Theresa May’s Royal Progression

Posted on September 11, 2016 by kathryna1

Apparently, for a princely (or perhaps regal) sum, the “privilege” of lunching with Theresa May during the Conservative Party Conference is For Sale. Not sure whether it includes the price of the meal.

Is this the next phase, after proposing the use of the Royal Prerogative, where Mrs May continues her “royal progression” by requiring her “subjects” to pay for the privilege of her company?

Of course, if she were a true mediaeval monarch on a royal progression, she would invite herself to your place with all her hangers-on, and stay as long as she wanted while you footed the bill.

Perhaps we’re getting off lightly so far, but I’m sure that a long stay by her in the Palace of Westminster will cost the whole country very dearly.

People’s Challenge to the Government on Art. 50: A Parliamentary Prerogative

Posted in Brexit | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Off with their heads!! – I SAID “Breakfast means Breakfast!”

Posted on September 10, 2016 by kathryna1

red_queen_by_tioandria

Go to court? – I AM the court!

People’s Challenge to the Government on Art. 50: A Parliamentary Prerogative

Posted in Brexit | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Brexit: the Case for a Parliamentary Vote – Jolyon Maugham QC

Posted on September 10, 2016 by Grahame Pigney

[The following was commissioned by Counsel Magazine and is also published here.]

I’ll take some things as read.

You’ll know there’s a legal challenge to the Government’s position that it is for it and not Parliament to decide what action to take following the result of the Referendum. And that the challenge will be heard in the Divisional Court in October with a likely leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court in December.

You’ll be aware that the challenge raises a question about the nature of the limits to the Royal Prerogative. Will triggering Article 50 denude the European Communities Act 1972 of content? Will it deprive UK nationals of their rights as an EU citizen? Is it Theresa May’s finger on the trigger? Or is must it be by Act of Parliament?

Published alongside this piece is another arguing that these are political questions – and that the courts should not get involved. I disagree. That there are political ramifications to the answers doesn’t change the nature of the questions from legal.

Few of us would baulk at the suggestion that the courts have an important role to play in regulating the relationship between the citizen and the Executive. Or in circumscribing when the Royal Prerogative can and cannot be used. Baulkers, if there are any, should read the words of Lord Oliver in Rayner (Mincing Lane) v DTI [1990] 2 AC 418, 462:

as a matter of the constitutional law of the United Kingdom… the Royal Prerogative, whilst it embraces the making of treaties, does not extend to altering the law or conferring rights upon individuals or depriving individuals of rights which they enjoy in domestic law without the intervention of Parliament.

Indeed, publicly at least, even the Government says that the challenge raises a justiciable question. I can’t tell you what the Government’s pleaded position is because, remarkably, the Divisional Court has ordered that all documents produced by the Government be kept confidential.

But, as far as we are aware, the issue is not a live one. So let me turn to the question why the proper functioning of democracy requires that Parliament decide. There are at least four overlapping reasons.

First, Parliament is supreme. It chose to enact a referendum that doesn’t mandate our departure from the European Union. It chose one that the then Foreign Secretary recognised in Parliament as merely “advisory”. Mr Hammond went on to say that the Government would regard itself as bound by the result – but that political commitment does not alter the legal character of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 as advisory. To treat it as binding is to undermine the Supremacy of Parliament. It is to replace its intention, as enacted in the Referendum, with the intention of the Executive.

Second, the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union gives us rights as individuals: to live abroad, healthcare cover on temporary travels, to accrue pension rights working in other Member States, and so on. Parliament has not acted to modify or abrogate those rights. It cannot be right that the Executive can. To say this is to do no more than articulate a specific instance of an important general rule about the limits of Prerogative Power. To ignore it is to put citizens at the mercy of the Government.

Third, the fact that it is advisory inevitably gives rise to the question: who does it advise?

