One really does have to wonder whether this challenge is really about legality or simply a smoke-screen for something else - stymying the actual vote or at least watering down the effects so that there is no real change; and why the issues were not raised by MP's rather than the legal system

Background

The question on the ballot paper was unequivocal: Did we want Britain to remain in the EU or leave?

The result was a clear majority of 52 per cent to 48 per cent and the vote was to Leave

MP's voted 6-1 in favour of holding the referendum in the first place

Funding for the Original Case

Perhaps not as transparent as it could have been

A great deal of the funding seems to have been provided by expats and others who have chosen not to live in the UK in the first place, as well as undisclosed businesses with their own agenda

Deir Dos Santos - CASE

Written Case of Deir Dos Santos

Question

Is the UK legal system in place to rectify errors, oversights or wishes of the disenfranchised when Parliament passes Acts?

At the time the 2015 European Union Referendum Act was passed, Parliament was quite at liberty to address the matter of the Royal Prerogative and limit its use – as has been done in other instances

Whatever the reasons were, at the time Parliament chose not to do this

Therefore is it appropriate at this stage for the legal system to try to re-write the 2015 European Union Referendum Act to exclude the Royal Prerogative after the event

Surely this approach is an abuse of the legislative process in trying to gerrymander the system in the aftermath of a majority vote that many disagreed with

Original Ruling

Justification for the original ruling seems to have been based upon historic precedents as far back as:

  • 1610 Case of Proclamations. The argument put forward was flawed because the impact of the statement ‘.. Brexit would have a direct impact on substantive legal rights under UK domestic law ..’ 

The actual direct action is to trigger Article 50, which by definition is an international treaty event (Royal Prerogative)

Everything subsequent to triggering Article 50 becomes an indirect domestic (Parliamentary) consequence relating to cause and effect and should not therefore be a material consideration in any judgement

  • 1689 Bill of Rights

‘.. For the reasons set out in the judgement, we decide that the Government does not have power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union ..’ 

However, once one acknowledges that Article 50 is clearly an international treaty event and therefore subject to the Royal Prerogative then this judgement is instantly flawed. The fact that it is the causation of a 'knock-on' impact under UK domestic law is secondary and entirely irrelevant

However:

Let us just stop and think for a moment about the impact of a ruling against the Government over Article 50 on the basis of any secondary consequential events as a result of 'cause & effect'.

Supposing that as a result of a ruling against the Government the BREXIT vote was 'watered down' or even in the worst case scenario cancelled all together, against the wishes of the people.

What would be the consequence of the judiciary interfering with the peoples vote and effectively subjugating Parliament to their wishes - and if it is deemed acceptible what of anything in the future or even better let's trawl through the past and see if we can mount a legal challenge to anything historic that we don't like

Legality of the European Communities Act 1972

Was the UK's membership of the EU contrary to UK law and therefore invalid?

Was Britain Taken Into The EU Illegally?

Therefore perhaps the Supreme Court should address this issue before passing judgement on something that is dependant on valid membership of the EU in the first place

In any event, if everything was perfectly correct at the time then WHY did the following take place?

'.. In 1975, when the Government changed, Harold Wilson sought to put right the clear constitutional error by organising a retrospective referendum (something quite unprecedented in British history) designed to obtain the permission of the British people for Britain to join something it had already `joined' ..'

Clearly there are some questions that need answers before moving forward on the current legal challenge to Article 50

Legality of the CFP

In fact why not start with the legality of the European Communities Act 1972, when the UK joined the European Union and the impact of EEC and Council Regulation 2141/70, concerning the CFP (Common Fisheries Policy) which was only adopted on the morning of 30 June, the day the British application for membership was made and remained illegal for many years thereafter

In October 1971, Geoffrey Rippon, Britain’s chief negotiator stated ‘.. one thing is certain . . . we should not sign a Treaty of Accession which would commit us to the present fisheries policy..’

