Three Knights Opinion Part 1 – The Government Agrees

Posted on November 26, 2018 by Robert Pigney

The Government has had to admit what it had originally hoped to keep secret: The first part of The Three Knights Opinion commissioned by The Peoples Challenge is correct.

The Government had originally tried to keep secret its grounds for appeal against the referral by the Edinburgh Court of Session in the Andy Wightman & Others challenge on the revocability of Article 50 to the CJEU.

The submission, see section 38, the Government wanted to keep secret admitted that the question was not relevant because Parliament has not directed the Government to pull the Article 50 notification and no EU 27 state has disputed that article 50 is revocable.

This is essentially admitting that if Parliament was to direct the Government to withdraw the Government could not argue.

The PM has changed her tune recently regarding no-Brexit options and now we know why.

She can no longer argue to the public or politicians that no-Brexit is off the table, her legal eagles are arguing in court that it is on the table.

The scales fall from eyes and we are now treated to the truth, the world according to Theresa May is nothing but political bluster and electoral bullying.

Lots to be done between now and 11th December when Parliament will have a meaningful vote Theresa May’s Brexit Shambles.

The most important thing is to get the facts out there so that our MPs can make an informed decision.

This could be how the vote will go down but complacency is one of the biggest threats to the UK’s system of Parliamentary democracy, do not take anything for granted.

We shall see where part 2 of The Three knights Opinion will go…

____________________________________________________

The People's Challenge - logoWe value your support. Just keeping track of the campaigns and challenges that have objectives that match our own takes time and effort, much of what we do costs money that we can only afford 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 (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 Brexit | Tagged | Leave a comment

Neither Fish, Flesh nor Good Red Herring

Posted on November 23, 2018 by Grahame Pigney

So we now have the official version of “Brexit means Brexit” the Political Declaration.

The question is, who does it satisfy? Seemingly nobody.

It is a “Blind Brexit”, “26 pages of waffle” and doesn’t provide “frictionless trade”.

It means everything to everybody and nothing at the same time.

It isn’t Chequers, No 10 has confirmed that Chequers has been ditched in favour of a “more open ended political declaration”.

Nor is it the easiest trade deal ever. Despite assurances that a comprehensive trade deal with the EU can be agreed a “nanosecond” after exit day it won’t happen. As it happens, it seems that a nanosecond is about as long as the Brexiters’ assertions survive contact with the real world.

The political declaration is couched in terms such that a No-Deal Brexit is possible at the end of 2020 and being tied to the EU, but without a say in the rules, is not only possible but the default option.

The only thing the political statement on a future UK/EU relationship is good for is to enable the simplistic and self-serving politicians in Whitehall to cower behind the statement “We have delivered Brexit”.

Theresa May has now made a People’s Vote a resigning matter. According to a Tweet from @PippaCrerar

“Number 10 also unequivocally ruling out a second referendum while May is in charge. Asked whether it was correct that “as long as she is PM, there won’t be a second referendum”, they replied: “Yes”

This is a direct threat to the UK Parliament’s sovereignty and our system of democracy. It is not for Theresa May (or any other Prime Minister) to declare that it is “her way or no way”. Seemingly this is what Theresa May thinks “taking back control” means.

It is for the UK’s Sovereign Parliament, and through Parliament, the Electorate, to decide the policy the UK adopts, how these constitutional questions are answered.

The Government, including the Prime Minister, serves at the pleasure of the Electorate, as expressed through our Parliamentary representatives.

The Government cannot, and must not be allowed to, dictate to Parliament and the People what the UK will do.

Theresa May and co are servants and not dictators, despite what they seem to think.

The vote in Parliament is not solely about the Withdrawal Agreement, it is about whether what comes after withdrawal and transition is Better for the UK than what we have at the moment – being a full and active member of the EU.

Don’t let anybody tell you otherwise and certainly make sure that your MP understands your views on the real question that he/she will be voting on – is the aspirational, non-binding political declaration better than the UK’s current, factual membership of the EU?

Whatever happens, it won’t be better for business, nor will it address the failure by the UK and the EU to protect our EU citizenship rights and the arbitrary, discriminatory way in which those rights have been removed and diluted.

The demagogues and ideologues are reeling on the ropes – time to make sure they reel and fall rather than bounce back with a sucker punch to what is Best for the UK.

“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”

____________________________________________________

The People's Challenge - logoWe value your support. Just keeping track of the campaigns and challenges that have objectives that match our own takes time and effort, much of what we do costs money that we can only afford 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 (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, Meaningful Vote, The Millions in the Margins, The Three Knights, What is Best for the UK? | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Govt. attempt to block test of Art. 50 revocability rejected by Supreme Court

Posted on November 21, 2018 by Robert Pigney

The UK Government’s attempt to block a key, perhaps what is currently the key, Brexit related judicial referral has been rejected by the UK’s Supreme Court.

