“If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.”

Ironically the title is a quote from David Davis back in 2012.

Now David Davis’s Dept for Exiting the European Union is saying “There can be no attempts to remain inside the EU and no attempt to rejoin it.”

By David Davis’s own measure the DExEU is now trying to stifle democracy in the UK.

We have known for some time that legal opinion says that the decision to trigger Article 50 is revocable both under the UK constitution and the EU Treaties. We commissioned and published the opinion from “The Three Knights” back in February this year.

Does the government have equally credible and powerful opinion either supporting or contradicting “The Three Knights”?

Perhaps we will know shortly as Jessica Simor QC from Matrix Chambers has submitted a Freedom of Information request to Theresa May asking her to release the advice she has received. According to Sunday’s Guardian Jessica Simor has been told by “two good sources”:

“that the article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the UK at any time before 29 March 2019 resulting in the UK remaining in the EU on its current favourable terms.

“Such advice would also accord with the view of Lord Kerr, who was involved in drafting article 50, of Jean-Claude Piris, former director general of the EU council’s legal service, and of Martin Selmayr, a lawyer and head of cabinet to the European commission president.” She says “there is no time to waste” and adds: “It is important that this advice is made available to the British public and their representatives in parliament as soon as possible.”

As Labour MP David Lammy said, again in Sunday’s Guardian, “It is frankly quite absurd that the Department for Exiting the European Union is refusing to publish these studies while ministers go around talking about the repatriation of parliamentary sovereignty and taking back control.”

The People’s Challenge knows about this government’s penchant for secrecy. In the Divisional Court we had to force the disclosure of the “secret arguments” it was proposing to use to defend its intention to use the Royal Prerogative.

The government’s lack of openness and transparency about issues such as the revocability of the Article 50 notification, and the extent to which it seeks to reserve to itself “Henry VIII” powers to bypass Parliamentary Sovereignty, constitute a far bigger threat – a threat that the government seems intent on keeping out of sight below the surface of the so-called debate.

Brexit is only the tip of the iceberg we are being driven towards.

On 17th February last we said:

“On Monday the House of Lords will debate a Bill designed to surrender the Parliamentary sovereignty that was upheld by the Supreme Court only weeks ago. We hope this Opinion will help peers understand that the Bill does not have that effect, Parliament will still be able to deploy its constitutional handbrake at any time during the next two years, and the EU will be bound to respect that. This leaves open the option of withdrawing our Article 50 notice if there is no acceptable deal agreed and Parliament decides that a hard Brexit is not in the national interest. The Three Knights’ Opinion is now the most authoritative view available on Article 50, short of a judgment by the European Union’s own Court of Justice. It brings into sharp focus Parliament’s constitutional role in protecting the national interest and the rights of businesses and millions of citizens, whatever the Government might say and whatever promises it makes about being able to negotiate an agreement with 27 other countries during the next eighteen months.“

8 months on it seems that nothing has changed: the government will not disclose what advice it has about the constitutional position and seems intent on telling our Sovereign Parliament what is, or isn’t, allowed.

We must actively defend the Rule of Law, Parliamentary Sovereignty and People’s Fundamental Rights against those who would sweep them away in the pursuit of some dogmatic, self-serving principle.

The People’s Challenge is prepared to step up to this need, as we have done in the past, and with your continued support we will succeed.

Notes.

Link to the Guardian article – Theresa May under pressure over ‘secret advice’ on halting Brexit

The People’s Challenge Three Knights Opinion – The Three Knights Opinion

The Opinion’s authors are Sir David Edward KCMG PC QC, Sir Francis Jacobs KCMG PC QC, Sir Jeremy Lever KCMG QC (retired) and the QCs that acted for the People’s Challenge Group in Miller vs R, Helen Mountfield QC and Gerry Facenna QC.

Sir David Edward QC practised at the Bar in Scotland prior to his appointment as the United Kingdom’s Judge at the European Court of First Instance from 1989-1992 and subsequently Judge of the European Court of Justice from 1992 until 2004. In 2004 he returned to become a part-time judge of the Court of Session in Scotland. He is a Privy Councillor, Professor Emeritus at the University of Edinburgh and an Honorary Fellow of University College, Oxford.

Sir Francis Jacobs QC served as the United Kingdom’s Advocate General at the European Court of Justice from 1988 to 2006, having previously combined an academic career as Professor of European Law at the University of London with practice at the Bar. He is the President of the Centre of European Law at King’s College London and a visiting professor at the College of Europe. He was appointed a Privy Councillor in December 2005 and continues to practice at the Bar.

