Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[ayrmad]

6 minutes ago, Randy Giles said:

Nobody should have to factor in death threats when doing something that they are fully entitled to do.

And that's besides the point. You decided to ignore the death threats and go after the person recieving them. "Nobody asked her to disregard the decision of the electorate". You're victim blaming. Which given your moans to Peppino in another thread is pretty fucking rich and shows you to be just as classless.

Why should I be concerned about death threats towards some nobody I've never met or saw before yesterday, too many people take bad things happening to strangers far too seriously in this world.

You'll be wanting me to post RIP for some random I don't know the next time a z-lister pops their clogs.

Edited November 4, 2016 by ayrmad

[Ira Gaines]

1 minute ago, ayrmad said:

Why should I be concerned about death threats towards some nobody I've never met or saw before yesterday, too many people take bad things happening to strangers far too seriously in this world.

So you're dropping the whole "I'm not a victim blamer" act then.

[ayrmad]

5 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

She hasn't tried to stop Brexit and nobody should have to factor in the possibility of getting shot by some Nazi arsehole into their decision to go to a British law court.

You should always factor in all scenarios when taking certain actions in the public eye.

[Baxter Parp]

2 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

Why should I be concerned about death threats towards some nobody I've never met or saw before yesterday, too many people take bad things happening to strangers far too seriously in this world.

You'll be wanting me to post RIP for some random I don't know the next time a z-lister pops their clogs.

Lack of empathy is a sign of psychosis.  Just saying.

[ayrmad]

Just now, Randy Giles said:

So you're dropping the whole "I'm not a victim blamer" act then.

I don't give the slightest whiff of a shite about this woman.

[ayrmad]

Just now, Baxter Parp said:

Lack of empathy is a sign of psychosis.  Just saying.

I'm perfectly fine, I'm not into all this faux rage taken on social media.

[Ira Gaines]

Just now, ayrmad said:

I don't give the slightest whiff of a shite about this woman.

What does that have to do with you being a victim blamer?

And as for factoring in scenarios, you're right. She shouldn't have done what she did, despite her feeling that it was the right thing to do. She should have just let the right wing press with their hysteria dictate her actions. After all. Nobody asked her to do this. Right?

[ayrmad]

Just now, Randy Giles said:

What does that have to do with you being a victim blamer?

And as for factoring in scenarios, you're right. She shouldn't have done what she did, despite her feeling that it was the right thing to do. She should have just let the right wing press with their hysteria dictate her actions. After all. Nobody asked her to do this. Right?

She can do as she pleases as I myself always have, she like myself also has to live with the consequences no matter how harsh the words happen to be.

[Granny Danger]

I've looked at a lot of the pro-Trump comments made by the media and individuals during this Presidential campaign and thought 'what a terrible country and what terrible people'.  Looking at the comments about Gina Miller, some of the media's incendiary interpretation of the legal ruling, the personal threats and the indifference by some folk to these threats, I realise that this country is as morally bereft as the United States.

[Ira Gaines]

Except how many times have your consequences been threats to your life, in the same year that an MP was murdered for essentially sharing similar ideals? How many times have your consequences seen the right wing press plaster you all over the place and drum up hysteria telling people to "fight"?

It's easy to just ignore the consequences other people have to live with when you don't have any idea what they entail. And it's clear that you don't. And I don't buy for a minute that you don't care about the decisions she's made. Hence why you're implying she's brought it on herself.

[ayrmad]

6 minutes ago, Randy Giles said:

Except how many times have your consequences been threats to your life, in the same year that an MP was murdered for essentially sharing similar ideals? How many times have your consequences seen the right wing press plaster you all over the place and drum up hysteria telling people to "fight"?

It's easy to just ignore the consequences other people have to live with when you don't have any idea what they entail. And it's clear that you don't. And I don't buy for a minute that you don't care about the decisions she's made. Hence why you're implying she's brought it on herself.

I can assure you that I've been in far scarier situations than words directed at Gina Millar, I've slept with blades that would cut your head off because I was in a them or me situation that was nowt to do with me.

And as for the 2nd paragraph, there's nothing that'll come from brexit or staying that will make any noticeable difference to my life, my finances were well rejigged after the 2008 crash.

I had a severe addiction for 24 years, you get in plenty of dodgy places both physical and mental when your funding an addiction.

Edited November 4, 2016 by ayrmad

[DigOutYourSoul]

If it's accepted that people should be genuinely concerned about their life because of their decision to take something to court, or make a decision with regards to the law, in this country we are completely done.

[ayrmad]

1 minute ago, DigOutYourSoul said:

If it's accepted that people should be genuinely concerned about their life because of their decision to take something to court, or make a decision with regards to the law, in this country we are completely done.

I'm not asking anyone to accept it but I'm entitled to take the oh well no luck approach whether that makes me a fanny or not in the eyes of others.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Does anybody know if ayrmad has a shotgun certificate?

If so you should probably have a word with the police

[ayrmad]

9 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

Does anybody know if ayrmad has a shotgun certificate?

If so you should probably have a word with the police

Don't have one, last air rifle I had was confiscated by Ayr's finest when I was about 10, f**k knows where my fibreglass bow and proper metal arrows went to at the time, nobody in Lochside turned a hair back then.

Edited November 4, 2016 by ayrmad

[Cerberus]

6 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

Don't have one, last air rifle I had was confiscated by Ayr's finest when I was about 10, f**k knows where my fibreglass bow and proper metal arrows went to at the time, nobody in Lochside turned a hair back then.

The EU took 'em m8.

[ayrmad]

Just now, Cerberus said:

The EU took 'em m8.

I'm a remainer thanks.

