A Quote by Gina Miller

I never doubted that our parliamentarians would vote to trigger article 50 but I expected a detailed, pragmatic debate around the options of how to execute Brexit and the processes involved.
I fought for MPs to have the right to vote on article 50 not because I was against Brexit, but because I was, and remain passionately, an advocate of parliamentary sovereignty.
Having campaigned to remain in the E.U., I voted to trigger Article 50, in response to the clearly expressed wish of the electorate. It must now be my duty as an MP to try to ensure that Brexit is as smooth as possible and that there is a sound legislative framework in place to bring this about. A chaotic departure is in no-one's interest.
The decision to trigger Article 50 is in the hands of the next prime minister. If that is me, I will make a judgement as to when is right for Britain, and I won't be hurried or hassled by anyone into pressing that button or triggering that article until I believe it is right for this country.
Only the U.K. can trigger Article 50. And in my judgement, we should only do that when there is a clear view about what new arrangements we are seeking with our European neighbours.
England has collapsed politically, monetarily, constitutionally, and economically. It is not reasonable to demand from them to trigger Article 50.
Donald Trump happened to be in Scotland on the very day, the morning after the Brexit vote. He's there to open his golf course in Turnberry, and, lo and behold, the first thing he talked about was not the Brexit vote.
For me, the most ironic aspect of the Brexit debate has been right-wing Brexiteers speaking loftily about parliamentary sovereignty, when they have never backed MPs having a fuller involvement in how our country is run.
If we had a vote in parliament, the majority of MPs would not vote for a hard Brexit.
One of the things we're going to have to discuss and debate is how are we striking this balance between the need to keep the American people safe and our concerns about privacy. Because there are some trade-offs involved. I welcome this debate, and I think it's healthy for our democracy.
Notice of leaving the E.U. under Article 50, for which most of us voted, provides a mechanism for extending the negotiating period by agreement if this is necessary. It is not to undermine Brexit to insist it is carried out correctly.
Spend 10% of the project budget making sure you understand problem, the key technologies involved, and have looked at all of the options before you dive into the detailed design.
We're starting to realize that magicians have a lot of implicit know-ledge about how we perceive the world around us because they have to deceive us in terms of controlling attention, exploiting the assumptions we make when we do and don't notice a change in our environment. There is an enormous amount of really detailed instruction on how to perform magic. People are always blown away by how detailed a description you'll have.
My position was that if the country could unite around a soft Brexit that would be the least worst way through. But it is now very clear that the country is not going to unite around a soft Brexit. There is nobody really advocating a soft Brexit.
There is a lot of flesh to be put on the bones - but there is at least an opening for a more pragmatic, less ideological debate about how to build economies that work for people, within the limits of our planet.
But I do think that Brexit, an exit of Britain from the European Union, would trigger real pressure on the United Kingdom.
We will vote down a blind Brexit. This isn't about frustrating the process. It's about stopping a destructive Tory Brexit. It's about fighting for our values and about fighting for our country.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!