Incredibly, given the expertise and resources the Government has expended, the Government’s request for permission to appeal the decision of the Edinburgh Court of Session has been rejected for the simple reason that the Court of Session has not yet made a decision.

If this seems all rather illogical I am not surprised, but the question being asked is more complex than it might first seem and consists of multiple parts.

The question of “whether, when and how the notification … can unilaterally be revoked”, the question asked by the MPs, MSPs and MEPs in the case, is a complex one involving both UK and EU law. The question was explored in the Three Knights Opinion that The People’s Challenge commissioned in early 2017.

The Three Knights Opinion, produced by five leading experts in EU law: Sir David Edward QC; Sir Francis Jacobs QC; Sir Jeremy Lever QC (retired) plus Helen Mountfield QC and Gerry Facenna QC who acted for The Peoples Challenge in R (Miller) vs the SSExEU, argues very persuasively that Parliament can revoke the Article 50 notification under the terms of both UK and EU law.

The Court of Session has asked the CJEU to give a preliminary ruling on the EU law aspect of the question, so that the Court of Session can then make a Final Judgement.

The CJEU is expected to consider the reference in a week’s time and then the matter will be back with the Court of Session for the Final Judgement.

Notes:

  1. Three Knights Opinion

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

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

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

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

  1. Supreme Court decision in R (Miller) vs SSExEU

____________________________________________________

The People's Challenge - logoWe value your support. Just keeping track of the campaigns and challenges that have objectives that match our own takes time and effort, much of what we do costs money that we can only afford 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 (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 Brexit | Tagged | Leave a comment

A no-deal Brexit is not just for Christmas, or even Easter

Posted on November 19, 2018 by Robert Pigney

This has been a chaotic, febrile week which has managed to unite everyone opposed to the self-serving draft treaty which Theresa May has agreed with the EU.

Not even her former chief negotiator, Dominic Raab, is prepared to back it. In resigning he joins a long and not very distinguished line of Leavers walking away from the realities of the existential crisis the UK faces – one entirely of their own making and one they are not prepared to take any responsibility for.

Not only did Dominic Raab not understand the importance of frictionless mass movement of goods via our Channel ports to the UK’s economy, he apparently did not even understand the content and importance of the agreement the UK and the EU signed up to in December 2017.

In the meanwhile EU politicians hold out the hope that the UK will reverse the decision to leave the EU and resume its place as a key member and policy-maker of the European Union.

There is much uninformed talk about forcing a General Election – has anybody read the Fixed-Term Parliament Act and taken into account the Tory party’s instincts for self-preservation (check what Nicky Morgan, a supposed anti-Brexit Tory, has said)?

A debate in Westminster Hall of an e-petition, campaigning for a judicial review of whether there should be a public inquiry into the Leave campaign or challenging whether the franchise for the advisory referendum was adequate will not change the direction the UK takes in the next few months.

On the other hand other challenges, such as the one led by Andy Wightman MSP, Joanna Cherry MP and others on whether the Article 50 notification is unilaterally revocable, receive scant attention.

This is a blunt and perhaps unpalatable assessment of what is happening at the moment.

The UK and the EU have perpetrated a stunning deception, one worthy of the most practised of dodgy traders or deceivers – EU citizens’ rights, including those of UK citizens, are not being protected.

As John Halford at Bindmans said when we opened our Millions in the Margins campaign, the UK and the EU “have almost pulled off the most ambitious branding exercise ever undertaken in Europe: presenting arrangements that will ultimately strip millions of their existing fundamental rights as generous rights-granting measures for the minority that will benefit in future.”

Both the UK and the EU have discriminated in their treatment of EU citizens, see page 303 of the draft withdrawal treaty.

For these reasons, the agreement is open to challenge for breaches of UK, EU and international law. As has been the case since we joined in the challenge to the government over the Article 50 notification, we will support challenges on this basis wherever we can make a difference.

Dominic Raab may not have understood the importance of the frictionless movement of goods, but the UK is already running out of warehouse space for storing food. Every day, similar “can’t happen” things are happening.

Do not forget that there are two dates on which the many consequences of a No-Deal Brexit could hit the UK, 29th March 2019 AND the end of the transitional period on 31st December 2020.

The transitional arrangement which may or may not have been agreed is only putting off the evil day, it is just kicking the can down the road, an inherent characteristic of Brexit fatalists!

As things stand, the UK is heading for a No-Deal exit, a Blind Brexit where we walk into the darkness, the abyss, without knowing what we face.

