Why the EU cannot eject the UK and strip away our EU rights in the event of a Halloween No-Deal.

For months now, Theresa May  and now Boris Johnson have been ratcheting up the rhetoric that a No-Deal Brexit is the only game in town if a Withdrawal Agreement is not approved by Parliament.

Rose Slowe has already set out why this may not be the case. Some experts, both academic and practising, have disputed Rose’s take on this.

However, the “Benn Act” has changed some of the fundamentals behind Rose’s argument, as did the Supreme Court’s ruling against the legality of the PM having used prorogation, supposedly prior to a Queen’s Speech, in an attempt to neuter Parliament and avoid Parliamentary scrutiny.

As a result of the “Benn Act”, there is now a clear constitutional requirement for Parliament to approve the terms on which the UK leaves the EU. That requirement exists completely independent of the Deal/No-Deal question.

The question of whether the UK’s constitutional requirements have been met is one for the UK’s Supreme Court, not for the EU.

Jean-Claude Piris, a former head of the EU Council Legal Service, says that suggestions that the UK government could rely on EU law to trump the” Benn Act” have no legal basis. According to the Guardian, he said in an email:

“EU Law is far from always having direct effect. In the case of article 50 the decision of a member state to leave the EU must be taken in conformity with the constitutional requirements of that state. Thus no direct effect. The authorities to judge if British constitutional requirements are being respected are the British competent ones.”

If the PM tries to circumvent the “Benn Act” to drag the UK out of the EU with No-Deal, it is highly likely the Supreme Court will rule it to be unconstitutional. Not only unconstitutional, but also that the PM has not respected the rule of law.

If that is the case, then clearly the next question is, “Has the UK left the EU in accordance with the UK’s constitutional requirements?”

That will be a question for the EUCJ. Given that it is almost certain that the Supreme Court will rule that a Boris Johnson enforced No-Deal Brexit is unconstitutional the ruling of the CJEU is evident: no, the UK has not left the EU in accordance with the UK’s constitutional requirements.

All that being the case, where does that leave us, we UK citizens, regardless of where we live?

If the process is ruled as being unconstitutional by the UK’s Supreme Court and the EUCJ, and thus illegal/unlawful, can the EU remove UK Citizens’ EU citizenship rights? Can the UK remove EU27 Citizens’ UK rights? Robert Basedow of the LSE makes the argument in his blog post – How the European Union’s Court of Justice may end up having the last word over a hard Brexit

Piet Eeckhout – Professor of EU Law and Dean of the Law Faculty at University College London takes this argument even further in his article Why the European Council Must not Reject an Article 50 Extension Request and says that the EU cannot refuse an extension. Indeed, the EU must listen to the sovereign voice of the UK’s Parliament, as expressed in the “Benn Act”, regardless of whatever mechanisms or machinations the Prime Minister may employ to foist a No-Deal Brexit on the UK.

Professor Eeckhout rightly points out that the ruling handed down by the EUCJ in the Andy Wightman & Othrs reference is a crucial, and often overlooked, factor when judging whether the UK will have left the EU in accordance with its constitutional requirements. We have long believed this to be the case, following the Three Knight’s Opinion we commissioned, which formed the basis for the Andy Wightman reference and the resultant ruling by the EUCJ.

Furthermore, if the EU were to refuse a request (explicit or implicit) for an extension of the Art 50 process and thus seek to enforce the removal of our EU citizenship rights, the EU would be subject to direct challenge by UK citizens.

Any attempt by the EU to remove those EU citizenship rights from UK citizens would also throw into stark relief the failure of the EU to defend and preserve the rights of all EU citizens, regardless of which of the EU28 member states they come from or reside in – rights the EU promised to defend when it set out its negotiating objectives.

As we have said before, political expediency is a convenient taskmaster, one that many politicians follow. We must be prepared to follow the harsher and more demanding taskmaster of principled action rather than accepting politically expedient solutions.

____________________________________________________

The People's Challenge - logoWe value your support, apart from the sheer time and effort involved, much of what we do costs money that we can only afford to spend with the financial support of people like you.

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 a contribution (please click on the image above) 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 best for our country: what is 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 support us 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.

You can follow us via our blog, on Twitter @PeoplesChalleng and our Facebook page.