A number of Ministers at the time, made a similar statements and MPs voted on accession to the treaty during a debate in which the passage relating to fisheries was NOT published; so the debate was on flawed principles engineered by those who drew up the debate topic

During the first 22 years of its existence the CFP was completely illegal; according to the EEC's own laws and none of the Articles quoted in the treaty, numbers 7, 42, 43 and 235 mention fisheries

Article 38 is usually quoted as the source but was, in actual fact, left out of the regulation in the haste to draw it up

Finally, authorisation was retrospectively inserted into Article 3 of the Treaty of Maastricht many years later! - ergo: no-disclosure is surely definate grounds for a challenge on membership of the EEC

Therefore, if any such challenge on this matter was upheld and it was found that the UK should never have joined the EEC in the first place, then the BREXIT issues of today would surely be extinguished as they could not exist - 'cause & effect'!

Geoffrey Robertson QC 

'.. That’s what the Civil War was about – the right of parliament to stop the Crown doing things that weren’t in the national interest ..' 

However, quoting the National Interest introduces yet another facet - the voting public and a definition of National Interest

Apart from a few pockets, the majority of the population voted to leave the EU, however, in a great many cases their MP representatives in Parliament ignored the wishes of those they represented. Therefore we have a situation whereby the people voted one way and their MP's wanted something else

Where does the National Interest stand in this instance and who takes primacy – MP’s or voters?

Sovereignty

What was the net effect of the 1972 European Communities Act for UK Parliamentary Sovereignty?

This has already been answered and interpreted by UK courts as granting EU law primacy over domestic UK legislation

Therefore, if there was a conflict between an act of the British Parliament and EU law, Parliament would lose out and EU law would prevail. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) became in effect a Supreme Court of Europe, interpreting EU law with judgements that were binding on all member states

Based upon this concept of ‘EU law being granted primacy over domestic UK legislation’ one cannot include the concept of the Sovereignty of Parliament because it has already been relinquished by the 1972 European Communities Act. Until Parliament repeals the 1972 Act and takes back that part of its sovereignty that was lost to EU law, Parliament does not currently have absolute sovereignty because part of it has already been ceded to the EU

Therefore the Sovereignty of Parliament and the 1972 European Communities Act are by definition mutually exclusive 

Royal Prerogative

The Royal Prerogative has always contained powers relating to foreign affairs, which have historically involved the making of treaties at international level. Therefore the ability of the Government to ratify treaties remains a prerogative power, as does the power to amend or withdraw from treaties

However, obligations arising from international law treaties do not take effect at domestic level until Parliament chooses to incorporate all or part of the international law into the domestic sphere, which means a separation between between the two

The EU involves an international treaty and as such falls under the remit of the Royal Prerogative in isolation to separate domestic ratification though Parliament

Is the actual Article 50 an international event or a domestic one? Clearly without clouding the issue by introducing any subsequent 'knock-on' effect, Article 50 falls into the domain of international - ergo: subject to the Royal Prerogative and there can be no other interpretation

In any event, surely the whole point of the Royal Prerogative is that it is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity, recognised in the UK as the sole prerogative of the Sovereign and the source of many of the executive powers of the British government

This is especially so where it is recognised that the four major personal prerogative powers which are exercised by the monarch are:

  • The dissolution of Parliament
  • The appointment of the Prime Minister
  • The granting of the royal assent to legislation
  • The dismissal of government

This makes no sense in the context of the Royal Prerogative needing to be ceded by Parliament in this instance – it is already the default position (especially as Article 50 is an international event) and any restrictions needed to be specified at the time of the 2015 European Union Referendum Act.

The assumption of action was implicit when the 2015 European Union Referendum Act was passed - otherwise why bother to have a referendum if Parliament was not prepared to act on the results?

Therefore is it Dominic Chambers who is looking at it ‘.. from the wrong end of the telescope ..’ in his argument

By default Parliament has already ceded the necessary powers and it is up to Parliament to specifically restrict any powers it does not wish to cede – this was not done at the time in the 2015 European Union Referendum Act and one cannot revisit this matter retrospectively after the event because the results didn't go ones way

Arrogance of Dominic Chambers

‘..  Lord Carnwath suggests it would be strange if parliament expressed its will through a resolution but then there was still a need to go back to parliament for legislation to implement it.

Chambers suggests it might be “odd... to the man on the Clapham omnibus” but not to lawyers ..