[mjw]

I can assure you that I've been in far scarier situations than words directed at Gina Millar, I've slept with blades that would cut your head off because I was in a them or me situation that was nowt to do with me.

What the actual f**k is this madness?

We're months on from a woman mp being slaughtered in the street.
She probably should have thought her life through a bit better,eh?

[glasgow-sheep]

43 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I've looked at a lot of the pro-Trump comments made by the media and individuals during this Presidential campaign and thought 'what a terrible country and what terrible people'.  Looking at the comments about Gina Miller, some of the media's incendiary interpretation of the legal ruling, the personal threats and the indifference by some folk to these threats, I realise that this country is as morally bereft as the United States.

Been saying this for months.

We can look across the pond and mock but politics in the UK and increasingly across Europe are just as bad and utterly terrifying.

[Redstarstranraer]

All this talk of this decision 'blocking Brexit' is of course entirely unfounded and disingenuous; Brexit will almost certainly still happen in one form or another.  It perhaps does somewhat strengthen the hand of those pushing for a 'soft' Brexit depending on how events develop but the idea that these judges have stymied any possibility of Brexit at all is just hysterical hyperbole.  May will now (assuming she doesn't win the appeal and on the face of it that seems unlikely) have to go to parliament and presumably get some form of 'Brexit Bill' passed through both Houses but given the amount of pressure they will be under to ensure the referendum result is upheld I really can't see a majority of MPs actually 'defying' the supposed will of the British public; the venom directed towards the High Court judges and the campaigners who brought the challenge is just a taste of what many of them would receive if they entirely scuppered the Brexit process.  Indeed they may receive a healthy dose of such bile even if they refuse to endorse a 'hard' Brexit, especially if for example they keep free movement of people in return for access to the Common Market.

Anyway the manner in which the press (wilfully) and a hefty chunk of popular opinion (mostly through ignorance) is prepared to totally miss the point on this ruling is actually genuinely concerning for our democracy.  All that the High Court has decided here is that the government cannot use their executive powers through the Royal Prerogative to push through an exit from the EU as it infringes parliamentary sovereignty; i.e. that very same British parliamentary sovereignty supposedly so loved by the Brexiteers and undermined, ironically, by 'unelected judges'.  Since we joined the EU (or EEC as it was then) European law has been part of British law, hence leaving the EU alters British domestic law.  It also removes 'rights' such as appealing to the European Court of Justice.  Traditionally (well since the 17th century anyway) the British constitution, such as it is, has held that the Crown (i.e. the government) cannot override legislation using its prerogative powers.  Only parliament can alter or override legislation through more legislation.  As the judges actually commented in the judgement:

"An important aspect of the fundamental principle of Parliamentary sovereignty is that primary legislation is not subject to displacement by the Crown through the exercise of its prerogative powers."

Hence seeing as the High Court took the view that triggering Article 50 and leaving the EU through the invocation of the Royal Prerogative would do just that it is legally incompetent and beyond the government's executive powers:

"The Crown cannot, through the exercise of its prerogative powers, alter the domestic law of the United Kingdom and modify rights acquired in domestic law under the ECA 1972 or the other legal effects of that Act.  We agree with the claimants that, on this further basis, the Crown cannot give notice under Article 50(2)."

Contending that the supposed 'Great Repeal Act' they will apparently pass after triggering Article 50 would restore the laws thus affected also doesn't alter the fact that by commencing the process of leaving the EU without consulting parliament the government would have overstepped the mark and gone beyond what their executive powers are supposed to permit.  Had they made the referendum itself binding they could have avoided this malaise (for example the AV referendum, if you remember that farce, was binding and had it passed the appropriate legislation would have been enacted automatically without needing further parliamentary approval).  They didn't of course and as everyone knows it was merely consultative, so despite the enormous political pressure to implement the result there is no legal obligation to do so.

The point is that the decision of the High Court does nothing to actually stop Brexit, it merely stops the UK government from implementing it without consulting parliament first. It should also be pointed out it is somewhat unclear in the judgement if a simple vote (a 'parliamentary referendum') would suffice; a lot of legal experts I've read seem to suggest that legislation would need to be passed which of course would involve a lot of wrangling in both Houses and a probably protracted timetable.  May could go for the simple vote option and press ahead with her March timetable but this might leave her open to further legal challenge.

So essentially the courts have actually stepped in and protected the public from a gross breach of that precious British Parliamentary Sovereignty that was so cherished by those campaigning for a 'leave' vote.  They should be pleased with such an outcome and that the courts have protected us from the undemocratic usage of the Royal Prerogative to alter and discard UK legislation and the rights of British citizens without parliamentary approval.

In narrow legal terms the appeal to the Supreme Court doesn't seem to stand much of a chance.  It is hard to see how the Supreme Court judges can take a different view to the High Court as the fact that triggering Article 50 does alter domestic law seems pretty clear cut; it would also create a dangerous precedent were the government permitted to use its executive powers to alter domestic law on the basis it would go back and get parliament to reinstate the discarded law at a later date.  Sadly seeing how the High Court judges have been hounded for 'overruling democracy' the pressure on them to find in favour of the government will be immense.

It ought to concern people that May's government thought they could get away with acting in such a manner without proper constitutional oversight merely because they thought they had the backing of public opinion.  The idea that judges ought to disregard the law and take decisions based on what they think public opinion would prefer is also concerning and it ought to be considered an absolute disgrace that politicians and the press are openly trying to pressurise the courts into ignoring the law to get an outcome they prefer.  I actually (and I'm pretty cynical on the whole) wouldn't have imagined years ago that we'd be in a situation in the UK where judges were branded as 'enemies of the people' on the front page of a national newspaper for merely upholding the law.  Then again that's Brexit Britain for you.  High time Scotland got out of this absolute madness.