Sir Jeremy Lever QC is one of the most senior and respected figures in EU and competition law. During his more than fifty years at the Bar he acted in many of the leading cases in the fields of European law, competition law, and regulatory public law, including on behalf of the UK Government, the European Commission and the European Parliament. He is a Distinguished Fellow and Senior Dean of All Souls College, Oxford and in 2003 was knighted for services to European Law.

Posted in 3rd People's Challenge, Article 50 negotiations, Brexit | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

New Interventions in the Edinburgh Article 50 case

Tom Brake (Lib-Dem Brexit spokesman) and Chris Leslie ( Labour MP) have been granted leave to intervene in this case about whether the UK can unilaterally revoke the Article 50 notification.

The case is built on the premise set out in the Three Knights Opinion, which was commissioned by The People’s Challenge and paid for by a crowd-funded campaign supported by thousands of our supporters.

Tom Brake’s and Chris Leslie’s intervention is a classic example of how and why an intervention should be sought. They support the original question – is a unilateral Article 50 revocation allowable under EU law – and can add to the arguments as they are Westminster MPs seeking clarity about Parliament’s options in the face of obfuscation and dissimulation from the government.

In contrast, the other attempt to intervene in this case by a team making the “Wolchover” argument is asking a very different question and has not yet entered a formal request to intervene in the case.

The People’s Challenge is keeping a watching brief on the Edinburgh case and will pitch in if it can help the original case or the Tom Brake/Chris Leslie intervention.

____________________________________________________

We value your support. Just keeping track of the campaigns and challenges that have objectives that match our own takes time and effort, much of what we do costs money that we can only afford with the financial support of people like you.

If you share our concerns about the need to promote the outcome which is in the best interests of the UK, please consider making a donation by clicking on the Gold CardThe People's Challenge - logo image .

Our aim is to help people see what’s going on, understand what they are, or aren’t, being told, and decide what is the best outcome for the UK: an outcome in the national interest, protecting fundamental citizenship rights and ensuring Parliament and not the executive is sovereign.

There is still a long way to go and there are no guarantees about what the outcome will be. The only thing that is certain is that if we stop trying we will lose.

To help protect our fundamental rights, and support Parliament in safeguarding them, please send us a donation so we can maintain our campaign and make your voice heard.

Please share this article as widely as you can, thank you very much for your support.

Published by Grahame Pigney on behalf of The People’s Challenge Ltd.

Posted in Brexit | Leave a comment

Transitional agreement – no help to ordinary people

The Millions in the Margins is about the millions of British nationals (both in the UK and elsewhere) who are being reduced to notes in the margins of documents being generated in the negotiating process

The Millions in the Margins is also the name of the article written by the leader of our legal team, John Halford of Bindmans LLP, which explains how these citizens’ rights are not being protected and how seriously their situations are not being taken or indeed being understood.

John gives us a lot to take in, we intend to discuss some of his points and scenarios in separate pieces in the near future.

One of the issues that’s preoccupying us at the moment is that of Brexit transitional arrangements, which are being hailed as presenting certainty and security for the future of the UK.

In fact the transitional arrangements are only putting off the critical moment when Brexit consequences can no longer be fudged around with loose talk and the distractions of other issues.

Politicians are using the words “transitional agreement” as smoke and mirrors to obscure the fact that there is NO certainty about where the UK and its people will end up, let alone whether that place will be somewhere that is in the best interests of the UK and the likes of you and me.

We haven’t taken back control: we’re skidding down the road sideways.

Transitional arrangements give businesses some hot tarmac hastily laid in front of them to provide more road space to adjust to the changes that inevitably come with the UK leaving the EU.

But what about ordinary people? The YOUs and MEs who are UK citizens with a whole range of rights we will certainly lose, as things stand.

The UK and the EU pat themselves on the back for being able to reassure the British nationals living in a EU27 country and EU27 nationals living in the UK.

More smoke and mirrors, there are millions of British nationals who are completely unprotected, and even for those British nationals resident in a EU27 country, protections are only partial and provide no certainty.

There is no hot tarmac for individuals, no additional time, on exit day we’ll be off the road and into a ditch so big that we’ll disappear from view entirely.

____________________________________________________

We value your support.

