Boris keeps trying to bounce Parliament into ignoring the detail of his deal, he failed on Saturday will he succeed today?

Posted on October 22, 2019 by Grahame Pigney

Is Boris’s bounce getting a little less bouncy?

Well, here we are, over 3 years after the referendum. And Boris seeks to bounce Parliament into an agreement to his ‘great new deal’ in less than 3 days!

Why? Because he said he wouldn’t ask for an extension, which he’s now had to do. Why wouldn’t he do that? Because he said he wouldn’t!

It’s a completely manufactured deadline now. Parliament has required him to ask for an extension, and as it’s Parliament’s will (thus the UK’s constitutional will), the EU’s going to grant it: a country can’t be thrown out of the EU against its expressed will, leaving the EU without a deal can only be the UK’s decision.

So what is our illustrious PM up to? We have plenty of proof that he’s always up to something, after all. What’s he angling for?

His own political ambition, of course – he’s been working to get the keys to No 10 for years, and is still aiming for the ‘Titanic success’ (Johnson’s own words) of Brexit. If he gets it, that’s what he’ll have for sure.

To get there, he needs plenty of support from the Right of his party, the ones who interpret ‘take back control’ as handing it to a demagogue in No. 10. And he needs to peddle the ‘Parliament v. the people’ argument.

Events have proved conclusively that Parliament is in control, is the ultimate arbiter of what becomes law in the UK, upheld as necessary by the UK courts.

And how does Johnson think that MPs get to be MPs? They are elected – by people. Let’s not forget, the election mechanism is governed by the ‘Representation of the People Act’.

So, more manufactured arguments.

He’s trying to create an alternative reality based on his own constructs, for his own ends, not for the best interests of the UK.

But Parliament is clearly not deceived, unlike the ‘popular’ press, apparently. We should not be deceived either.

Did he really say ”Trust me, I’m Boris”? Who could suspend disbelief to that extent?

____________________________________________________

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, NoDeal, Parliamentary Sovereignty, The Millions in the Margins, What is Best for the UK? | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Not everybody thinks that a “hurry up and get it done” Brexit is in everyone’s Best Interest.

Posted on October 21, 2019 by Grahame Pigney

The chair of the Bundestag’s foreign affairs committee, Norbert Röttgen, a senior member of Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party, has been Tweeting over the past few days on the new Brexit Deal and the parliamentary situation in the UK.

It helps to provide a useful insight into some of the reasons that Germany seems a lot more inclined to accept a long extension to the Art. 50 process. There is an understanding that ultimately the deal needs to go back to the people.

And that the backstops needed are not just the diplomatic/trade ones contained in the Withdrawal Agreement but a parliamentary backstop is needed to close the backdoor to a NoDeal Brexit.

And that to achieve a settled solution for the UK to debate and decide on the long-term solution, a long extension should be granted, allowing the EU to get on with other important issues. Germany was inclined to give a significantly longer extension last time for exactly this reason. But France, largely driven by domestic pressures, disagreed.

It’s good to see such a pragmatic view being expressed. Clearly not everybody thinks that “hurry up and get it done” is in everyone’s Best Interest.

____________________________________________________

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, Political Integrity, What Is Best For Our Country, What is Best for the UK? | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Boris Johnson’s three Brexit letters to EU: Boris Johnson makes it clear he thinks that he is more important than Parliament’s sovereignty

Posted on October 20, 2019 by Grahame Pigney

Boris Johnson has sent three letters to the EU relating to an extension to article 50, after he was forced to do so by the so-called Benn act. The first letter was the legally mandated request for a three-month delay to Brexit, which Johnson has not signed. There is a covering letter from Tim Barrow, Britain’s ambassador to the EU, explaining the point of the previous letter. A third letter was sent from Johnson saying he does not want an extension. Here are the three letters, plus a fourth in which Johnson petitioned peers and MPs to back his deal.

Unsigned letter to Donald Tusk, president of the European council

Dear Mr President

I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11 p.m. GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.

Yours sincerely,

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Covering letter from Tim Barrow, Britain’s ambassador to EU

Dear Secretary-General,

As the United Kingdom Permanent Representative to the European Union, I invite your attention to the following matter.

Attached is a letter sent as required by the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.2) Act 2019.

In terms of the next steps for parliamentary process, Her Majesty’s Government will introduce the necessary legislation next week in order to proceed with ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement.

I would be grateful for your acknowledgement of receipt of this letter.

Sir Tim Barrow

Johnson’s personal letter to Tusk

Dear Donald

It was good to see you again at the European Council this week where we agreed the historic new deal to permit the orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on October 31.

I am deeply grateful to you, President Juncker and to all my fellow European leaders for the statesmanship and statecraft which enabled us to achieve this historic milestone. I should also register my appreciation for Michel Barnier and his team for their imagination and diplomacy as we concluded the negotiations.

When I spoke in Parliament this morning, I noted the corrosive impact of the long delay in delivering the mandate of the British people from the 2016 referendum. I made clear that, while I believe passionately that both the UK and the EU will benefit from our decision to withdraw and develop a new relationship, that relationship will be founded on our deep respect and affection for our shared culture, civilisation, values and interests.

We will remain the EU’s closest partner and friend. The deal we approved at last week’s European Council is a good deal for the whole of the UK and the whole of the EU.

Regrettably, Parliament missed the opportunity to inject momentum into the ratification process for the new Withdrawal Agreement. The UK Parliament Representative will therefore submit the request mandated by the EU (Withdrawal) (No.2) Act 2019 later today.

It is, of course, for the European Council to decide when to consider the request and whether to grant it. In view of the unique circumstances, while I regret causing my fellow leaders to devote more of their time and energy to a question I had hoped we had resolved last week, I recognise that you may need to convene a European Council.