It is IMPORTANT that we stop the serious democracy failures we are living with from repeating themselves.

It is URGENT that we persuade our parliamentarians (in both the UK and the EU) to reject the demagogic, authoritarian attack on the social framework built over the past 45 years.

This MUST happen before the projected exit date of 29th March 2019. Facing up to these issues after that date will probably leave us unable to change the path that Theresa May and her Brexit fatalists are forcing us down – a path leading to departure from the EU at any cost.

If we do not deal with the URGENT we may not have a chance to deal with the IMPORTANT.

____________________________________________________

The People's Challenge - logoWe value your support. Just keeping track of the campaigns and challenges that have objectives that match our own takes time and effort, much of what we do costs money that we can only afford 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 (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 Brexit | Leave a comment

Important vs Urgent vs Important AND Urgent – Fighting Brexit

Posted on November 6, 2018 by Grahame Pigney

There are a number of campaigns challenging the results of the 2016 referendum plus the recently announced NCA (National Crime Agency) investigation.

The issues that these campaigns are focused on are without doubt very important.

The various challenges have yet to get over the first, and very high, hurdle – will the court admit the challenge? Indeed one or more has been rejected by the courts at least once.

However, we have to prioritise the IMPORTANT and the URGENT.

If we are to neutralise or even mitigate the effects of the attack on our democracy, we need to prevent the forces of darkness pushing the UK into an uninformed Brexit – that is URGENT.

It is IMPORTANT that we prevent this happening again in the future. But if we fail to prevent the corruption of the 2016 referendum from dictating the immediate future of the UK, we will lose not just a battle but a campaign, and possibly the war.

Even more URGENT is the need to lobby our parliamentarians, persuade them to base their decisions on what is Best for the UK and support those parliamentarians who are prepared to take the position articulated by Edmund Burke in 1774:

“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

The will of the people is what it is on the day, it is neither immutable nor unchangeable. As David Davis said in 2012: “If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.”

Nobody voted for a future that impoverished the UK and its citizens, weakened its social services, its NHS, it social cohesion, its own union of nations – far from all that, the Leave campaigns promise was that the UK would be better off outside the EU.

This is why it is URGENT that we fight the self-serving and supposedly idealogical arguments from Theresa May and others.

The Leave campaign’s economist, Patrick Minford, said that Brexit would mostly eliminate UK manufacturing and increase wage inequality. He advocated a transition of around 10 years to help industry “adjust”.

Patrick Minford told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in 2012: “It is perfectly true that if you remove protection of the sort that has been given particularly to the car industry and other manufacturing industries inside the protective wall, you will have a change in the situation facing that industry, and you are going to have to run it down.”

He echoed this in a piece in The Sun, writing: “Over time, if we left the EU, it seems likely that we would mostly eliminate manufacturing, leaving mainly industries such as design, marketing and hi-tech. But this shouldn’t scare us.”

Politicians and campaign groups must use the tools they have been provided with to prevent the self-immolation that the UK (Theresa May) seems intent on.

Once we have turned back this existential threat to what makes the UK great, we can then address the failings in the Union and the democratic system we rely on.

Some 1,500 lawyers have backed The People’s Vote campaign including some who have advised The People’s Challenge:

Sir David Edwards KCMG PC QC FRSE – Former European Court of Justice Judge and co-author of the Three Knights Opinion commissioned by The Peoples Challenge.

Helen Mountfield QC – Lead Counsel for our successful challenge to the Government’s intended use of Royal Prerogative to trigger Article 50 and a co-author of the Three Knights Opinion.

John Halford – Partner at Bindmans LLP who led our Article 50 challenge and the teams that produced The Knights Opinion and Millions in the Margins Advice.

Jolyon Maugham QC – Triggered the pre-action letter that led to The Peoples Challenge to the Government’s use of Royal Prerogative to make the Article 50 notification.

Between now and 29th March persuading our parliamentarians to take decisions based on what is Best for the UK and its people is both URGENT and IMPORTANT.

____________________________________________________

The People's Challenge - logoWe value your support. Just keeping track of the campaigns and challenges that have objectives that match our own takes time and effort, much of what we do costs money that we can only afford 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 (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 Democracy, People's Challenge, The Millions in the Margins, The Three Knights, What is Best for the UK?, What Is Best for UK | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

France prepares emergency legislation to deal with Brexit

Posted on October 19, 2018 by Grahame Pigney

The French Senate is in the process of reviewing legislation giving the French government powers to legislate as required for the UK’s exit from the European Union. It highlights the differences between the deal/no-deal/post transition scenarios.