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

 

 

 

Posted in Article 50 negotiations, Brexit, The Millions in the Margins, The People's Challenge | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

More tribal politics from the LibDems and Labour – time for them to grow up and find the common ground!

Seems like the LibDems and Labour are still engaged in traditional party political warfare.

This is from The Guardian this evening:

Opposition parties might have won their battle to keep the Commons in session while the Conservative conference is taking place, but they can’t as yet agree on everything – particularly on the idea of a possible government of national unity.

All the parties believe that if Boris Johnson tried to force a no-deal Brexit then their tactic of last resort would be a no-confidence vote, replacing him with an interim PM. However, while the Liberal Democrats insist it cannot be Corbyn, Labour say he is the only choice.

Speaking to reporters at parliament, Labour’s shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, said he hoped Jo Swinson could change her mind:

I was brought up a Catholic and I am a great believer in the powers of conversion.

But the Lib Dem leader argues that the Corbyn option is simply impossible, as he would not win the support of rebel former Conservative MPs and others whose votes would be needed.

A spokesman for Swinson said:

Jo is a great believer in the power of mathematics. Jeremy Corbyn does not have the numbers and needs to make clear who he would support if we need an emergency government.

There is wider disagreement – while the Lib Dems are seeking a cross-party temporary government led by a backbench grandee such as Ken Clarke or Harriet Harman, Corbyn’s office have called for a “strictly time-limited caretaker administration” – a Labour only government in office for a matter of days, purely to extend the Brexit deadline and call an election.

The assumption is that if the alternative was no deal, one side would blink, but it remains to be seen who, and when.

This spat between Jo Swinson and Jeremy Corbyn has been simmering for days, if not weeks.

Do neither of them understand that they are supposed to be acting in the Best Interest of the UK?

____________________________________________________

The People's Challenge - logoWe value your support, apart from the sheer time and effort involved, much of what we do costs money that we can only afford to spend with the financial support of people like you.

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 a contribution (please click on the image above) 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 best for our country: what is 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 support us 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.

You can follow us via our blog, on Twitter @PeoplesChalleng and our Facebook page.

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

Posted in Article 50 negotiations, Brexit, Democracy, Parliamentary Sovereignty, What is Best for the UK? | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Can the UK Government use EU law to negate the Benn Act – Not according to the former Head of the EU Commission’s legal service

According to Jean-Claude Piris, a former head of the EU Council legal service, suggestions that the UK government could rely on EU law to trump the Benn Act have no legal basis.

According to the Guardian, he said in an email:

“EU Law is far from always having direct effect. In the case of article 50 the decision of a member state to leave the EU must be taken in conformity with the constitutional requirements of that State. Thus no direct effect. The authorities to judge if British constitutional requirements are being respected are the British competent ones.”

The Benn Act is a constitutional requirement – is No-Deal still the default?

The UK Govt. isn’t able to use EU Law to frustrate the Benn Act – The Guardian

____________________________________________________

The People's Challenge - logoWe value your support, apart from the sheer time and effort involved, much of what we do costs money that we can only afford to spend with the financial support of people like you.

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 a contribution (please click on the image above) 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 best for our country: what is 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 support us 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.

You can follow us via our blog, on Twitter @PeoplesChalleng and our Facebook page.

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

Posted in Brexit, Democracy, Parliamentary Sovereignty, People's Challenge, Political Integrity, What is Best for the UK? | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Can the PM use the Civil Contingencies Act or an Order of Council to thwart the Benn Act – Emphatically NO.

There has been much speculation that the Prime Minister will use one of these two mechanisms to avoid complying with the Benn Act, which forces the Prime Minister to ask for an Article 50 extension in the event of a deal or a no-deal not being approved.

This speculation has been fuelled by various newspaper articles with lurid headlines but with content that tells a very different story – Labour claims that PM is aiming to invoke emergency powers using the Civil Contingencies Act

The reality is that any attempt to use these options will be rapidly defeated in Parliament or struck down by the Courts.

