a bottle of red so that analogy may be a little confused!

I meant, if the package negotiated by May is rejected in some public vote, we would be left with the hardest Brexit of all. There can't be 2 different 'packages' agreed and the public chooses their favourite. Now that Article 50 has been set in motion, the vote would be a 'do you like it or lump it'.

For me, this is about giving parliament the chance to make sure that the change from EU to British law really is a straight forward switch

So, every piece of legislation should be put to the vote? You said you understand how massive that task would be yet don't have a solution.

*they stayed, are still a good member of staff and have been promoted since

@BMW6

It's almost like MN have a political agenda isn't it!

Perhaps people with robust and thoughtful arguments are a little thicker-skinned whereas those without a meaningful thing to say simply call 'misogyny' and are sickened by vile insults and hit report whilst complaining there was no safe space for them.