We know Theresa May opposes a second vote on the outcome of our negotiations with our EU partners. We also know that others in the Conservative Party feel differently. Nicky Morgan, who as Education Secretary also publicly contemplated standing for the leadership, says that Parliament must have a say on the final deal. There are wide open spaces between these two positions. One will lead to us leaving the EU: Brexit, after all, means Brexit. The other might not. The difference between them reflects the personal approaches of those two politicians to the outcome of the Referendum. But the electorate has had no chance to speak on which position should prevail. The only choice was one made by Conservative MPs pursuing considerations which included (and I mean no criticism when I say this) parochial ones. To deny Parliament any say on the choice between these positions cannot be right.

Finally, alongside the question, ‘who did the referendum advise’ is the related one, ‘what did it advise’? The binary formulation put to the electorate “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” skates over the many parallel universes offered up during the campaign: lower and not lower immigration, inside and not inside the single market, money spent and not spent on the NHS, retained and not retained regional investment and agricultural subsidies, and so on. These, and the trade-offs between them, are profoundly important questions. But they were not put in the Referendum; they figured in no election manifesto; no politician can claim a democratic mandate to answer them. I say they cannot be for an unelected Prime Minister.

Let me acknowledge this.

Although the argument I am putting forward is a procedural one – should Parliament or the Prime Minister make the decision about triggering Article 50 – I am interested in it because I believe the sovereignty of Parliament is substantively engaged. And I can only say that if I am prepared to contemplate that Parliament might take a different view to the Prime Minister.

But to contemplate this is not to urge Parliament to ignore the outcome of the Referendum. It is to urge Parliament to consider it in the context in which it arose. That context includes a number of assurances – of a points-based immigration system, of £350m extra to spend on the NHS, of VAT cuts on fuel – each of which has already been disavowed by the Prime Minister. Is the falsity of a representation relevant to the quality of the consent it induces? For legal readers of Counsel, there is only one answer. It includes the imprecision of the Referendum question and the competing accounts of Brexit that were given. It includes the fact that Parliament enacted only an advisory Referendum. It includes the enormous importance to our life as a nation of whether we are inside or outside the EU. And it includes the small margin of victory. Each of these factors must be weighed in the balance, alongside the democratic importance of adhering to the outcome of a hard-fought referendum campaign.

This weighing exercise is not one for an unelected Prime Minister. Parliament, with the roving democratic mandate given to its Members, must find a resolution. It should decide what to do with the result of the Referendum. And those who value democracy should hope that the Divisional, and then the Supreme Court, will direct that it does.

Source: Brexit: the Case for a Parliamentary Vote | Waiting for Godot

Posted in High Court | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The real reasons for Theresa May’s criticism of the Article 50 People’s Challenge

Posted on September 9, 2016 by Grahame Pigney

Responding to Bernard Jenkin MP during Wednesday’s (7th Sept) Prime Minister’s Questions, Mrs May told the House that the Government had a “clear” position on invoking Article 50, adding that “this is a prerogative power and one that can be exercised by the Government”.  The following thinly-veiled criticism was then levelled at those involved in the crowd-funded People’s Challenge and the other litigation of which it forms a part:

“No one should be in any doubt that those who are trying to prolong the process by their legal references in relation to Parliament are not those who want to see us successfully leave the European Union; they are those who want to try to stop us leaving.”

Such statements make good soundbites. But the Government’s superficially unequivocal and plain-speaking position needs a little unpacking. Once that is done, what becomes clear is that it is neither straightforward nor correct. Exposing this is one of the reasons why the People’s Challenge is so important.

The first point to be made about the Prime Minister’s answer is that it infers that ministers have a constitutional tool box, with a special compartment for the Prerogative, neatly labelled “For use in the event of Brexit”.

Ironically, the proponent of the EU Referendum, David Cameron,strongly advocated for restrictions on use of the Prerogativeon the premise that “restoring trust in politics means restoring trust in Parliament”.  So far, no-one in Government has unearthed any statement from Mr Cameron suggesting that the Brexit process was an exceptional matter which Parliament could not be trusted to oversee.

