Let's talk about hypocrisy and false equivalence of the @thatginamiller case.
https://twitter.com/spikedonline/status/1324320744298434564
When we were negotiating to join the EEC, even before we had come to terms, there were a few court cases...
First there is Blackburn vs Attorney General. Raymond Blackburn took the government to court arguing that a referendum or an election was needed to sign over that level of sovereignty. He lost. 
Then there was the McWhirter case regarding the Bill of Rights.
Then there was the Bradford case the cited the Act of Settlement.
None of these prevailed in the court, but such was the respect for democracy of Eurosceptic journalists that at least one wrote that all of these things were true and Edward Heath had taken us into the EEC illegally, despite the fact they had all gone through the court.
Now, the first Gina Miller trial was based on something the government was going to do that was questionable. It was a question the government were actually asked.
After the government said it would meet its constitutional requirements, Gina Miller questioned if they were and took them to court to argue that the executive could not act alone.
Have Eurosceptics ever had a case like this before?
Yes! Yes they have.
Yes! Yes they have.
The executive were planning to pay some money to the EEC and Eurosceptcs argued that the executive did not have the power to do this without parliament and took the government to court, and they won too...
Nobody said "This was an expected outcome of the vote in 1975, it's democracy".
People on both sides of the argument have challenged the government action, and the only difference is that Eurosceptics have brought forward more illegitimate cases.
People on both sides of the argument have challenged the government action, and the only difference is that Eurosceptics have brought forward more illegitimate cases.
Objections held by people to Trump's behaviour is largely based on the premise of "He is making it up", and this is not reserved to people who are Remainers.
And those who are outraged can expect to eat humble pie when Trump shows all the evidence he has to show his suit is justified.
There are not the same.
Trump's suit is to stop the democratic process, not to ensure that the democratic process after a vote is exercised through the constitutional requirements that the government said they would be meeting before the vote took place.
Trump's suit is to stop the democratic process, not to ensure that the democratic process after a vote is exercised through the constitutional requirements that the government said they would be meeting before the vote took place.
This isn't actually that hard.
/End
/End
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