If it would be helpful to you, I would of course be happy to attend the start of any A50 Council so that I could answer properly any question on the position of HM Government and progress in the ratification process at that time.

Meanwhile, although I would have preferred a different result today, the Government will press ahead with ratification and introduce the necessary legislation early next week. I remain confident that we will complete that process by 31 October.

Indeed, many of those who voted against the Government today have indicated their support for the new deal and for ratifying it without delay. I know that I can count on your support and that of our fellow leaders to move the deal forward, and I very much hope therefore that on the EU side also, the process can be completed to allow the agreement to enter into force, as the European Council Conclusions mandated.

While it is open to the European Council to accede to the request mandated by Parliament or to offer an alternative extension period, I have made clear since becoming Prime Minister, and made clear to Parliament again today, my view, and the Government’s position, that a further extension would damage the interests of the UK and our EU partners, and the relationship between us.

We must bring this process to a conclusion so that we can move to the next phase and build our new relationship on the foundations of our long history as neighbours and friends in this continent our peoples share. I am passionately committed to that endeavour.

I am copying this letter to Presidents Juncker and Sassoli, and to members of the European Council.

Yours sincerely

Boris Johnson

Johnson’s letter to MPs and peers

Dear Colleague

I wrote to you on Friday to outline why our new deal allows this country to take back control, get Brexit done and let the country move on.

I have made clear that I do not want more delay. European leaders have made clear they do not want more delay. It is to my great regret that today the House has voted for more delay.

The public want us to get Brexit done so the country can move on. The best thing for the United Kingdom and the European Union is for us to leave with this new deal on October 31.

I will not negotiate a delay with the European Union. I will tell the EU what I have told the British public for my 88 days as Prime Minister: further delay is not a solution.

That is why next week this Government will introduce the legislation needed for us to leave the European Union with our great new deal on October 31.

It is quite possible that our friends in the European Union will reject Parliament’s request for further delay (or not take a decision quickly). In these circumstances, I hope colleagues on all sides of the House will – faced with a choice of our new deal or no deal – support this new deal.

Colleagues, more than three years after the British people voted to leave the European Union, they expect us to finally deliver on our promises. They expect us to get Brexit done, so we can all move on and focus on the people’s priorities.

I will continue to do all I can to get Brexit done on October 31 so the country can move on – and I hope I can count on your support in doing so.

Yours sincerely

Boris Johnson

____________________________________________________

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 | Leave a comment

Monday’s Government motion – same question same answer as PM tries to bulldoze his deal through.

Posted on October 20, 2019 by Grahame Pigney

The House of Commons Order paper for Monday contains two different elements of the Government’s attempt to bulldoze the draft Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament.

The first is a repeat of the motion tabled on Saturday, which was amended by the Letwin Amendment as the House of Commons withheld approval of the draft Withdrawal Agreement until the enabling legislation had been debated and enacted.

In accordance with normal convention, it is quite possible that the Speaker will refuse this, as another presentation of a motion that is substantially the same is not usually permitted.

The second is the First Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill. There will be no debate on this, as the First Reading is in effect just reading it into the record. The debates will take place over subsequent days as the Bill passes through the Second Reading, Committee Stage (almost certainly a Committee of the whole House), 3rd Reading before being passed to the House of Lords.

It seems possible that the Second Reading may take place on Tuesday. However the substantive debate will be during the Committee Stage, when the clauses and amendments will be debated in detail.

The Commons will also need to pass a timetable motion on the EU (WA) Bill, allocating time for debate at the various stages. Undoubtedly the Government will try and reduce the available time as much as possible.

All of this may be very confusing for EU27 politicians. Having seen the Benn Bill passed into law by Parliament in the space of a couple of days why can’t the EU (WA) Bill be passed into law in a similar amount of time?

There are several reasons:

  1. The Benn Bill was a very simple bill focusing on a very specific procedural issue;
  2. There was a substantial consensus in both the Commons and the Lords to have it passed;
  3. The EU (WA) Bill affects not only a substantial body of law (not just that resulting from the UK’s membership of the EU) and determines the direction of travel for the UK’s relationship with the rest of the world for the foreseeable future;
  4. Even if everybody agreed that the UK should leave the EU there is no clear vision of what that actually means.

With the limited number of sitting days available to Parliament between now and 31st October, it is very likely that there is not enough Parliamentary time to pass the necessary legislation. This is largely because of the time the Government has wasted in its unlawful prorogation of Parliament and then the nonsensical prorogation before the Queen’s Speech on 14th.

This is something the Government clearly inflicted on itself, and on the nation, in pursuit of its attempt to force through a Boris-Johnson-centric Brexit by stealth and deception, instead of seeking consensus and agreement to unite the nation.

____________________________________________________

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, Political Integrity, What is Best for the UK? | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

No-Deal off the table, an Art. 50 extension is now inevitable.

Posted on October 19, 2019 by Grahame Pigney
The House of Commons has rejected the Boris Johnson deal until Parliament enacts primary legislation approving it.
The EU now has no option, as per Angela Merkel, to approve an extension to the Art. 50 period. The EU cannot eject a member state against its constitutional requirement.
The only question is whether the PM will ask for an extension, whether he will resign and get somebody else to get him of his self-constructed toasting fork or whether the courts will direct somebody to PP a letter on Parliament’s behalf.

____________________________________________________

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, What is Best for the UK? | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

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

Posted on October 14, 2019 by Grahame Pigney

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!

Posted on October 1, 2019 by Grahame Pigney

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

Posted on October 1, 2019 by Grahame Pigney

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.

Posted on September 29, 2019 by Grahame Pigney

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 , , , | 1 Comment

A new Prime Minister – new challenges to be pursued.

Posted on July 21, 2019 by Grahame Pigney

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 , , , , | Leave a comment