If you share our concerns please make a donation to our Championing the Millions in the Margins CrowdJustice campaign.

Many people have contributed not once but multiple times to the various campaigns we have run and we know that there are practical limits on what people can do. Whether you can make another contribution or not please spread the word among your contacts and on the social media.

Many people have contributed not once but multiple times and we know that there are practical limits on what people can do. Whether you can make another contribution or not please spread the word among your contacts and on the social media.

Our aim is to help people see what’s going on, understand what they are, or aren’t, being told, and decide what is the best outcome for the UK: an outcome in the national interest, protecting fundamental citizenship rights and ensuring Parliament and not the executive is sovereign.

There is still a long way to go and there are no guarantees about what the outcome will be. The only thing that is certain is that if we stop trying we will lose.

To help protect our fundamental rights, and support Parliament in safeguarding them, please send us a donation so we can maintain our campaign and make your voice heard.

Please share this article as widely as you can, thank you very much for your support.

Published by Grahame Pigney on behalf of The People’s Challenge Ltd.

Posted in Brexit, The Millions in the Margins | Tagged ,

Less than a year to go & still the UK and the EU ignore ordinary people’s fundamental rights

We are less than a year away from “Exit Day” and what that means for each of us is no clearer than it was the day after the referendum.

A number of the wider issues have been overlooked or ignored, seemingly for expediency’s sake, by the negotiating teams and the EU has skipped over some of them just as the UK has.

Whether looking at the areas affecting EU citizens that have been “agreed” or those that have been ignored, it seems likely that that the agreement, if there is one, will breach EU founding principles and the rights enshrined in its treaties.

Whatever the case may be, the draft treaty is certainly a deception and a disappointment for the millions of UK citizens who have made significant commitments based on the rights they have as EU citizens.

We have already identified a variety of problems. Some seem relatively straightforward on paper; in practice they are not, but protecting people’s rights has never been easy or expedient.

An example is British nationals born in a EU27 country and entitled to citizenship of that country. Unlike Northern Ireland citizens who only have to “assert” their right to Republic of Ireland nationality to retain their EU citizenship rights, these British nationals have to take the nationality of their country of birth, something that is not always possible unless they give up their British nationality.

The issue of continuous absence is another, equally serious, problem. Although the draft agreement does not compel any state to terminate residence status after 5 years of continuous absence, it does allow it. This compounds the usual problems about how to prove, or disprove, absence, as well as who is responsible for doing so.

Does your business operate across the EU, how will the change in VAT regulations impact your business? Does your business use a .EU domain name or another EU27 country domain name? Even if you simply trade on Ebay or Amazon how will the UK leaving the EU affect you?

Pan-EU recognition of professional qualifications continues for those that have them on “Exit Day” but what use is that if you have no right to work in the EU27 countries or provide cross-border services into EU27 countries?

Another group of people not being protected are those with property on the other side of a future UK/EU27 border.

Whether they bought a property with the intention of retiring there or used to live in that country, they have made “significant life choices” based on their EU citizenship rights, but they remain unprotected or have perhaps been deliberately ignored because it was too difficult for the negotiators.

These are but a few of many examples of various groups of people, with problems of varying gravity, in a variety of family, professional and geographic situations.

The EU Parliament has a crucial, and perhaps pivotal, role to play and not only in protecting the EU’s founding principles and the citizenship rights conferred by the various treaties.  It is in the enviable position of being able to refer the treaty to the CJEU while it is in draft form, unlike ordinary citizens, or even groups of them, who have to wait until the treaty has been concluded.

It is possible for the lay person to identify some of these issues, but to understand their wider context and how they may be defended and contested, a better understanding of the complex web of national and international law, including EU law, is needed.

It is for this reason that we are crowd-funding so as to be able to commission our team led by John Halford at Bindmans LLP to set out the extent to which millions of British nationals are being marginalised and disenfranchised and how they may be protected.

It is work that is important not only if the UK leaves the EU but also in demonstrating the full complexity of the consequences of the simple binary choice offered to the UK electorate in the referendum.

____________________________________________________

We value your support.

If you share our concerns please make a donation to our Championing the Millions in the Margins CrowdJustice campaign.

Many people have contributed not once but multiple times to the various campaigns we have run and we know that there are practical limits on what people can do. Whether you can make another contribution or not please spread the word among your contacts and on the social media.

Many people have contributed not once but multiple times and we know that there are practical limits on what people can do. Whether you can make another contribution or not please spread the word among your contacts and on the social media.

