Thank God for Gina Miller, willing to stand up for democracy.

[ssd]

Well seeing she's a woman.

Just saying

mystery Agreement could never be reached on the leave options. Millions of different scenarios possible

And that's precisely why we're up shit creek now. When will Leave supporters actually get this?

Even if you assume that all those that voted Conservative accepted the manifesto line that even though they wanted a deal, No Deal was better than a bad deal , there was still 54% of voters who voted for parties that explicitly rejected No Deal.

Funny how percentages like that are ignored

Going back to the OP: I am delighted that all the parties who challenged the prorogation succeeded. That is not just Gina Miller but also Joanna Cherry et al who brought the case in Scotland (whose highest court had already ruled it not only judiciable but also unlawful). And let's not forget the Welsh involvement (whose QC, Fordham, was very good) and NI (whose QC wasn't so good and got slapped down quite a bit for making his argument political and about Brexit). And definitely don't forget that John Major, a former Conservative PM was also challenging the government's decision

So thanks to all of them for defending parliamentary sovereignty.

"But who's standing up for all those that voted to leave?"

That's easy! Julia Hartley Brewer is to Leave what Gina Miller is to Stay.

@MysteryTripAgain - The court ruling was to decide on whether or not Johnson's decision to prorogue was lawful. Judges made it clear before the hearings began that the ruling was not to comment on the merits of Brexit.

Interesting. And yet on another thread you are claiming the court in NI ruled that a no deal departure by UK from EU does not breach the GFA, when they actually ruled that the question before the court fell into the political realm.

Funny isn't it. You twist the NI ruling to suit your agenda and you pick the snippet out if the UK ruling to suit your agenda.

Mystery has clocked off for the night in her East of the EU time zone. I'm sure she will share her wisdom when she clocks back on.

Article 50 anticipates the possibility of a no deal. Irish attorney general is quoted as saying GFA does not prevent UK from leaving the EU.

Really? I thought the Irish attorney general had been pretty silent on the matter. Can you post a link?

You are fucking kidding me.

Democracy would be doing the will of the people.

Parliament was elected by the people. This is what we all voted for in 2017.

This is how democracy works. We have checks to stop our government abusing their powers. Leavers should be horrified that Johnson tried to do this in their name, and relieved that we are protected from future prime ministers trying the same. How would leavers feel if corbyn tried to do the same to get something through that they didn’t agree with?

"No Deal" had to be kept on the table as it was such a toxic option this made it a valuable bargaining chip (so they said...)

Now, this toxic option is what 17.4m KNEW they were voting for?

The opposition party usually votes against any goverment proposal ( the clue is in their name).

A government with a working majority ought to be able to pass anything it brings before parliament. The failure of an actual leave option, in the WA, to pass, is not the fault of the opposition (doing thier job), but those members of the majority party who voted against.

Really? I thought the Irish attorney general had been pretty silent on the matter. Can you post a link?

It was the link you posted before

Has your shift clocked on again, MysteryTrip?

I am on this thread because I can't sleep but am posting from the UK. How about you?

It was the link you posted before

Hmm. So is it your lack of comprehension and understanding of the situation that has resulted in you believing that it was the Irish attorney general who said that? The NI and the Irish attorney general are different people. Anyone with an ounce of understanding of the situation would never have thought the Irish AG would comment on a case in NI.

Yes, indeed, totally agree with the thread title. I have great admiration for Gina Miller.
Here is another way of looking at the referendum result -

Reductio ad absurdum - where does democracy lie?
A 52% vs 48% result in a science experiment would be deemed NS - not significant. Over and over again people continue to say "17.4M voted to leave". Yes, however, as pointed out above, 16.1M voted to remain. That makes a majority of 1.3M. Would everyone have been happy if the leave majority was 1 vote or 10 or 100 or 1000 or 10,000 or 100,000? If people would not be happy with a majority of one vote but are happy with 1.3M then there must be a level at which they change? What is that number (proportion) and can it be justified?
Consider another way of looking at the result in terms of 17.4M (leave) plus 16.1M (remain) equalling 33.5, let's say 34. Consider 34 people selected randomly from the voting population. The reader must not imagine people from their friends and acquaintances as these will have been selected (by the reader). A true random selection will include folk with all sorts of interests, employments, backgrounds and educational level. So, we may have some who are not informed about all the arguments, some who will have a narrow (local) as against a world view, some who will vote emotionally and subjectively, some who will be intellectually challenged. How many of the thirty four will fall into such categories? Just one or perhaps two, or more? It only takes two out of the thirty four to exceed the proportion represented by the 1.3M majority on which we, as a country, are making a major decision. Democracy is not sensible or efficient when taken to this level.

@Tincan3

Well done for demonstrating the emptiest tin cans make the most noise.

frankly & any others whittering on about sticking up for leavers - believe it or not it's Gina et al. Anything Johnson gets away with is fair game for any future government that wants to do some thing so controversial. If a future government wanted to abolish the NHS or state pensions, nationalise all property etc they could use the same tricks as Johnson. It's not about Brexit, it's about our whole future come what may with Brexit.