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 , , , ,

10 reasons why we need a Mueller style inquiry into the 2016 referendum.

We know that the referendum was tainted by deliberate deception (Turkey’s imminent accession to EU membership, £350m a week spent on EU membership that would be spent on the NHS after Brexit….), foreign influence and blatant ignoring of the rules concerning spending by certain leave campaign organisation.

That is quite apart from the promises of the easiest trade deals possible, and that the EU would be falling over itself to accommodate the UK during the withdrawal negotiations.

Fair Vote are pursuing a challenge for a judicial review of Theresa May’s failure to initiate a public enquiry into the circumstances surrounding the 2016 referendum.

Fair Vote have engaged John Halford at Bindmans LLP to represent them. We know John well as he represented us during the “Miller” case, directed the compilation of the Three Knights Opinion for us and worked with us on our Millions in the Margins campaign.

Fair Vote have made their initial written submission for permission to proceed with the case for the judicial review. This initial submission has been refused, perhaps unsurprisingly in this highly charged political climate, and they are now planning to make an oral submission to be allowed to proceed

However, the reasons for refusal seem specious to say the least, even to a layman. They are all based on the rejection of the case for a judicial review being sought by Sue Wilson and Otrs.

This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the reasons behind Fair Vote’s submission and how it is very different to the challenge being pursued by Sue Wilson.

Fair Vote’s submission is based on the damage being done to the UK’s system of democracy as a result of the lies, external influence and illegal spending perpetrated by certain people and organisations during the 2016 referendum campaign.

Fair Vote do not claim to be able to overturn the 2016 result or reverse Brexit. What they are seeking to do is something even more important – establish why the rules governing our democratic process broke down and what should be done to stop it happening again.

Fair Vote’s challenge is an extremely important, probably up there with the challenge to the government over its intended use of Royal Prerogative that we initiated 2 and-a-half years ago.

Here are 10 specific reasons why Fair Votes challenge should succeed:

  1. Only an inquiry could reach comprehensive, robust, independent, evidence-based conclusions about what really happened in the EU Referendum – including involvement of individuals, companies and donors abroad and exploitation of loopholes in electoral law – to ensure the truth is known, lessons are learned for the future, and public confidence is restored.
  2. Only an inquiry would allow the UK to take the lead on investigating issues of Russian interference in the 2016 Referendum (avoiding the lead investigation by default being Robert Mueller’s examination of the role of Russian influence in the US elections). There is no Police, National Crime Agency or any other form of investigation happening at present that can compel Russia to publicly explain its actions. The need for accountability of this kind was why an inquiry had to be ordered by Teresa May herself into Alexander Litvinenko’s killing. That happened because Marina Litvinenko won a judicial review challenging Mrs May’s refusal to establish one.
  3. Only an inquiry would be in a position make factual findings on evidence other bodies – such as the Electoral Commission and Information Commissioner – have been unable to secure because of the limits on their jurisdiction. An inquiry would allow for a form of accountability for wrongs that are not currently crimes or regulatory offences (or which may be, but cannot practically be prosecuted).
  4. Inquiries can require witness attendance, cross-examination and the production of documents. The unwillingness of individuals – like Dominic Cummings – and organisations – like Facebook– to co-operate with investigations to date can be overcome using these special investigatory powers which other bodies lack.
  5. Only an inquiry will be able to do these things publicly. There would be clear transparency benefits. As well as having a narrow focus on commission of offences, Police, National Crime Agency and Electoral investigations are inevitably be conducted in private. By contrast, an inquiry allows core participants to engage in the Inquiry and, where permitted by the Chair, to cross-examine witnesses in public and to examine documents, and for the media to report fully on the steps taken in the investigation.
  6. The process of the inquiry and action on its recommendations for changes in the law could help address the threat to democracy and restore trust and confidence in the machinery needed to guard against it, especially because of its functional independence.
  7. That functional independence could address concerns about the role of senior public figures. For instance, a number of senior politicians, including those who sat on the Vote Leave Board and/or the Vote Leave Campaign Committee. To date, only Mr Cummings has been asked about his role and he flatly refused to be questioned about it publicly (by the Commons DCMS Committee). Only an inquiry will be able to put questions to them and require answers.
  8. An inquiry would not be starting from scratch. It would draw on the expertise of the Electoral Commissioner and Information Commissioner and build on the evidence gathering those bodies have undertaken so far along with that of the Commons DCMS Committee.
  9. An inquiry would be able to draw lessons from events and prevent events from re-occurring by making recommendations, including for law reform. The recommendations already made by the Electoral Commission, Information Commissioner and Commons DCMS Committee could be considered and endorsed if appropriate, but the main purpose of the inquiry would be to make evidence-based recommendations based on its own investigation, not to duplicate the work of others.
  10. Public Inquiries are powerful things. Exposing the facts surrounding the 2016 referendum will help with understanding the extent of the damage done to public confidence (including that arising from one country having interfered in the domestic affairs and democratic processed of another country) and re-establishing the integrity of our system of democracy. An inquiry would allow an acknowledgement of what went wrong and ensure that the record is set straight. And if information about the commission of crimes came to light as a result of an inquiry, this could be separately dealt with by the police prosecutors – as happened after the phone hacking inquiry.