What a staggering display of arrogance by Dominic Chambers

Surely the whole point of the legal system is to be seen to be fair and understandable by the ‘common man’ and any convoluted argument he puts forward that is impenetrable ‘.. to the man on the Clapham omnibus ..’ cannot possibly be seen to have these qualities

Can Dominic Chambers not understand that this is precisely what the whole thing is about in the first place ‘Elites’ v ‘man of the street’! and once the law and rulings become opaque or obscure the system has failed

David Scoffield QC – N Ireland

He seems to be on different wavelength to everyone else. Is this hearing really about the politics of triggering Article 50 or limited to the legal issues?

Ronan Lavery QC – N Ireland

‘..  It would be unconstitutional to withdraw from the EU without the consent of the people of the Northern Ireland ..’

Don’t be so ridiculous – there was a vote throughout the UK and a clear majority/mandate to follow a certain course of action. Which part of a clear majority does Ronan Lavery QC not understand

Or is he advocating that every settlement within the UK can individually elect to be in or out of the EU? - a flawed argument

Everyone now seems to getting in on the act, pursing their own agenda with little or no regard to the issues

James Wolfe QC – Lord advocate for the Scottish Government 

Scottish Government Stance

‘.. At a constitutional level leaving the EU would limit the competence of the Scottish parliament and the competence of the Scottish government, Wolfe argues ..’ 

Since rewinds over history seem to be in vogue:

  • What about the Darien Scheme (bailout) and the events leading up to the Act of Union - this leads to the heart of historic competence
  • With the benefit of hindsight, the Scottish referendum a couple of years ago could have ended in exactly the same way as the Darien Scheme, with yet another bailout by RUK because of falls in the oil price etc. However, all this seems to have been glossed over by Nicola Sturgeon and her cohorts who backed a potential disaster - this goes to demonstrate present day competence?

Therefore in the light of the two matters above why should there be an expectation of future competence when it has not been demonstrated in the past - and history is often demed to be a window on the future

Once again a participant not restricting their case to the absolute matter at hand – stick to the topic - legality

Lord Pannick QC

Lord Pannick QC seems to be a gun for hire, who potentially has no beliefs other those that he is paid for or where he has an interest coupled with a difficulty over disclosure!

We see in the Sunday Times (11 December 2016)

 

Sunday Times (11 December 2016): - Greens Pannick Stations Mocked

Now the select committee has fired back a salvo. Gabriel Moss QC, who advised the inquiry, has produced a 10-page note responding to Pannick’s report. Moss reckons Pannick’s opinion could not “accurately be described as ‘an independent review’ ” due to his personal connections, and that it was instead “a forceful legal and factual argument” on behalf of Green, 64, and his empire.

Moss goes on to say the committee was free to make a 'value judgment' on 'the question of moral blame'. He argues the rights and wrongs of Green’s behaviour 'cannot be answered simply by pointing to arid technicalities of company law'

 

This is the interesting and very telling paragraphs in his defence of Philip Green which give an insight into Lord Pannick modus operandii

‘.. He argues the rights and wrongs of Green’s behaviour “cannot be answered simply by pointing to arid technicalities of company law ..’

Furthermore:

'.. Cynics pointed out that Pannick, 60, had probably been handsomely remunerated for his work, and that he is friendly with Green associates such as Baroness Brady and Lord Grabiner — a fact that was strangely not disclosed until the 64th paragraph ..' - mmm !

Perhaps we should compare the previous statements to his current task of influencing the BREXIT result - after all so far as Lord Pannick is concerned the law would seem to be nothing but an inconvenience in getting his own way

Tags: , | Categories: European Union | UK Government

Here are a few reasons for wanting to leave the EU - there are numerous others but these are the fundamental ones

Supremacy of the UK Parliament

'.. it comes down to an elemental choice: whether to restore the full self-government of this nation, or to continue living under a higher supranational regime, ruled by a European Council that we do not elect in any meaningful sense, and that the British people can never remove, even when it persists in error ..'

Brexit vote is about the supremacy of Parliament and nothing else

 

Subsidiarity Has Broken Down

‘.. decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the citizens of the Union in accordance with Article 5 (ex Article 3b) of the EC Treaty ..’