In English this means that France has finally had enough of the UK’s shenanigans and is making the necessary preparations so that it can change French law in order to mitigate Brexit.

This Projet de Loi is causing quite a stir with some people, it is being reported that UK citizens will become illegal immigrants on Brexit day…

This is not what is being said. The bill seeks to minimise the damage that the UK is insisting on inflicting not only on itself but on its citizens in the EU27 countries and more precisely France itself. Would that the UK government should adopt that same standpoint!

It concentrates on UK citizens working, living, studying in France but makes no mention of UK citizens in the UK who own property, businesses or work cross border into France.

Nor does it identify the myriad of other issues such as whether you can elect to have UK or French law apply to your will or whether there is a higher rate of capital gains tax for non-EU citizens on second homes.

Whatever it is, the bill is far from saying what will happen, it also makes it very clear that there will be reciprocity between measures taken in France and those the UK government applies to French citizens in the UK.

The French government will also be complying with applicable EU law, including the treatment of long-term-resident Third Country Nationals, and the principles of acquired rights and reasonable expectation under EU and International law.

The bill (and the associated impact analysis) addresses points where Brexit will change the way in which EU law will apply or cease to apply in France, and some of the ramifications of what a no-deal Brexit or a Brexit that does not keep the UK inside the single market/ customs union will mean.

The only respect in which it could be seen as threatening is the way in which it links treatment of UK citizens in France to treatment of French citizens in the UK. If the UK sticks to its current stance, this should not make life harder for UK citizens in France.

The bill’s purpose is to set the stage for the legislation which may be necessary for the French government to take up the slack (admittedly there’s a lot of room for interpretation in what that means).

Furthermore, it is pointed out that the social, financial, economic, administrative, equality and youth consequences will be looked into at a later date (this will presumably influence the French government’s response, as will how the UK treats French citizens).

Even with the French government’s conservative and optimistic estimations of numbers of UK citizens, living, working, studying and visiting France, huge segments of the country and the French administration would be left “in the lurch” if they all became “illegal immigrants” overnight. This is what the proposed legislation seeks to avoid.

We will not become Martians overnight, we will become third country nationals, many of whom currently live happily and successfully in France and have rights under French, EU and International law, even though those rights are less than we, as EU citizens, currently enjoy.

So all in all the French Government is considering what the problems would be in order to figure out what it should do in response. Whatever they are likely to do, we should not bite the hand that is trying to help us.

More usefully doing one or more of, getting in touch with your Maire and explaining your situation, contacting your British MP and giving them an earful, contacting one of the MEPs representing your region, supporting The People’s Challenge or other groups working to protect your interests will all help.

____________________________________________________

The People's Challenge - logoWe value your support. Just keeping track of the campaigns and challenges that have objectives that match our own takes time and effort, much of what we do costs money that we can only afford 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 (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, NoDeal, The Millions in the Margins | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Millions in the Margins – Introduction and Summary

Posted on September 28, 2018 by Robert Pigney

Today’s blog piece is our first in a series presenting the work that has been done in our “Millions in the Margins” campaign.

Our legal advice is, despite the restricted brief our fund-raising covered is very long and at times difficult to grasp. In view of this we will be publishing it in segments accompanied by explanations and practical examples of the points made.

As stated above we have only begun our work, additional funds will enable us to explore many of the aspects that, while seemingly niche to some, may be of great relevance to “the man on the Clapham omnibus”.

Over 40+ years, UK citizens exercising their rights as EU citizens have generated a huge variety of personal situations in relation to home, work, study…

This variety and complexity has led to many people’s personal situations being ignored by negotiators on both sides because it’s a matter of “question too difficult”. But this is no excuse: negotiators must negotiate for all the people concerned, and politicians have no right to abandon any of their country’s citizens. Politicians work for us, not us for them, they are the ones who should bend over backwards for us, not us for them, that’s what they are payed their not inconsiderable salaries for.

As time goes on the list of topics that were going to be handled “later in the negotiations” grows longer and the list of topics for which there will simply be no time also gets longer. Eventually both of these lists will become synonymous with the exhaustive list of issues that need to be addressed, we will then have reached peak Brexit. We therefore feel that our advice will become ever more apposite as March 29th 2019 approaches.