And his successor is quite wrong constitutionally. The Prerogative is a legal tool for the exercise of the vestigial powers of the monarch by the government of the day. It can only be used legally when Parliament has not already decided it is too blunt for use by a single minister in a particular context, which is in fact what has happened repeatedly over the last four decades in relation to the UK’s EU membership.  That has led not only to internationally-binding treaties with other states, but to Parliament granting of enhanced citizenship rights to millions of British Citizens living here in the UK and abroad. These rights are not only written into the UK statute book; they are woven into the constitutional settlement within the UK, particularly with the people of Northern Ireland and Scotland and with those living in the UK’s territories overseas.

These compelling arguments cannot be brushed aside. They will be put to the court by the People’s Challenge legal team – QCs Helen Mountfield and Gerry Facenna, barristers Tim Johnson and Jack Williams, and their solicitor, myself.

How will that be done?

In short, the People’s Challenge group are now fully recognised, and on the court record, as ‘interested parties’ in the test case litigation brought by Deir Dos Santos and Gina Miller in July (the cases were taken separately but have been joined together by the court).  They too challenge the government’s plan to exit the EU by invoking Article 50 without Parliamentary authorisation in the form of an Act of Parliament.  The People’s Challenge have filed an ‘Acknowledgement of Service’ at court outlining our grounds for arguing that the Government is wrong on the basis of separate, but complementary arguments.

Right now, those arguments are being developed in a detailed written ‘skeleton argument’ which we will publish so that anyone interested can see, comment on and discuss it. Evidence from those in the People’s Challenge group will also be filed at court. Then, if sufficient funds are raised towards theCrowdJustice ‘stretch target’, the legal team will present the arguments at the hearing in October.

The Prime Minister suggests that all of this is being done simply to “prolong the process” of Brexit.  This is too is wrong at a number of levels.

First, at the preliminary hearing of the litigation in July Mrs May’s barrister confirmed that she will not be invoking Article 50 this year. Everyone involved in the litigation agreed that it needs to be dealt with speedily so the Prime Minster will have the guidance of not only a special ‘Divisional Court’ of the High Court but also the Supreme Court, if necessary, before 1 January 2017.  Diaries have been cleared and an expedited timetable has been set.  None of this is consistent with anyone “trying to prolong” the process.  If stalling had been the intention, legal action would have been better targeted at the invocation of Article 50 itself, not the plan to use it.

More importantly still, the remedy being sought from the courts cannot ‘block’ Brexit. All that is sought from the courts is a declaration which confirms that decision-making on Brexit falls to our democratically-elected Parliament. The value of such confirmation would be immeasurable because it would then be for Parliament to decide what becomes of individuals’ rights under a Brexit process, what Brexit means or – if Parliament sees fit – if there may be an alternative.  None of this would be lawyer-driven, and it certainly should not be. But it would be democratic.

The last thing that calls for a response is the Prime Minister’s opening salvo – that the Government’s position is “clear”.

Again, this is not really so. The British public – whether permitted to vote in the EU Referendum, or disenfranchised through age or long residence abroad – were never told that there would be no Parliamentary oversight of the stripping away of their individual rights following Brexit, neither before the Referendum result was announced. Had they been, many may have decided not to vote leave, especially had they known there was no Government contingency planning for the Brexit process.  Then, shortly after the Referendum result was published, Parliamentary involvement was promised. But now there is not even to be a Parliamentary vote, never mind proper legislative scrutiny. Startlingly, whether there should be one or not is said to be a matter for the Prime Minister to decide. And so far, the Government’s legal defence – set out in letters and its ‘Detailed Grounds of Resistance’ – has been made available only to the parties to the litigation; hardly a transparent, public position.

All of this begs two questions Mrs May has yet to answer, both of which are rather trickier than that put by Mr Jenkin.

First, if the Government really is confident in its position on the law, why is it busy criticising those who have brought the issue to court when doing so will speedily put the lawfulness of its actions beyond doubt?

Second, and even importantly, if the Government really is confident that its plans for Brexit are sound, particularly in their protection of British Citizen’s rights, why is it so anxious to avoid Parliamentary scrutiny?