The European Union (EU) Why Is Subsidiarity Not Working

 

Southern Europe is in Real Trouble

Youth unemployment in EU’s southern countries is at an all-time high - 39% youth unemployment in Italy, 45% in Spain and 49% in Greece

The problem here is that being tied to the Euro currency these countries do not have the latitude of being able to manage their own affairs – i.e. devaluation

 

Control Over UK Borders

The UK wants control over it's own borders without being dictated to by an undemocratic EU

Damian Draghici Stupid Statement On Romanian-Migration

 

Immigration Policy

This is allied to control of our own resources and borders

Of course the UK wants migrants, however, the issue is about skilled migrants and being able to determine the volume of non-skilled migrants entering the country – not an outright ban on everyone or as the EU wants an open-door policy to all comers from Europe

Generally ‘first wave’ migrants make a positive contribution to the receiving country – thereafter the results are not quite so clear as populations age etc.

Furthermore, the acknowledged wisdom that migrants benefit the UK does not entirely stack up

Between 1984-2000 the UK ‘real’ GDP growth was 2.6% and immigration was 3.3 million – however, from 2000-2016 the equivalent GDP growth was 1.2% whilst immigration was 7.5 million – in theory greater migration should have led to an increased growth, hwever that did not occur.

Also statistics show that migrants tend to go into part-time rather than full-time jobs – all of which is a cost to the receiving country rather than a benefit; especially when associated with the state benefits system and where in-work benefits are available for the low paid.

This results in employers getting' cheap' labour with the bill for topping up their wages being picked up by the taxpayer under the benefits system

Nevertheless, the UK resources are limited and need to be managed for the benefit of everyone

There are also issues about remitting UK child benefit to dependants of migrant workers in the UK back to children in their own country abroad – estimates are around 34,000 children living abroad and benefiting in the area or approximately £30 million in cost

 

Original Basis Of UK Entry

When the UK joined it was originally a trading alliance and since then the EU has tried to morph into a political and currency union as well - this was not what the UK signed up for originally

We are all in favour of a trading alliance within Europe but not a loss of sovereignty, democracy, Parliamentary control to an unaccountable, undemocratic & self serving EU

Therefore do we really want to be aligned with a declining EU institution, or can we do better being masters of our own destiny?

Furthermore, at that time the UK joined, the EU accounted for 38% of global GDP – today it accounts for 17% of global GDP. Some of that decline can be put down to the growth of China etc. but the actual EU decline is far greater than would be expected even with these influences

 

EU Has No Democratic Accountability

Unelected administrators with no democratic accountability are the core of the EU

  • Mario Draghi: The unelected President of the European Central Bank and a Goldman Sachs alumnus
  • Jean-Claude Juncker: The unelected president of the European Commission, and former Prime Minister of Luxembourg
  • Jeroen Dijsselbloem: The unelected Brussels Commissar and “President of the Eurogroup”, and former Minister of Finance of the Netherlands
  • Donald Tusk: The unelected “President of the Euro Summit”, and former Prime Minister of Poland
  • Martin Schulz: The unelected President of the European Parliament, and former Mayor of Würselen

 

CAP And Land Ownership

The distribution of wealth and CAP payments to the already wealthy - fewer than 6,000 people own 70% of the land in the UK

Are EU Farmers Todays Benefit Clamiants

 

Common Fisheries Policy

Give the UK back their fishing grounds

The UK & Ireland used to own 60% of EU fishing water and now the UK’s quota has been reduced to 13% of what is now a ‘common resource’

UK EEC Referendum Will UK Get Their Fishing Grounds Back From EEC Original Illegal Theft

 

Other References - General

Other Countries Views on UK Brexit-from-EU

BREXIT Would You Vote to Join the EU Today

Cyprus EU Failures are Architect of the Banking Problems

Farcical European Wide Social Security Benefits Encouraging Benefit Tourism

 

References to EU Direction & Goals

The Five President’s Report: Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union

EU Basics - Your Guide to the UK Referendum on EU Membership - This is issued by an organisation called the “European Movement”. The 16-page colour and high gloss booklet argues for Britain to stay in the EU. Who and what is this “European Movement”, and who is funding it?