Please support Fair Vote’s Crowd Justice campaign if you can. They have already raised nearly £90,000 and need to raise at least £100,000 in order to proceed to an oral hearing seeking permission to proceed with the challenge. You can find their main submission here  and the submission explaining why Fair Vote’s case has nothing to do with the one being pursued by Sue Wilson & Otrs here.

We know from our experience with the “Miller” case that seeking justice and ensuring the rule of law does not come cheaply, particularly when you have a government whose priorities seem to be self-interest and obfuscation.

____________________________________________________

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 Democracy, Political Integrity, Public Inquiry 2016 referendum | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Is a People’s Vote now more likely or are we heading for a default No-Deal exit – the answer is in Jeremy Corbyn’s hands

The scale of Theresa May’s defeat is incredible. Far exceeding anything whether measured in votes or percentages that a Government has suffered in the modern era.

But, which way does her defeat push things? The opposition to her deal will fragment and drift away – spread between the No-Deal, Norway, soft-Brexit, let’s renegotiate once we are in No 10, and pro-EU groupings.

Some will argue that if parliament is that divided then a People’s Vote is the only option, on the other hand a divided and paralysed parliament will inevitably lead to a No-Deal exit on 29th March.

What is needed now, more than ever, is leadership – leadership that will focus on what unites the greatest number of people rather than focusing on their differences.

The no confidence vote tabled by Jeremy Corbyn may well prove nothing as Thresa May almost certainly has enough backing to defeat it.

What will be crucial is what Labour does immediately after the no-confidence vote being defeated.

Will Jeremy Corbyn back the Labour membership in turning a conveniently ambiguous Brexit policy into a policy that will save the UK from the dark and dank corner that Theresa May and her Brexiters are steering the country into?

____________________________________________________

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, Meaningful Vote, Parliamentary Sovereignty, People's Challenge, Political Integrity, What Is Best For Our Country | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

UK Voter Id – Another government attack on the UK’s democratic process

Under cover of Brexit darkness, the government is mounting another, typically surreptitious, attack on our democracy.

The government, without any substantive evidence, is implementing a system by which we will all have to have a “Voter Id”. You may have thought that you already had one by registering on the electoral roll, but you would be wrong.

The government is using various instruments and prerogatives to attempt to subvert our right to vote and other rights we have under the 1688 Bill of Rights. These are our rights and it is for Parliament to decide how they are exercised. We must stand up to these abuses, just as we did when the government tried to use Royal Prerogative to trigger Article 50.

If we are at all concerned about our fundamental rights and the rule of law, we must support Neil Coughlan’s campaign to ensure that there is proper democratic, parliamentary oversight of the restrictive measures the government is attempting to impose.

Neil makes a persuasive case for opposing the imposition of Voter Id in this video.

In 2017 there were just 28 allegations of impersonation out of nearly 45 million votes cast. This is 1 case for every 1.6 million votes cast. Of those 28 allegations, 1 case resulted in a conviction – that’s 0.000063%.

One of the key pieces of evidence used to support the need for the Government’s voter ID pilots was discredited by the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA).

The government claimed that in-person voter fraud more than doubled between 2014 and 2016, a statistic that is technically accurate, a rise from 21 cases in 2014 to 44 in 2016. What the government fails to explain is that the number of allegations then fell by more than a third in 2017, to 28.