 

  1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
  2. We are asked to advise on the draft Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union, in particular on the extent to which it fails to protect the interests of certain categories of British nationals, giving rise to unlawful discrimination or a breach of fundamental rights; and the legal remedies, if any, that may be available to address those shortcomings in the Agreement.
  3. In summary, our Advice below is that:
    1. Citizens’ rights have been given special prominence in the negotiations for the Withdrawal Agreement. The ‘personal scope’ of the Withdrawal Agreement is set out in considerable detail in the draft of the Agreement and includes various categories of EU and UK citizens, including ‘frontier workers’, and their EU and non-EU family members, dependants etc, subject to certain requirements. It is not envisaged that there will be any enforceable legal guarantees of citizens’ rights between the EU and the UK arising from the current negotiations other than those set out in the green text of the draft Withdrawal Agreement.
    2. Under the Withdrawal Agreement, a significant number of people will either not have the right to reside or will have significantly limited rights compared with the current position. These include, in particular: (a) people who do not exercise relevant rights before the end of the transition period; (b) people in relationships which do not pre-date the end of the transition period; (c) children with one or more parent who is a third country national; (d) children in care; (e) people with rights of residence under CJEU case law Surinder Singh, Lounes and Carpenter; (f) people who have acquired a permanent right of residence in another EU Member State but who are not currently resident there; (g) those who do not have (or have not at all relevant times had) comprehensive sickness insurance; and (h) those who do not make a relevant application for residence status in time.
    3. Even where rights are granted under the Withdrawal Agreement, there are ways in which those rights can be permanently lost in future, which would not arise in the same way at present under EU law, including the loss of the right of residence by certain types of absence, and loss of the right of residence as a result of conduct or criminality occurring after the transition period.
    4. The right of residence granted under the Withdrawal Agreement is restricted to a single country. This may amount to a considerable restriction, e.g., for a British citizen living in one Member State while working in another, or operating a business in more than one Member State, or hoping to expand a business to another Member State in the future. It may also amount to a considerable restriction for British nationals currently studying in one Member State while planning to work or live in another in future, and for those in the process of obtaining professional qualifications which they expected to be recognised across the EU.
    5. To be lawful under EU law, the Withdrawal Agreement will have to comply with general principles of EU law including non-discrimination, the general prohibition on retroactivity, the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, as well as EU fundamental rights.
    6. In our view, there are identifiable gaps in the protection of existing rights afforded by the Draft Withdrawal Agreement, including significant inconsistencies in the treatment of different types of relationship or categories of person who, ostensibly, appear to be similarly situated, as well as apparently neutral rules which are likely to impose a disproportionate burden on certain vulnerable groups (children, the disabled, the elderly). We think that a number of these gaps and distinctions – e.g. treating the non-EU parents of EU children differently depending on the reason for residence in the EU; distinguishing between family reunions based on the time at which a relationship arises; or denying a right to family reunion based on the time at which a need for care based on serious health grounds arises – gives rise to concerns regarding non-discrimination and consistency.
    7. Such substantial differences in treatment call for objective justification. It is far from clear that these differences, which are in many cases essentially arbitrary, can be justified in accordance with the requirements of EU law, especially bearing in mind the likely significant (and disproportionate) impact on the private and family life of affected individuals (which will include children and vulnerable or elderly adults); the risk of indirect discrimination on grounds of age; and the lack of any obvious legitimate aim justifying such differences in treatment.
    8. There is also reason to doubt the compatibility of the Draft Withdrawal Agreement with other general principles of EU Law including the principles of non-retroactivity, legal certainty and legitimate expectations, since it appears to infringe the legitimate expectations of a number of groups of individuals, such as those who had (until 2016 at least) a legitimate expectation that their rights, such as the right to reside or to obtain recognition of professional qualifications in another Member State, would not be abrogated without affording them protection.
    9. Where individuals have relied on their citizenship rights to their substantial detriment (financial and personal), in the full expectation that they would continue to enjoy such rights, e.g. in retirement or post-qualification, there is a need to justify frustrating those expectations. Again, given that certain of the groups who are affected will suffer substantial detriment, without the availability of compensation or residual protection of their rights, and in an arguably arbitrary or discriminatory manner, there must be considerable doubt as to whether the Draft Withdrawal Agreement complies with the requirements of EU law in this respect. In most cases there is no obvious “overriding” public interest justification in failing to protect such groups.
    10. Respect for fundamental rights is a condition for the legality of EU acts, including any agreement between the EU and a third country. Many fundamental rights are, in principle, potentially engaged by withdrawing the rights, entitlements and benefits conferred by EU citizenship.
    11. While the strength of any claim would depend on individual facts and circumstances, it is clear that the wholesale deprivation of EU citizenship for all UK citizens, and the deprivation of certain citizenship rights such as certain rights of family reunification, risk infringing the right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 ECHR and equivalent EU Charter rights. Again, we note that the deprivation of existing derived rights of residence, such as Zambrano rights, is likely to have a severe impact on those affected, which will include children, the elderly and disabled persons, who may be among the most seriously affected. This is likely to weigh heavily in any proportionality assessment of the effect of the Draft Agreement on those exercising derived rights of residence.
    12. The absence of any protection for the voting rights of those in Northern Ireland who have Irish citizenship, or who have (or are entitled to) both British and Irish citizenship, and who may continue to be significantly affected by decisions made by the European Parliament, is also arguably contrary to fundamental rights principles relating to the deprivation of voting rights. If, and insofar as, EU Law continues to apply to the UK as a whole after Brexit, the blanket deprivation of democratic rights of UK nationals to participate in EU Parliamentary elections may raise a fundamental rights issue.