In truth, the point of the People’s Challenge is to bring about the legal certainty, and in turn the Parliamentary scrutiny, that something as serious as the stripping away of citizenship rights from 65 million people so obviously demands. The case is as serious as they come. The criticism and attempts to trivialise it are unworthy.

John Halford, Bindmans LLP

Posted in Crowd Justice, funding, High Court | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

People’s Challenge to the Govt. on Art. 50 – first target achieved

Posted on September 3, 2016 by Grahame Pigney

Once again thank you to everybody who has pledged money to support this challenge and get us through our first target of £50,000 and up to the £56,000 currently pledged.

When the initial work behind the People’s Challenge to the Government on Article 50 was started by Jolyon Maugham back at the end of June and we started to put the group of concerned citizens together, we knew the fundraising was going to be hard work and would rely on the help and generosity of ordinary people.

We made a conscious choice to follow the strategy of establishing the legal premise, putting a specialist legal team in place which would be able to make the arguments, and then asking people to pledge money.

This meant that those supporting the People’s Challenge knew exactly, who is in the legal team, and the arguments we are making.

We also needed to bring together a representative group of concerned citizens:

UK citizens in the UK;

UK citizens resident overseas (Expatriates);

and citizens of overseas territories like Gibraltar.

The group, Grahame Pigney, Robert Pigney, Paul Cartwright, Chris Formaggia & Tahmid Chowdury, representing ALL UK Citizens, including expatriates, was notified to the court on 2nd August. It has since been enlarged by Fergal McFerran from Northern Ireland joining us.

Even though this would mean that we were going to be fund raising during the holiday period and the Olympics we knew we could not expect people to back us unless we had done the groundwork and established a proper basis for the challenge we were making.

For this reason we set the initial target at £50,000, a sum that would allow further preparatory work to be done and make the written submission, including depositions from our group of concerned citizens, as well as testing the support for this People’s Challenge.

We knew that if we achieved this initial target it would give us and our supporters the confidence that the full target of £150,000 is possible.

What we had not allowed for was the stunning success of Team GB in Rio, which succeeded in keeping just about all other news out of the media.

Thanks to the generosity and support of all of you we have raised the initial £50,000 in the first 3 weeks. This will allow John Halford at Bindmans to start the next stage of preparing our case, the written submissions.

We have extended the campaign period to 3rd October. With the holiday period over and Brexit now back in the headlines, we are certain that we will achieve our £150,000 overall target.

A recent press release produced some surprising results. An article sent out by Richard Wheeler of the Press Association was picked up by the Express as being a direct appeal to Brexiteers to support our challenge. But reading the comments at the bottom of the Express article, it seems very likely that at least some of those who campaigned so noisily on the platform of “Take Back Control” don’t actually want that control to reside with the UK’s Parliament.

There have also been articles in the Mail, Huffington Post, on AOL, plus some regional papers. It also produced a phone interview between myself and Ian Dale on LBC (30th).

Once again thank you for your support. If you would help spread the word to others or perhaps you could find a little more to pledge during this second phase, Paul, Chris, Tahmid, Fergal, Rob and myself would very much appreciate it.

Grahame Pigney

Our Crowd Justice Campaign page is People’s Challenge to the Government on Art. 50

We regularly post on the SY2E Public Facebook page

You can follow us on Twitter using @sayyes2europe or #ParliamentisSovereign

There are regular blog posts on the SY2E web site

 

Posted in Brexit, Crowd Justice, funding | Tagged | Leave a comment

The People’s Challenge to the Government – why it’s different.

Posted on August 23, 2016 by Grahame Pigney

Over the past few weeks some people have asked why our People’s Challenge is different to the handful of other challenges to Theresa May’s intention to usurp the UK’s Sovereign Parliament.

Here are the answers to these Frequently Asked Questions:

  • How is what you are doing different to the Gina Miller challenge represented by Mishcon de Reya?

The case being brought by Gina Miller is challenging whether Royal Prerogative can override or undo Acts of Parliament.

Unlike the People’s Challenge, Gina Miller’s challenge does not say who else is party to her challenge or who is funding it.