Our aim is to help people see what’s going on, understand what they are, or aren’t, being told, and decide what is the best outcome for the UK: an outcome in the national interest, protecting fundamental citizenship rights and ensuring Parliament and not the executive is sovereign.

There is still a long way to go and there are no guarantees about what the outcome will be. The only thing that is certain is that if we stop trying we will lose.

To help protect our fundamental rights, and support Parliament in safeguarding them, please send us a donation so we can maintain our campaign and make your voice heard.

Please share this article as widely as you can, thank you very much for your support.

Published by Grahame Pigney on behalf of The People’s Challenge Ltd.

Posted in Brexit, The Millions in the Margins | Tagged ,

A reality check and why we need more, rather than less, unity.

You will all have seen the news about the terrorist attack in France resulting in the death of 5 people including Colonel Arnaud Beltrame.

Having lived in and around London in the ’70s and ’80s I hadn’t imagined that I would be so shaken by a terrorist attack almost on our doorstep.

By our doorstep I mean somewhere that is 20 minutes or so drive from where we live and somewhere that we used to visit twice a day, 5 or 6 days a week and our son lived in for two years.

Trebes is a sleepy little town, a dormitory suburb of Carcassonne where some 5,000 people live. Even Carcassonne isn’t that big perhaps 50,000 people live there.

In a village such as Trebes I would imagine that nearly every one of the 5,000 people knew, by sight if not by name, one of the people killed in the attack.

It makes you think about what you believe in and what really matters.

Grahame Pigney.

 

 

 

Posted in Brexit | Leave a comment

The People’s Challenge – Championing the Millions in the Margins.

With much fanfare, the latest version of the draft withdrawal treaty was announced at the beginning of this week.

There is not yet agreement on all parts of it, and “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”, but it does seem to set out how the UK and the EU are going to go about dealing with EU citizenship rights.

In this the treaty is both a disappointment and a deception.

Why a disappointment? The starting point for the negotiations was to agree “reciprocal guarantees to safeguard the status and rights derived from EU law at the date of withdrawal of EU and UK citizens”, and it does nothing of the sort. Even for those groups of people who are covered by the draft treaty, the protections are limited and inadequate.

Why a deception? Because both the EU and the UK talk as if British nationals and EU27 nationals who have acted on those fundamental citizenship rights are being properly protected.

The EU and the UK have agreed that acting in “Good Faith” is important enough to warrant a clause in the draft agreement. But the deception extends to the “Good Faith” principle apparently not applying when dealing with all European Union citizens.

Not a single group of British nationals is being fully protected and there are, broadly speaking, only a few groups of British nationals who are only partially and very inadequately protected.

With this in mind, we have agreed with John Halford at Bindmans the next tranche of work for us to pursue. In short, the Draft Withdrawal Treaty needs urgent, intense scrutiny from legal experts who can identify its flaws and so arm the public and their elected representatives – in both the UK and EU Parliaments – to take action to prevent the stripping away of rights. With your support, we will  commission that expert opinion and accessible guides for the public on how to deploy it effectively.

John has written a comprehensive introduction to that work. It is of necessity a “long read” and you can find it here. We have summarised it below.

It is a substantial piece of work, so we are launching a new Crowd Justice campaign, as we did for the challenge to the government  on its proposal to use the Royal Prerogative to trigger Article 50 and for commissioning the “Three Knight’s Opinion”.

There will be continuity with that work as Gerry Facenna QC, who was part of the team involved in the challenge to the government and one of the 5 legal minds who produced the “Three Knight’s Opinion”, will be leading the work by the barristers on this latest work.

John, Gerry and colleagues at Monckton Chambers will be reviewing the draft withdrawal treaty and the extent to which the provisions in it are incomplete or in many cases completely absent for the various groupings of British nationals. They will identify where human rights may be breached because of these omissions.

They will also be looking at areas where the treatment of the different groups may be unlawfully discriminatory, such as the plans for marked differences in treatment between UK nationals and other EU nationals once the transition period ends.

The objective is to identify what those who are being marginalised, which just about includes all British nationals to a greater or lesser extent, can do to rectify the situation, whether politically or by recourse to the courts.

This work is important, not just to show how incomplete the draft withdrawal treaty is, but also how empty the words are.

Once again it will help cast light on the impact of Brexit on the rights of ALL EU citizens and what the loss of those rights will entail. Something that has been a guiding principle of what The People’s Challenge has done.