 

  1. Under international law, the EU and UK will each remain bound as a matter of international law to continue to respect (and give effect to) “acquired rights” conferred by the EU Treaties. They will also have to respect “executed” rights, obligations or a “legal situation” created by the EU Treaties, save where the Withdrawal Agreement makes provision not to do so.
  2. We think it would be contrary to EU Law for the EU’s institutions to fail to respect the “acquired rights” of UK (or EU) citizens after Brexit, absent specific agreement as to how such rights are to be addressed in the Withdrawal Agreement. We therefore think that it will possible for individuals in possession of “acquired rights” for the purposes of international law to challenge a failure on the part of EU Law to respect the continued effect of such rights, if they are not expressly curtailed by the Withdrawal Agreement. We also think that consent on the part of the EU states or on the part of the United Kingdom to remove vested or executed rights is not to be lightly inferred.
  3. A number of the categories of rights considered in this Advice, including continuing rights of residence and/or derived rights of residence, are not expressly extinguished by the Draft Withdrawal Agreement. We consider that there is a strong argument, in particular where UK or EU citizens rely on such rights prior to the end of the Transition Period, that such rights are “vested” or “executed” and therefore continue in force as a matter of international (and therefore EU) law, absent agreement between the UK and EU to the contrary. In interpreting and applying the Withdrawal Agreement, it is strongly arguable that the Courts would have to interpret and apply EU law in accordance with these requirements.
  4. The UK and the EU27 countries will have to put in place domestic legislation to implement the Withdrawal Agreement, and the parties are likely ultimately to agree to long term arrangements for dispute settlement which will enable individuals or groups based in the United Kingdom to raise issues as to the interpretation or validity of the Withdrawal Agreement (or aspects thereof) for purposes of EU Law, premised on EU Law arguments. Where individuals in the United Kingdom consider that either provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement, or the interpretation and application of the Agreement by the United Kingdom or their country of residence is unlawful, it will be possible for individuals to rely on EU law arguments (including general principles of EU Law and arguments based on the Charter of Fundamental Rights) to bring a challenge. In addition, individuals may seek reference to the CJEU both during the Transition Period and, insofar as citizenship rights are concerned, for 8 years after the end of the Transition Period.

____________________________________________________

The People's Challenge - logoWe value your support. Just keeping track of the campaigns and challenges that have objectives that match our own takes time and effort, much of what we do costs money that we can only afford 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 (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 Brexit | Leave a comment

Why don’t people understand what EU Citizenship Rights are?

Posted on September 18, 2018 by Robert Pigney

Ex-CBI chief lambasts EU leaders and UK over citizens’ rights

Paul Drechsler says politicians should be ashamed that citizens’ rights in UK and Europe have not been guaranteed.

Paul Drechsler makes a good point, but it is clear that he does not understand what EU citizenship rights actually are.

EU citizenship rights are not just the limited right to reside, work and study that the EU and UK negotiators have distilled them down to for their convenience. Even then the rights that the EU & UK propose to “grant” are surrounded with caveats and are often less than non-EU citizens who are resident in the EU are entitled to.

So much for the EU’s promises to preserve the rights of people who have made life-changing decisions based on their EU citizenship rights. Note “preserve”: that should mean that they won’t change.

EU citizenship confers a broad and complex set of rights that we currently hold as EU citizens. You do not have to be living, working or studying in another EU country to be exercising those rights, either:

  • You might simply have a business, perhaps one that you operate personally from your home in the UK using Ebay or Amazon, which trades across the EU.
  • You may have purchased a property in a EU27 country so as to be able to retire there and exchange the high cost of living in the UK for a lower cost of living in a EU27 country with a climate that is kinder to people in their later years.
  • Perhaps you own a business in a EU27 country even though you still reside in the UK.
  • Or you may simply go on holiday in an EU27 country where you hire a car using your UK(EU) driving licence and rely on the protection of your European Health Insurance Card while you are there.

None of these rights are protected in the draft Withdrawal Agreement!