In addition to the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty our People’s Challenge is very clearly focused on the importance of UK Citizen’s individual rights, in this case those rights granted by the UK’s Parliament to UK Citizens in relation to the UK’s membership of the EU.

  • What about the Fair Deal for Expats challenge?

Fair Deal for Expats say that only they have been given permission to represent the interests of British citizens living or working in the EU at the hearing in October. That isn’t correct though, as the individuals named in the People’s Challenge includes two UK expatriates living /working in the EU.

They haven’t disclosed the identities of the individuals taking their challenge to court, nor made a commitment to openness about their arguments or funding. You have to pay a subscription, between 30€ and 50€, to get information on what they are doing.

This is unlike our People’s Challenge which is representing the interests of ALL UK citizens and is committed to openness about what it is doing.

  • Where do the two challenges in Northern Ireland fit with what the People’s Challenge is doing?

These two challenges are being made on the basis of the interaction of Acts of Parliament involving the UK’s membership of the EU and the Peace Process/Good Friday Agreement. It was the UK Sovereign Parliament that set these Acts in place and it is for the UK’s Sovereign Parliament to decide if, when, and how these Acts are to be modified or set aside.

  • What about the #BrexitJustice campaign, isn’t it challenging the Government on Article 50?

Although the #BrexitJustice fundraising campaign did include challenging the Government on who can trigger Article 50 as part of its original pitch, #BrexitJustice is now not pursuing an Article 50 challenge and is instead concentrating on suing the perpetrators of the Leave campaign lies.

The £145,000 #BrexitJustice has raised is being used to pursue the prosecution of the “Leave liars”. Important as this is, it is a very different legal action and according #BrexitJustice could take several years.

Even if successful it would not prevent Theresa May and her anointed government from usurping the UK’s Sovereign Parliament by using Royal Prerogative to take the UK out of the EU.

  • Who are the members of the People’s Challenge group?

Grahame (me) and Rob (my son) Pigney, both UK citizens living in France, Paul Cartwright, a Gibraltarian national, Christopher Formaggia, who lives in Wales, Tahmid Chowdhury, a London student and Fergal McFerran who lives in Northern Ireland.

  • How are you funding the People’s Challenge?

We are funding the People’s Challenge through this Crowd Justice crowdfunding campaign.

Reaching £50,000 will enable our legal team to make the written submissions on behalf of all 65 million UK citizens.

But to make sure that we can be represented at the hearing(s) in October and that the concerns of ordinary UK citizens are argued in front of the judges, we need to push through that £50,000 initial target to our ultimate target of £150,000.

  • Who is representing the People’s Challenge?

Bindmans LLP – a leading London law firm, is representing us. John Halford leads the Bindmans’ team. He will be assisted by Darragh Mackin of Kevin R Winters with clients living in Belfast.

Our barristers are all public and constitutional law specialists and, just as importantly, are fully committed to ensuring ordinary members of the public have a say in this challenge. They are Helen Mountfield QC, Gerry Facenna QC, Tim Johnston and Jack Williams.

They are working for us at rates lower than those the Government pays its own lawyers, but a huge amount of work is needed.

Posted in Crowd Justice, funding | Tagged | Leave a comment

Brexit — the most important constitutional case of a generation.

Posted on August 21, 2016 by Grahame Pigney

Or why the Government should not be allowed “to use the rusty toolbox of medieval powers known as the Royal Prerogative” to trigger Article 50.

A group of concerned UK citizens has embarked on a legal challenge to the Government’s plans to use Royal Prerogative powers to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to exit the EU. The challenge, which will be funded through the Crowd Justice website, will be considered this October alongside those of investment manager Gina Miller and hairdresser Dier Dos Santos.