John makes a telling point in his introduction:

the negotiators’ aim was not to preserve EU citizenship in a first or even a second class form; it was to protect those who have exercised core free movement rights or are about to. This, aim, coupled with the principle of ‘bright line rules’ so beloved of officials, has a number of striking effects. For those who have no interest in or wish to enjoy, the benefits of EU citizenship they will not matter. But a great many people will be marginalised and disenfranchised.

Even those British nationals who will have some degree of protection should not be complacent, John points out that what the draft agreement proposes for them “is not as secure as it first appears; they can all too easily find themselves forced into the margins of those documents, where they will join the millions that are to have no rights at all ”.

The fragility of their status is increased because they will have to be able to evidence that they continue to exercise the limited rights they are being “granted”, as the automatic rights they have now will be removed.

Apart from the limited protections accorded to those who meet the residency qualifications in the draft agreement, there are huge groups of people who are simply ignored or form part of an apologetic footnote.

Taking just a couple of points from John’s introduction:

those who have established businesses in other states (itself a core economic right) but are resident elsewhere have no obvious protection in future”, neither do “those wishing to exercise other economic rights, in particular secondary establishment and cross-border provision of services by those who are not frontier workers. The way these groups are dealt with in the note belittles their significance”.

The work that John, Gerry and the team are going to do will go beyond analysing the treaty and highlighting its deficiencies: they will also be looking at what the possible remedies might be.

For example, if the EU Parliament believes the Draft Agreement itself breaches EU fundamental rights, it has a duty to withhold approval – and if it is in doubt, it can refer the Agreement to the European Court of Justice for a conclusive legal view, even before the Agreement becomes a formal treaty.

As John said at the end of his introduction to the work we are commissioning, the UK and the EU “have almost pulled off the most ambitious branding exercise ever undertaken in Europe: presenting arrangements that will ultimately strip millions of their existing fundamental rights as generous rights-granting measures for the minority that will benefit in future.

Of course that minority comprises millions of people too, but that will be little consolation to those who fall just outside the protected groups because their “past life choices” are not quite the right ones or because they planned to exercise their EU citizenship rights, but have yet to do so.

Parliamentarians, whether MPs, MEPs or members of the UK’s devolved assemblies, have a responsibility to represent ALL the people affected, not just a few of them. It is a responsibility they should embrace, and once properly informed, they should act on it.

The People’s Challenge will matchfund the initial target of £5,000 to ensure that work can start swiftly. We will need to crowdfund around £35,000 to complete the work.

____________________________________________________

We value your support.

If you share our concerns please make a donation to our Championing the Millions in the Margins CrowdJustice campaign.

Many people have contributed not once but multiple times to the various campaigns we have run and we know that there are practical limits on what people can do. Whether you can make another contribution or not please spread the word among your contacts and on the social media.

Many people have contributed not once but multiple times and we know that there are practical limits on what people can do. Whether you can make another contribution or not please spread the word among your contacts and on the social media.

Our aim is to help people see what’s going on, understand what they are, or aren’t, being told, and decide what is the best outcome for the UK: an outcome in the national interest, protecting fundamental citizenship rights and ensuring Parliament and not the executive is sovereign.

There is still a long way to go and there are no guarantees about what the outcome will be. The only thing that is certain is that if we stop trying we will lose.

To help protect our fundamental rights, and support Parliament in safeguarding them, please send us a donation so we can maintain our campaign and make your voice heard.

Please share this article as widely as you can, thank you very much for your support.

Published by Grahame Pigney on behalf of The People’s Challenge Ltd.

Posted in Brexit, The Millions in the Margins | Tagged ,

Do you know how many people are NOT being protected in the UK/EU exit treaty? It is far more than you think and you may be one of them.

This article in the Guardian quite rightly identifies that British nationals resident in EU27 countries and EU27 nationals resident in the UK are not having their fundamental citizenship rights properly assessed or protected in the exit treaty negotiations.

This comes as no great surprise as individual rights have hardly figured in the Brexit debate which has been dominated by grand and amorphous concepts of “taking back control” and “global influence”.

The plight of the British and EU27 ex-patriates, of which I am one, is not to be underestimated. However even the number of them is grossly underestimated. For instance, the UN estimates for British nationals living in France (130,000) falls far short of the French government’s own estimate of 400,000.