There is an excellent Twitter thread from Jolyon Maugham, including a link to a formal opinion produced by Helen Mountfield QC, our lead QC in the “Miller” case, here: https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1178210394881626117

For those not on Twitter a copy of Helen Mountfield’s advice can be found here: 19.09.28 Helen Mountfield QC – Civil Contigencies Act advice (final)

There is also a piece from David Allen Green on why The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 is not an Enabling Act for Brexiters and another on why the PM cannot subvert the Benn Act by asking the EU to ignore it or use secondary legislation to block it – Brexit, Padfield, and the Benn Act

____________________________________________________

The People's Challenge - logoWe value your support, apart from the sheer time and effort involved, much of what we do costs money that we can only afford to spend with the financial support of people like you.

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 a contribution (please click on the image above) 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 best for our country: what is 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 support us 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.

You can follow us via our blog, on Twitter @PeoplesChalleng and our Facebook page.

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

Posted in Article 50 negotiations, Brexit, Democracy, Parliamentary Sovereignty, People's Challenge, Supreme Court, What is Best for the UK? | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A new Prime Minister – new challenges to be pursued.

Over time there have been a number of legal challenges, attempts to neuter the UK’s Parliament, define whether the Article 50 notification is unilaterally revocable, and establish whether the Article 50 notification and subsequent delay are legitimate.

The House of Commons library has produced a document summarising the various legal challenges and whether they have succeeded or failed.

Very few challenges have succeeded, only two in fact.

The first is what is now dubbed the “Miller” case. A challenge which we not only helped to initiate but in which we played a key part in beating the government in the Divisional and Supreme Courts.

The second is the Wightman referral to the CJEU on whether the UK can unilaterally revoke the Article 50 notification. This was based on the Three Knight’s Opinion which we commissioned, and the CJEU ruled that the UK can unilaterally revoke the Article 50 notification in line with the Three Knight’s Opinion arguments.

Although the Three Knight’s Opinion, and the work of our legal team, do not get mentioned in the Commons Briefing Paper, The People’s Challenge is mentioned in the footnotes for its analysis in two other cases.

We have been pretty much on target when expressing a view on the likelihood of success of legal challenges. This is the result of the diligence of our team and their assessment of whether legal challenges meet the standards prescribed to be able to argue them in court and have a chance of winning.

As always, there is more work to be done.

As the Tory leadership contenders “duke it out” about who is more prepared to walk away from membership of the EU with “No-Deal” we have to take stock of the consequences of that and prepare the briefs so that we can engage the legal teams to challenge/fight the inevitable consequences for UK citizens.

Boris Johnson says that 31st October is a “do or die” moment and Jeremy Hunt is prepared to explain to people and to businesses which go bust as a result of Brexit why it is actually all worthwhile.

Once again we are asking you to join us in pushing our fund-raising further.

Whether it involves challenging the UK government again over its aspirations to ignore Parliament, challenging the EU on the way it has treated UK citizens, or challenging the discriminatory way UK citizens have been treated in general depends on collecting and analysing evidence and being able to fund the challenges.

Provided we can raise the funding and continue the campaign we will be asking for your help by telling us how Brexit will disadvantage you, your family, your friends…  Why Jeremy Hunt’s declaration that your sacrifice is worth it is empty and insufficient.

Although nobody will want to pay for visas or health insurance for trips (business or pleasure) to the EU, for example, that’s only part of what we are talking about here.

Do you own a business in the EU, or a UK one that trades in the EU, do you own property in the EU and reside in the UK, do you have dependent family members elsewhere in the EU…? The list is endless. Have you made a professional, family or financial commitment on the basis of your EU citizenship and the UK’s EU membership?

We are continuing this work for ALL UK citizens, whether they live in EU27 member states, the UK or elsewhere in the world. The politicians and many campaign groups may be ignoring them or have given up on them but we have not and will not.

Please help provide us with the evidence that is needed, we will be sending out more details shortly of what sort of information we are looking for together with an email address to send it to.

In the meantime please donate to our Go Fund Me campaign if you can. This will help us put the “meat on the bones” of the work we have already done with our Legal Milestones and Millions in the Margins analyses.

Thank you.

____________________________________________________

The People's Challenge - logoWe value your support, apart from the sheer time and effort involved, much of what we do costs money that we can only afford to spend with the financial support of people like you.

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 a contribution (please click on the image above) 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 best for our country: what is 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 support us 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.