The scale of this attack on our citizenship rights is becoming clearer, and even if a withdrawal deal and a transition period are agreed, it may well only defer the day when these rights are finally lost, when Theresa May’s self-imposed red-lines result in the UK sitting outside the EU without a deal – let alone one that is even close to being as beneficial as the UK’s current membership of the EU.

We have another government minister, this time Michael Gove, seeking (deliberately?) to undermine the UK’s integrity and trustworthiness by insisting that a deal could always be undone at a later date. If the deal is undone by the Prime Minister, as Michael Gove suggests, then what happens to the few, if any, rights preserved under an exit deal?

On Monday we had Theresa May spelling out that it’s “her way or no-way”  ‘Chequers or no deal’ warning angers Tory right a position which angers people all across the political spectrum just as her “Chequers” deal does. And this is a person who serves a democratic country ruled by a sovereign parliament.

All of this, and the evidence of the social and economic damage that is already being caused in the UK, and the clear indicators of how much worse it will be after we have left the EU, is driving the increasing demand for a vote by the people on the deal that Theresa May finally agrees (or fails to agree).

At their party conference the Lib-Dems have taken a strong position that remaining in the EU has to be one of the options once we know what deal has (or has not) been struck by Theresa May. But even they do not recognise that our EU citizenship rights are not covered by the so-called protections in the draft Withdrawal Agreement.

All eyes now turn to activists and politicians in the other parties to see whether they have the courage to press for a sensible decision on what is Best for the UK.

This is not to override what weak politicians call the “will of the people”: this is to ask the people whether their will is still the same, now that we are so much better informed about the consequences of leaving the EU.

That question is not something a democracy, its parliament, government or opposition of the day should be frightened of, unless political self-interest is more important than what is Best for the UK.

Unless the interests of the people are not one of the priorities that politicians are concerned about?

It is simply asking what the will of the people is at the end of 2018 and whether it is the same as it was in mid-2016.

As David Davis said in 2012: “If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.”

____________________________________________________

The People's Challenge - logoWe value your support. Just keeping track of the campaigns and challenges that have objectives that match our own takes time and effort, much of what we do costs money that we can only afford 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 (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 Brexit | Tagged | Leave a comment

Brexit heat causes febrile activity among Brexiters and UK Government alike

Posted on September 16, 2018 by Grahame Pigney

UK government no-deal papers are appearing, that is, papers that set out real penalties for ordinary people. These penalties may still apply even if a withdrawal agreement and transition period is agreed but there is no post Brexit agreement on the relationship between the UK and the EU. Rumour has it that the most inflammatory of these papers are being held back until after the Conservative Party conference.

Don’t let’s forget, a transition period only puts off the day when we have to face up to whatever Theresa May and the Brexiters do or do not agree with the EU, and after 29th March it will be too late to decide that our current membership of the EU is actually what is Best for the UK.

But this is just what some members of the government and the Brexiters want to bounce us into – agreeing to something without knowing what it is, understanding all that it will mean or indeed anything else of significance.

And the, mostly friendly, warnings keep rolling in. This business will no longer be profitable, this business can already not find enough workers, Brexit could cost the taxpayer £x on exit day, never mind ongoing costs and increased costs. Here are some examples from recent news:

  • Dominic Raab, the recently appointed and immediately demoted Secretary of State for Leaving the European Union, lambasting John Lewis for suggesting that the post Brexit vote exchange rate has an impact on corporate profits: John Lewis’s boss rejected Dominic Raab’s Brexit jibe;
  • Government ministers, including Dominic Raab, claiming EU27 leaders were going to tone down Michel Barnier’s position on Brexit, something immediately denied by EU officials: EU leaders will not give Michel Barnier new Brexit instructions;
  • The UK trying to make side-deals with the EU states about the transport issues, a strategy that the EU has on multiple occasions said will not work. Nevertheless one of Theresa May’s acolytes, in this case Chris Grayling the “master” of all things related to transport, wrote to the EU27 states about a side deal on the transport issues. There is nothing more childish and embarrassing than being caught sneaking around to the back door in the hope of getting a better reception. Plus it only serves to confirm a view of the UK as “perfidious Albion”;
  • The currency markets misreading comments that Michel Barnier made and sending sterling into such a tizzy it managed to climb back a few cents from its current low. But when you look at the language Michel Barnier used it is no different to other statements he has made over the past months;
  • Jaguar Land-Rover now reminding everybody that it will be a lot cheaper to produce vehicles in Slovakia, a country where J L-R is already transferred production of the Discovery to and perhaps even a new Defender: The company recently revealed production of its Discovery model will be shifted from Solihull to the new plant;
  • Stalinesque measures taken by the Tory party to silence dissenting voices at the Tory party conference: three Best for Britain members refused passes to the Tory conference.