Our research shows that, apart from British nationals resident in EU27 countries, there are a dozens of groups of British nationals, numbering several million, who have exercised their EU citizenship rights in a significant and meaningful way and have NO protection under the terms of the draft exit treaty by virtue of the fact that they will not be resident in an EU27 country on the required date(s).

In fact many of them have never been resident in an EU27 country.

This is not just about making sure ALL those people are properly protected when (if) the UK leaves the EU, it is about making sure that sufficient light is shone into the Brexit murk to ensure that people are aware of the personal consequences for the millions of British nationals who have made life changing decisions based on their EU citizenship rights.

That will help contribute to making people aware just how complicated Brexit is.

The current focus of the EU and the UK on their convenient and discriminatory definitions of who needs their rights protected is shallow and lacking in the “Good Faith” that both those parties deem important enough to include in its own clause in the draft agreement.

Just as it was when we took on the government over its unconstitutional assertion that it could use the archaic “Royal Prerogative” to trigger the Article 50 notification, we need to expose and oppose the bureaucratically convenient notions on fundamental citizenship rights and how to protect those rights.

Almost without exception none of the political or campaign group leaders are speaking up for the millions of people threatened with the loss of their hopes, dreams and even livelihoods that are based on those fundamental citizenship rights.

____________________________________________________

We value your support. If you share our concerns about the work needed to promote the outcome which is in the best interests of the UK, please consider making a donation by clicking on the Gold Card image. The People's Challenge - logo

Our aim is to help people see what’s going on, understand what they are, or aren’t, being told, and decide what is the best outcome for the UK: an outcome in the national interest, protecting fundamental citizenship rights and ensuring Parliament and not the executive is sovereign.

To help protect our fundamental rights, and support Parliament in safeguarding them, please send us a donation so we can maintain our campaign and make your voice heard.

Please share this article as widely as you can, thank you very much for your support.

Published by Grahame Pigney on behalf of The People’s Challenge Ltd.

 

 

 

Posted in Article 50 negotiations, Brexit, Democracy, What Is Best for UK | Tagged ,

Three Knights Opinion to be tested in the Scottish Courts

In another victory for Parliamentary sovereignty, a panel of judges in Scotland’s highest court allowed that the question of whether an Article 50 notification is revocable should be heard in a Scottish court.

In handing down the ruling, the Lord President (Lord Carloway) of Scotland’s Appeal Court (Inner House of the Court of Session) said that the petitioners (a cross-party group of MPs, MSPs and MEPs were right to argue that the UK Parliament is sovereign.

The Opinion of the Court says:

“The issue of whether it is legally possible to revoke the notice of withdrawal is, as already stated, one of great importance.”

It goes on to say “On one view, authoritative guidance on whether it is legally possible to do so may have the capacity to influence Members of Parliament in deciding what steps to take in advance of, and at the time of, a debate and vote on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.”

and

“After all, if parliament is to be regarded as sovereign, the government’s position on the legality of revoking the notice may not be decisive.”

The Decision of the Inner Court is to send the petition back to the Outer House of the Court of Session to be heard.

The arguments being made in the Outer House hearing will be heavily influenced by those in the “Three Knight’s Opinion” which we commissioned and published a year ago. Obviously we will be following the hearing very closely and, if it would assist, will provide our support and help.

____________________________________________________

We value your support. Just keeping track of the campaigns and challenges that have The People's Challenge - logoobjectives that match our own takes time and effort, much of what we do costs money that we can only afford to spend with the financial support of people like you.

If you share our concerns about the work needed to promote the outcome which is in the best interests of the UK, please consider making a donation by clicking on the Gold Card image above.

Many people have contributed not once but multiple times and we know that there are practical limits on what people can do. Whether you can make another contribution or not please spread the word among your contacts and on the social media.

Our aim is to help people see what’s going on, understand what they are, or aren’t, being told, and decide what is the best outcome for the UK: an outcome in the national interest, protecting fundamental citizenship rights and ensuring Parliament and not the executive is sovereign.

There is still a long way to go and there are no guarantees about what the outcome will be. The only thing that is certain is that if we stop trying we will lose.

To help protect our fundamental rights, and support Parliament in safeguarding them, please send us a donation so we can maintain our campaign and make your voice heard.

Please share this article as widely as you can, thank you very much for your support.

Published by Grahame Pigney on behalf of The People’s Challenge Ltd.

 

Posted in Brexit, The Three Knights | Tagged ,