In short, the number is insignificant, even if all instances were to happen in a single constituency.

3.5 million voters (7.5% of the electorate) do not have any photo ID. If restricted to passports and driving licenses, potentially 11 million electors (24% of the electorate) would not have a qualifying ID.

Either Voter Id is a solution looking for a problem as the Electoral Reform Society suggests or it is a measure against something other than electoral fraud.

Voter Id in the USA is being used as a tool to disenfranchise the most vulnerable members of society: the poor, the elderly, the disabled, ethnic minorities, the homeless. The UK government’s introduction of Voter Id in the UK would disadvantage the same groups of people.

The crux of the argument is perhaps that these groups are thought to be not only unlikely to vote for the Conservative party, but also likely to vote for other parties, particularly Labour. So it is just a whole lot easier to stop them voting than it is to convince them to vote Tory.

Vote Tory or you don’t get to vote. Neat, isn’t it?

All this is being forced through by the government without an Act of Parliament or even a debate in the House of Commons.

I have contributed to Neil’s campaign and I urge you to do so as well.

Grahame Pigney – January 2019

____________________________________________________

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 Democracy, Parliamentary Sovereignty, Political Integrity, What Is Best For Our Country | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The past two years very much resemble the curate’s egg

The past two years very much resemble the curate’s egg.

On the one hand there has been blind adherence to a non-existent plan, which has resulted in a deal between Theresa May and the EU that virtually nobody in the UK wants, and it seems that nobody in the EU really wants it either.

On the other hand, there have been two momentous legal decisions.

The first was when the government was defeated in the Supreme Court over its intention to use the Royal Prerogative to Trigger Article 50, and the second when the Court of Justice of the EU agreed that the UK can unilaterally withdraw the Article 50 notification.

Both of these decisions are connected by a long legal thread, starting with our successful Article 50 challenge, running through The Three Knights Opinion which in turn underpinned the successful question to the CJEU by Andy Wightman and his colleagues. It is a legal thread that has been funded in large part by your contributions and support for our fundraising campaigns.

Neither of these challenges has stopped Brexit, but nobody said they would. Indeed, no legal challenge can of itself stop Brexit. But they have been the only ones to pull the government up short and restrain its autocratic deceit.

In doing so, they provided our parliamentarians with tools to help them force through a meaningful vote on the results of Theresa May’s shambolic and damaging negotiations, and gave hope that the outcome will be something that doesn’t damage our and our country’s future for decades to come.

You have also helped us fund another significant piece of legal work, The Millions in the Margins. This document highlights the ways in which the draft Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU is not only discriminatory but seriously deficient in protections provided to UK citizens at home and overseas.

Although Theresa May’s deal is being touted as the end of the process, this is not so. The only way that Brexit will finish on 29th March 2019 is if the UK continues as a member of the EU.

Theresa May’s deal does nothing more than kick the can down the road yet again, with the distinct possibility of a no-deal exit from the EU on 31st December 2020.

Even a no-deal exit will not finish the Brexit process. Does anybody seriously believe the UK can walk away from the EU and not have treaties and agreements with our closest neighbours covering trade, security, defence co-operation…? Even the most myopic of the unicorn hunters don’t think that.

Fortunately, Parliament as a whole seems disinclined to believe in the myths of unicorns and rainbows spouted by Theresa May, added and abetted by Jeremy Corbyn and the brexiters.

There is still much work to be done, persuading and informing MPs on what we think and preparing for a possible People’s Vote by encouraging people to ensure they are registered to vote. There may even be new legal challenges, depending on the course things take over the coming weeks.

We send out supporters’ e-mails via Crowd Justice when we can, but as we are not currently running a Crowd Justice campaign that doesn’t always happen as quickly or punctually as events dictate.

You can also follow us via our Blog, Facebook page, or Twitter @PeoplesChalleng .

Many thanks, once again, for your support, we hope you had a good Christmas/New Year and let’s see what we can do to make 2019 A Very Good Year.

____________________________________________________

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 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 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.

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

Posted in Article 50 negotiations, Brexit, Crowd Justice, Democracy, Legal Milestones, Supreme Court, The Millions in the Margins, The Three Knights, What Is Best For Our Country | Tagged , , , ,