The group is headed by Grahame Pigney, a UK citizen living in France, who ran the Say Yes 2 Europe grassroots campaign.  Others involved also campaigned in the run-up to the Referendum. They include Rob Pigney, Paul Cartwright, a Gibraltarian national who runs Brex-IN, Christopher Formaggia, who lives in Wales, Tahmid Chowdhury, a London student and Fergal McFerran who lives in Northern Ireland

At last month’s Divisional Court hearing their QC, Helen Mountfield, told Sir Brian Leveson, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division, that ordinary UK citizens should have the right to participate in the litigation because they have strongly held views that Parliament should  make all key decisions on Brexit, including when, how and whether to evoke Article 50, because EU citizenship rights were granted by Acts of Parliament.

John Halford, Bindmans LLP said:

“By the time of that hearing, the Government had pinned its legal colours to the mast — there would be no Act of Parliament to authorise Brexit, instead the new Prime Minister planned to use the rusty toolbox of medieval powers known as the Royal Prerogative to give effect to the EU Referendum result.”

Grahame Pigney said:

“The enforced removal of citizenship rights from 65 million people is unprecedented in a modern democracy. If it is to happen, it must involve proper Parliamentary process. Parliament has granted these rights. It is for Parliament to decide under what circumstances they are taken away.”

“It is critical that ordinary people are involved and represented. Our rights and benefits were hardly mentioned during the referendum, lost in the rhetoric about trade, influence and “taking back control”. We must now act to make sure those rights are not, once again, ignored in the decisions about when, how and under what circumstances the UK leaves the EU.”

But what can a small group of concerned citizens add to a case where the UK’s biggest constitutional law gun — Lord Pannick QC — has already been commissioned and pointed towards the Government by Ms Miller?

There are three answers.

First, involvement of ordinary UK Citizens in this extraordinary case adds a critical democratic ingredient. None are wealthy or in the public eye, they are united by a concern about a Prime Minister making profoundly undemocratic decisions about UK Citizen’s rights. In a representative democracy, these are matters for Parliament alone, not the Executive.

Second, the reason why they say that is important. Parliament has given citizenship rights to ordinary British Citizens and only Parliament can strip away those rights. This freestanding argument needs to be put to the court because it affects every one of the UK’s 65 million citizens.

Third, the group is deeply committed to transparency, and will press for others, particularly the government, to reciprocate. Those who are interested should be able to see, understand, debate, applaud or disagree with those arguments.

For these things to happen though, the case needs to be funded through public contributions. Those who are interested in making a contribution to help fund this People’s Challenge can do so at: https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/parliament-should-decide/

Posted in Crowd Justice, funding | Tagged , | Leave a comment

People’s Challenge to the Government on Art. 50 – why is it important?

Posted on August 14, 2016 by Grahame Pigney

People’s Challenge to the Government on Art. 50 – CrowdJustice

I believe that the individual rights and benefits of ordinary British (UK) Citizens deserve special attention in addition to more general arguments about whether the Government can trigger the UK’s exit from the EU without an Act of Parliament.

We must make sure that the rights of ordinary UK Citizens are not, once again, ignored in the decisions about when, how and under what circumstances the UK leaves the EU.

This is the value, importance, impact that ordinary people’s involvement in the challenge will add – making sure the court understands why it is unacceptable for our rights to be stripped away without an Act of Parliament.

For ordinary UK Citizens to have the chance to argue that their individual, personal rights and benefits justify that the timing and conditions of a Brexit should be decided by our democratically elected Parliament and not an appointed Government, crowdfunding is essential.

 

Posted in Brexit, Crowd Justice, funding | Tagged | 2 Comments

Art. 50 – This Government wants to ignore Parliamentary democracy

Posted on August 11, 2016 by Grahame Pigney

People’s Challenge to the Government on Art. 50 – CrowdJustice

Following the referendum this Government proposes ignoring the rest of the process that Parliament set in train when it passed the 2015 Referendum Act.

The current Government wants to use ancient (archaic) Royal Prerogative to trigger the process of the UK leaving the EU in the interest of the Government’s sectional and party political interest.

By using the Royal Prerogative to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon this Government will be sweeping away rights at a stroke of a pen without the proper scrutiny of and a final decision being made by our Sovereign Parliament.

This is an act of constitutional vandalism.