You can follow us via our blog, on Twitter @PeoplesChalleng and our Facebook page.

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

 

Posted in Article 50 negotiations, Brexit, Legal Milestones, The Millions in the Margins, The People's Challenge, What is Best for the UK? | Tagged , , , ,

So Brexit is worth going bust for – nothing like betting with other peoples money, eh?

So Boris Johnson says that Brexit is a “Do or Die” Charge of the Light Brigade moment for him, or perhaps it is only a one in a million possibility.

Jeremy Hunt says he will tell businesses that going bust for a No-Deal Brexit is worth it.

Of course they would say that, a vainglorious Titanic culmination to Brexit allows them to say they were betrayed by everybody and that is why they failed. In the meanwhile they collect votes from a small group of Tory members.

Where does that leave the rest of us?

Well, we won’t be protected like Boris Johnson, who can count on fees from newspapers for his mischievous lies about the EU, and we won’t be like Jeremy Hunt, who will be adequately protected against business, personal or family bankruptcy.

It will be the “poor bloody infantry”, aka the rest of us, who will pay the price for being “Led By Donkeys” as has ever been the case down the centuries.

We have said it before and do not hesitate to say it again, we have to stand up for ourselves.

We cannot rely on governments or politicians to protect us, nor on the campaign groups that talk in generalised terms and ignore how UK citizens’ rights are being worn away.

UK citizens, and not just those who are currently resident in EU27 countries, are being unscrupulously played by governments and politicians.

There are campaign groups which are, in modern parlance, grabbing all the bandwidth and marginalising other grassroots groups which seek to represent all UK citizens whose interests and rights are under threat.

Apart from the UK citizens resident in the EU27 countries, who undoubtedly need support and protection, there is at least the same number of UK citizens not permanently resident in the EU27 countries who have significant personal, family, business or financial interests there.

These people’s situations were already jeopardised by Theresa May’s defunct withdrawal agreement, let alone by the No-Deal Brexit that both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt are prepared to countenance.

We identified some of these issues with our Millions in the Margins work and the advice our legal team produced.

In case you didn’t see it at the time, the title refers to the many, many people whose situations and interests don’t fit with the broad-brush, identifiable ones dealt with in the negotiations, and who were reduced to mere notes in the margins of documents, sacrificed to political expediency.

If Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnson get their way ALL of us, whether we live in the UK or elsewhere, will be the “Millions in the Margins”, since both of these political opportunists are prepared to sacrifice businesses, people, livelihoods and our country on the altar of their brazen political ambition.

Whatever happens, there will be a new set of people in the EU to engage with and to remind that many millions of UK citizens are fervent supporters of the EU and have made personal, business and financial commitments based on that.

UK citizens are EU citizens, just as the citizens of Germany, Greece, Spain etc. are. The EU must not be allowed to cast them adrift in the name of political expediency. We must not let them do it.

If (let’s face it, when) they all seek an end to this impasse they have led us to by selling us down the river, we will have to take them to court (as we have successfully done before) and remind them that:

  1. Parliament is in charge in the UK;
  2. being UK PM does not entitle one to break the law and
  3. EU bodies have a responsibility to protect the rights of all EU citizens.

No surprises here, this will require funds. Please do help us if you can.

____________________________________________________

The People's Challenge - logoWe value your support, apart from the sheer time and effort involved, much of what we do costs money that we can only afford to spend with the financial support of people like you.

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 a contribution (please click on the image above) 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 best for our country: what is 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 support us 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.

You can follow us via our blog, on Twitter @PeoplesChalleng and our Facebook page.

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

Posted in Brexit, The Millions in the Margins, What is Best for the UK? | Tagged ,

UK citizens wherever they live are not getting a fair BREXIT deal from the EU.

One of the things that was clear from the Millions in the Margins advice we commissioned in March last year is that during the Brexit negotiations, the EU has ignored its own treaties and the principles which should underpin its actions and negotiations.

This has resulted in UK citizens not being treated in an appropriate and proportionate fashion by the EU.

The EU has not protected some classes of EU citizen, and has discriminated against others, who have made life changing decisions based on their EU citizenship rights.

