Without Gina Miller and the case at the Supreme Court, what would be the status of Brexit now?

[Liltzero]

I’ve been thinking about this in the last few days and I hope some learned MNers can help.

TIA

TM would have still outsourced her brain and her responsibility to the civil service and we'd have the same treaty that we do now, except we would already be irrevocably committed to it.

With incredible amounts of irony, Gina Miller's agitation has resulted in the best hope Brexiteers have today of not being tied to the EU.

My memory of the Brexiteers going ballistic and the judges being "enemies of the people" was part of my thinking on the question. Without Gina Miller, it'd be a done deal by now? With no recourse to parliament?

Without Gina Miller, it'd be a done deal by now? With no recourse to parliament?
I think so. I can't see what else would have changed, except maybe the Tory party would have ousted her by now.

There is a theory that the reason she is still there is because they have not had an obvious new leader who would be able to unite the party.

So, they have held on waiting for a either a new leader to emerge or the "meaningful vote" to fail and Jeremy Corbyn to ask for a vote of no-confidence, after which she'll either resign or the tory party will get rid of her even without a new leader waiting in the wings.

Gina Millar argued that only Parliament can trigger Art50, not May/UK gov. she won her case in court, it has nothing to do with the vote on the deal.

The meaning vote was a concession that tory remainers got out of her for their support.

I wonder if it may be more complex. One of the political problems TM faces, thanks to the combination of Miller and TM’s ludicrous electoral strategy, is reliance on the DUP. Has this influenced the deal on the table (in that EU negotiators will have been very aware of this)?

I’m not convinced the EU have ever taken the deal on the table seriously; they’ve always known Parliamentary approval meant it was a dead duck. If Parliamentary approval hadn’t been needed, how would that have influenced the EU’s (and UK’s) game plan and tactics? This is unknowable but I suspect we might well be looking at a very different deal.

The Miller strategy was a high risk one in the context of the referendum: the most likely results of requiring a Parliamentary approval have always been either no Brexit, or a very bad one.

Either way, the result is some nasty consequences for ordinary people in terms of social harmony, political disruption, risk of rise of extremist parties, loss of respect for democratic institutions, and economic disruption. But the Miller strategy offered at least a chance of the financial services industry protecting themselves (no Brexit).

I think her actions damaged our country, while protecting the financial services industry. Not a fan. I doubt very much she ever had in mind anything other than the profits of the London based financial services sector, and I don’t like that sector anyway. Would not have mourned it.

Plus, I think it is disingenuous to refer to the Miller case as not having led to the requirement for Parliamentary approval. That ship had sailed once the Art 50 point was lost. Which was the intention, presumably (unless Gina was very badly advised).