Posted in Crowd Justice, funding | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Brexit — the most important constitutional case of our time

Posted on August 9, 2016 by Robert Pigney

Link to our Crowd Justice Page: https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/parliament-should-decide/

Brexit — the most important constitutional case of a generation

Parliament Should Decide — Three good reasons to back the People’s Challenge

By John Halford, Bindmans LLP

The most important constitutional case of a generation began somewhat inauspiciously this Summer when a Spanish hairdresser, Dier Dos Santos, issued an urgent claim seeking judicial review of the decision the Government had then yet to make about precisely how to exit the EU at the unglamorous counter of London’s Administrative Court.

It also came as something as a surprise to the Government because there had been none of the normal correspondence back and forth between solicitors beforehand. Yet the courts took the claim seriously and listed it for an urgent directions hearing on 19 July before the Queens Bench Division’s President.

By the time of that hearing, the Government had pinned its legal colours to the mast — there would be no Act of Parliament to authorise Brexit, instead the new Prime Minister planned to use the rusty toolbox of medieval powers known as the Royal Prerogative to give effect to the EU Referendum result.

Meanwhile, two other legal claims were threatened — one by city firm Mishcon de Reya, acting for an unidentified group of wealthy clients, another by Bindmans, whose work was funded rather differently through a CrowdJustice campaign co-ordinated by Jolyon Maugham QC.

Both sets of lawyers — and several others — were invited along to court to explain their intentions at the De Santos directions hearing. It emerged that the Mishcon claim was to be courageously headed by investment manager Gina Miller. Her claim was also designated as the lead case, though the Court was told, and accepted, that others besides needed to be heard.

After considering the Government’s response to the letter sent on their behalf, the Bindmans client group decided to actively participate in the litigation — something which the Court had anticipated by making special directions for them to be ‘interested parties’ and so entitled to be heard as of right.

But what can a small group of concerned citizens add to a case where the UK’s biggest constitutional law gun — Lord Pannick QC — has already been commissioned and pointed towards the Government by Ms Miller?

There are three answers.

First, involvement of ordinary British Citizens from around the UK and abroad in this extraordinary case will add a critical democratic ingredient. The Bindmans group is headed by Grahame Pigney, a British citizen living in France, who ran the Say Yes 2 Europe grassroots campaign against Brexit, his son Rob Pigney, 52, Paul Cartwright, 50, a Gibraltarian national who runs Brex-IN, Christopher Formaggia, 49, who lives in Wales, and Tahmid Chowdhury, 21, a London student.

None are wealthy or in the public eye. None answer to shareholders or directors. What unites them is a concern about a profoundly undemocratic decisions being made by the Prime Minister alone as to whether, how and when Britain leaves the EU and what becomes of the EU rights they and others currently hold. They say that, in representative democracy, these are matters for Parliament alone, not the Executive.

Secondly, the reason why they say that is important. The group believe that, although EU rights originate in the EU, they have been given to ordinary British Citizens like them as part of a citizenship package by the UK Parliament and so only Parliament can strip away these rights, especially in circumstances where the UK is a union of different states and has a sovereign relationship with other territories such as Gibraltar.

This freestanding argument needs to be put to the court because it affects each and every one of Britain’s 65 million citizens.

Thirdly, the group is deeply committed to transparency — and it matter more in this case than almost any other. All have publicly campaigned to promote the benefits of EU rights, but none have benefited financially from doing so. All have agreed to being identified as involve din the case, despite the criticism they are likely to face. The funding for their case will be publicly raised direct from the public through the CrowdJustice site. Their lawyers will not become rich from the case, not least because they are working at rates lower than those of the government team. And most importantly, the group will be completely transparent about the legal arguments it is putting to the court for example by publishing their lawyers’ written submissions, and they will press for others, particularly the government, to reciprocate. This is a case which affects every member of the public. Those who are interested should be able to see, and understand, debate, applaud or disagree with those arguments.

For these things to happen though, the case needs to be funded through those public contributions. Those who are interested in making one can visit: https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/parliament-should-decide/

Originally published by John Halford

Posted in Crowd Justice, funding | Tagged , | Leave a comment