The serious possibility of a No-Deal exit, whether intended or accidental, from the EU only exacerbates the damage being done to the rights of EU citizens, and removes the partial protections contained in Theresa May’s ill-fated deal.

Despite the Alberto Costa amendment being passed by the Commons last week the EU has said that it will not agree to a standalone citizenship rights agreement. More evidence, if it were needed, that the EU is not standing up for its citizens.

The Millions in the Margins identifies a number of areas where the actions of the EU will be open to challenge, due to the way it has ignored EU and International law.

Similar logic and legal analysis has now been used by Kieron Beal QC and three other lawyers to produce an advice which Gina Miller is using to remind the EU and its member states that they have obligations to the EU, to all its member states, and by implication to the citizens and businesses of those member states, that it cannot simply ignore and/or walk away from.

This advice, and thus Gina Miller’s argument, apparently suggests that the EU27 could in fact unilaterally extend the Article 50 period and perhaps should do so.

Whether it is a sustainable legal or political argument to suggest that the EU could refuse to let a member state leave, the legitimacy of the EU27 unilaterally extending the Article 50 period is, at best, debatable.

The judgement of the CJEU in the Andy Wightman case would suggest that it is not possible. The UK has the sovereign right to give notice of leaving the EU, and the sovereign right to decide to revoke that notice, sovereign rights that cannot be overridden by the EU.

That is not to say that the EU couldn’t ask the UK or offer to extend the Article 50 period.

The EU must abide by the principles encapsulated in its treaties and the laws that flow from them.

The current difficulty is how to challenge the EU on whether it has conformed to EU and International law in its negotiations, both in the positions it has taken and their outcomes.

As we saw in the Harry Shindler case, EU citizens do not have any standing with the CJEU unless they have actually been deprived of rights or otherwise not treated in accordance with EU law. To put it bluntly, we have to wait until we have lost our rights before we can challenge the EU at the CJEU.

As things stand, the only body that can bring the EU to account is the EU Parliament, which could refer the matter to the CJEU and ask for a ruling on whether the process and conclusions are consistent with the treaties and laws of the EU.

Making a move to bring pressure to bear on MEPs, so that they will speak for us in the EU Parliament, is currently the only sure-fire way to ensure that EU citizens, a group which for the time being includes UK citizens, are treated properly wherever they are.

We must all have been, at best, notes in the margins of a great many papers produced since the referendum, notes made by politicians and negotiators who found it too complex, difficult and inexpedient to stand up for us and our rights. Or even to respect the law.

Many of us, who never dreamt that their situations would only figure there, are finding that’s exactly where they are, if indeed they are noted at all. Many more have still to find that things they’ve taken for granted for 45 years are about to be swept away. We must not allow ourselves to be swept away with them.

Whatever happens, 29th March 2019 will not be the end of the matter.

If we leave there will be legal challenges to be made to seek redress for EU citizenship rights that have been stripped away from EU citizens who have made life changing decisions based on those rights.

If there is an extension to the Article 50 period, be it short or long, to put it to a People’s Vote or not, we need to continue the work we have started and make people aware of the very real consequences of leaving the EU.

For The People’s Challenge this will involve building on the Millions in the Margins and the Legal Milestones advices we commissioned in order to provide more detail on the specific areas that those documents highlight.

To do this we will again need your support, help and backing both in the work and, as importantly, funding that work.

Even lawyers working at heavily discounted rates cost significant amounts of money, as every legal challenge there has been over the past 2 and a half years shows, and to make sure that we get the best value from the money that is spent on expert legal advice, we have to make sure that we prepare an accurate and coherent brief for the work we want them to do, backed up by the necessary supporting information.

In crowdsourced and funded work such as this every little helps, a fiver, a few quid can make a big difference as long as enough of us pitch in.

____________________________________________________

The People's Challenge - logoWe value your support, apart from the sheer time and effort involved, much of what we do costs money that we can only afford to spend with the financial support of people like you.

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 a contribution (please click on the image above) 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 best for our country: what is 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 support us 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.

You can follow us via our blog, on Twitter @PeoplesChalleng and our Facebook page.

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

 

 

Posted in Article 50 negotiations, Brexit, People's Challenge, The Millions in the Margins, What Is Best For Our Country | Tagged , , , ,