This little-known organisation seems financially powerful enough to drop a high-quality print booklet into every household in the entire UK

In the 1950s and 1960s, the European Movement was funded by the CIA. America regarded it essential to rebuild Germany as an industrial power under the cloak of the peaceful EEC to stand as a bulwark against Soviet Russia in the Cold War

 

The declassification of formerly secret records has solved both mysteries. For as it turns out, they are connected. In the words of Nottingham University academic Richard Aldrich:

The use of covert operations for the specific promotion of European unity has attracted little scholarly attention and remains poorly understood. … the discreet injection of over three million dollars between 1949 and 1960, mostly from US government sources, was central to efforts to drum up mass support for the Schuman Plan, the European Defence Community and a European Assembly with sovereign powers.

This covert contribution never formed less than half the European Movement’s budget and, after 1952, probably two-thirds. Simultaneously they sought to undermine the staunch resistance of the British Labour government to federalist ideas…

It is also particularly striking that the same small band of senior officials, many of them from the Western [note: this means US] intelligence community, were central in supporting the three most important transnational elite groups emerging in the 1950s: the European Movement, the Bilderberg Group and Jean Monnet’s Action Committee for a United States of Europe [ACUE]

Finally, at a time when some British antifederalists saw a continued ‘special relationship’ with the United States as an alternative to (perhaps even a refuge from) European federalism, it is ironic that some European federalist initiatives should have been sustained with American support

 

 

 

UK journalist and former Brussels correspondent Ambrose Evans-Pritchard was the only journalist to report on such academic research findings, in two articles in 2000 and 2007:

“DECLASSIFIED American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. … US intelligence secretly funded the European Movement, paying over half its budget. Some of Europe’s founding fathers were on the US payroll….

“The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. Lest we forget, the French had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the federalist signing table in the early 1950s. Eisenhower threatened to cut off Marshall aid unless Paris agreed to kiss and make up with Berlin. France’s Jean Monnet, the EU’s mastermind, was viewed as an American agent – as indeed, he was. Monnet served as Roosevelt’s fixer in Europe during the war and orchestrated the failed US effort to stop de Gaulle taking power.

“One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA. … Washington’s main tool for shaping the European agenda was the American Committee for a United Europe, created in 1948. The chairman was Donovan, ostensibly a private lawyer by then. The vice-chairman was Allen Dulles, the CIA director in the Fifties. The board included Walter Bedell Smith, the CIA’s first director, and a roster of ex-OSS figures and officials who moved in and out of the CIA. The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the movement’s funds. The European Youth Campaign, an arm of the European Movement, was wholly funded and controlled by Washington.

“The leaders of the European Movement – Retinger, the visionary Robert Schuman and the former Belgian prime minister Paul-Henri Spaak – were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors. The US role was handled as a covert operation. ACUE’s funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government.

“The head of the Ford Foundation, ex-OSS officer Paul Hoffman, doubled as head of ACUE in the late Fifties. The State Department also played a role. A memo from the European section, dated June 11, 1965, advises the vice-president of the European Economic Community, Robert Marjolin, to pursue monetary union by stealth. “It recommends suppressing debate until the point at which „adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable”.

 

Nothing is what is seems at face value in the world of the EU! 

Merkel calls for ‘political union’ to save the euro

Giscard d'Estaing: The EU Treaty is the same as the Constitution

Tags: , | Categories: European Union

A second referendum petition – created on 24 May 2016

EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum

‘.. We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the Remain or Leave vote is less than 60%, based on a turnout less than 75%, there should be another referendum ..’

At the time of the referendum result was announced the petition had 22 signatures and as such was regarded by those who are currently complaining as having no relevance

All petitions run for a period of 6 months and this one expires on 25 November 2016

However, with petitions of this nature one cannot have a ’one timescale fits all’ approach because clearly it is absurd to allow any petition to be retrospective after an event has already taken place. The event itself should be the cut of date for a Parliamentary debate

Here a few of the petition results as at 26 June 2016

162,227 people were from outside the UK – most of whom did not have a vote in the referendum in the first place i.e.

  • France 17,383
  • North Korea 18,827
  • Spain – 11,016
  • Vatican City 31,379

(To verify these figures just download the Government json file and run it though an online json/csv converter & load in Excel)

The results of the referendum have been announced and they showed a vote for leaving the EU by 52% to 48%

One simply cannot resurrect something because one doesn’t like the result and anyway surely this just epitomises the whole EU ethos surrounding a complete lack of democracy  - which is why many voted leave in the first place

Tags: | Categories: European Union | UK Government