Then there is the Chequers agreement, an agreement that nobody will back, whether Brexiter or EU state. But Theresa May and her acolytes persist in flogging this dead horse, which should be recognised for what it really is – a dead donkey that should be dropped – because effort would be far better spent elsewhere, such as working out what (at this point) is Best for the UK.

You have to wonder what could be done to improve the situation for people in the UK if the same effort was directed at removing the humiliating excesses of the “gig economy”, addressing the need for food banks and providing a NHS that targeted at the needs of the people and not the needs of some fatuous economic model.

The Brexit heat is now having a serious effect on the Brexiters, both in and out of Government. They are stumbling around, delirious and sleepy because they insisted on standing out in the hot sun screaming at the neighbours about the hedge clippers. And boy, do they get unpleasant when you suggest they might like to sit down, relax and have a nice refreshing glass of reality and common sense.

____________________________________________________

The People's Challenge - logoWe value your support. Just keeping track of the campaigns and challenges that have objectives that match our own takes time and effort, much of what we do costs money that we can only afford 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 (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, The People's Challenge, The Three Knights, What is Best for the UK? | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The summer winds down, but the Brexit heat continues to rise.

Posted on September 11, 2018 by Grahame Pigney

Evidence of the damage Brexit is doing to the country is increasing, as is the evidence that the will of the people is changing.

Some of the most convincing evidence of the change in the will of the people is the shift of opinion among the unions and their members. The motion that the TUC passed on Monday, along with the poll of Unison, Unite and GMB members confirms this.

All this is encouraging MPs, across all parties, to question the government’s premise that the choice is simple: whether the UK leaves with or without a deal.

The opposition to Brexit is growing, not because of some dogmatic, ideological opposition but because of the evidence that membership of the EU, with the concessions and opt-outs the UK has, is in the best interests of the UK. Those concessions were hard-fought and hard-won, and once lost will be gone for good, in all likelihood.

Brexit is being defended with all the negatives of ideologues who know there is nothing positive about their chosen course, but believe that they are being betrayed by everybody else turning against them – the original bunker mentality.

Meanwhile we are working away at documenting just how little protection there is for UK citizens’ rights in the draft Withdrawal Agreement.

The fact of the matter is that UK citizens’ rights can only be properly protected by the UK remaining in the EU. Any other option will result in those rights being diminished and even removed due to political expediency and pressures that play on both the UK and the EU27.

We have known for a long while just how big the gaps in the draft Withdrawal Agreement are when it comes to protecting citizenship rights. The EU and the UK have translated/downgraded citizenship rights to the right of residence and the limited right to work and study.

Too much is being predicated on the future relationship of the EU and the UK, whatever that might be, if anything, and ignores the historical situation. This is all a matter of political expediency because a proper job is just too complicated and time-consuming.

What is less obvious is that the rights being offered are in fact less than are available to citizens of non-EU countries who are long-term residents of or have long-term interests in EU countries.

There is another completely forgotten group, those UK citizens who live, work, study or have interests in Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. The negotiations about what protections may apply to them are still ongoing, according to the UK government.

The reality is that UK citizenship rights are enshrined in the laws and regulations of the other EU and EEA countries. The half-hearted protestations of the UK and EU negotiators that they are being protected are little more than political window dressing.

That is not to say that there isn’t any redress available for the removal of these citizenship rights, there is, the work by our legal team shows that. But it will involve individuals and groups of individuals challenging governments and possibly the EU in the courts.

We should not accept the reduction or restriction of these fundamental rights by government or administrative fiat, just as we didn’t when Theresa May tried to trigger Article 50 using archaic Royal Prerogative.

We will continue to support, and intervene in or initiate where appropriate, challenges to the UK government and the EU which protect the constitutional right of UK citizens to have their citizenship rights determined and protected by the UK’s Parliament.

Politicians cannot be allowed to bodge what is happening today and threaten the future of the UK in order to cover their incompetence/ignorance at the expense of the people of the UK.

Over the next few weeks we will set out in more detail how UK citizens’ rights are being ignored and compromised in the Brexit negotiations.

What is very clear is that the only way to fully protect UK citizenship rights is for the UK to remain in the EU and for the UK’s Parliament to face up to its responsibilities as the protector of those rights.

As UK citizens we also have a responsibility to stand up for Parliamentary sovereignty and support our representatives, parliamentarians and others, in protecting our rights.

 

____________________________________________________

The People's Challenge - logoWe value your support. Just keeping track of the campaigns and challenges that have objectives that match our own takes time and effort, much of what we do costs money that we can only afford 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 (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 Brexit, Democracy, The Millions in the Margins, What is Best for the UK?, What Is Best for UK | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment