EU Parliament will “pay attention to the matters The People’s Challenge has raised” – Guy Verhofstadt

Posted on March 9, 2018 by Robert Pigney

As you know, we wrote to a number of the key players in the EU about the concerns we have on the way that the rights of British nationals are being ignored by both the EU and the UK in the exit negotiations.

Guy Verhofstadt has replied in a very positive and supportive manner: “I fully understand your concerns. While progress has been made in the negotiations in the meantime, the current state of play is still far from the desired outcome and does not provide the much needed security our citizens need.”

The protection of the EU citizenship rights of British nationals is being dealt with by both the EU and the UK in a very arbitrary and simplistic manner. The proposals outlined in the draft exit treaty are discriminatory in the treatment of EU27 nationals and British nationals. The EU and the UK are further discriminating between the various groups of British nationals depending on their origins and/or their current place of residence.

Despite assurances from the leaders of the leave movement and various members of the UK’s government, nothing about the UK leaving the EU has turned out to be as simple and easy as we were told it would be.

The more we focus on the specifics, the details of what needs to happen, the more it is glaringly obvious that you cannot just say “Brexit is Brexit”. It is not like simply saying “abracadabra” and waving a wand to make something disappear – or appear, for that matter.

Even now the problems facing ordinary people and the impact on their lives and families are being ignored.

In this the EU is not always the benevolent, avuncular organisation it is trying to portray itself as. As an example, the EU, despite a proposal from the UK, has refused to give British nationals resident in EU27 countries guaranteed freedom of movement after the UK leaves the EU, whereas EU27 nationals resident in the UK will enjoy freedom of movement rights covering the UK and the EU27 countries.

The EU promised to protect the rights of British nationals who have exercised their EU citizenship rights, but fine words butter no parsnips. Partial protection of the rights of British nationals who are resident in EU27 countries, and continue to be resident there after exit day, is not the same thing at all.

The People’s Challenge has been working to protect the fundamental citizenship rights of British nationals since we initiated the challenge to the government over its proposed use of the Royal Prerogative back in July 2016.

We raised with Guy Verhofstadt the fact that British nationals are not just being ignored but are being discriminated against in the exit negotiations. It is not just British nationals currently living in EU27 countries who have made important life decisions about their future, their family and their finances based on the fundamental rights they hold as EU citizens.

Guy Verhofstadt responded to these concerns by saying: “You rightly point out that the scope of affected people is wider than those citizens living abroad. There are many unfortunate consequences we have to address as a result of the UK’s decision to leave the EU. Citizens’ rights are a priority for the European Parliament and, while this is also dependent on the UK Government’s position, we will do our utmost to ensure the best possible outcome of the negotiations. From the moment this process started I have been convinced that some sort of special solution needs to be found for those citizens who want to maintain their ties with the European Union.”

Many politicians ignore how the situation we are faced with affects and will continue to affect ordinary people and their families long into the future.

They prefer to stick to addressing the “big” issues of GDP, global influence and the sound bites of “No deal is better than a Bad deal” when talking about a “Red, White and Blue Brexit”.

Some of these things are undoubtedly important, others are just playground chants. But there is nothing more important than the protection of individuals and their rights.

Fortunately some politicians understand these issues. Guy Verhofstadt is one of those. He has long stood up for the rights of ALL EU citizens, including those being dragged out of the EU by the manner in which the UK government has unilaterally decided to implement the referendum result.

However, Guy Verhofstadt is a realist and not just a politician spouting platitudes to his audience: “It will be a very difficult process but we will pay attention to the matters the People’s Challenge has raised and I can assure you that the European Parliament will continue to fight for the rights of all citizens.”

There is still a long way to go and we need to have more people, not just Guy Verhofstadt, standing up for us and applying some common sense to the problem.

Also, we all have to work to move public and political opinion to the focus of the all-important issue – what is Best for the UK and its people.

We have made a start and there is very little time left to finish the job. But we can finish the job.

It is perhaps appropriate that as spring arrives there has been a glimmer, not just of hope but of realism shining through.

Just as the early shoots of spring need protecting against the ravages of late frosts, we need to protect and nurture those fragile shoots of hope and realism against the ravages of dogma and falsehood.

____________________________________________________

We value your support. Just keeping track of the campaigns and challenges that have The People's Challenge - logoobjectives 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.

If you share our concerns about the work needed to promote the outcome which is in the best interests of the UK, please consider making a donation by clicking on the Gold Card image above.

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 another contribution 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 send us a donation 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, EU Parliament, The People's Challenge | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Why the Brexit challenge in Amsterdam is making The People’s Challenge work even more important.

Posted on March 5, 2018 by Robert Pigney

The surprise appeal by the Netherlands Government against the ruling in the Amsterdam case has shifted the priorities of what needs to be done.

The Amsterdam case is not just about British nationals living in EU27 countries, despite the way it is portrayed by the press and even by its supporters/promoters. It is because of this much wider context that The People’s Challenge can bring important perspective, knowledge and experience to both the arguments and the importance of those arguments.

When a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Amsterdam challenge was assured the primary question was about how the work we are doing and have done fitted with/complemented the 2nd question the CJEU was going to be asked to rule on – what, if any, conditions should apply to the maintenance of EU citizenship rights when a country leaves the EU.

Now that there is an appeal against the referral the work we have planned is even more important and urgent as it may be the basis of the last line of defence on protecting the EU citizenship rights of British nationals.

We have always made the results of the work we do publicly available and we have confirmed that this will be the case with the work we are doing on how many British nationals are being ignored in the current EU/UK negotiations.  Just to be quite clear we will also be providing this information to the legal team working on the Amsterdam case.

We have already done much work on the fundamental constitutional importance of EU citizenship rights. It was this work that was pivotal, even decisive, in the “Miller” case. This work has done much to set out the limits of the UK government’s legitimate powers and reinforce Parliamentary Sovereignty over the important decisions that have to be made in deciding what is in the best interest of the U.K. & N.I.

Despite the assertion of the EU that their focus is on EU citizenship rights and the need to protect those rights for all EU citizens, the reality is that, as far as British nationals are concerned, both the EU and the UK are largely only concerning themselves with some of the rights of British nationals who will be resident in an EU27 country on exit day.

There are millions of other British nationals apart from those currently resident in EU27 countries who have shaped their lives and made important family, social and financial decisions based on their EU citizenship rights and the exercising of them.

The fact of the matter is that the draft EU/UK withdrawal treaty only provides partial protection for those British nationals who are actually resident or working in EU27 countries at the exit date; it is a very simplistic and possibly even discriminatory focus the EU & the UK have.

The identification and protection of the EU citizenship rights and therefore the British nationals at risk was one of the issues we set out in our “Milestones on the Road to Brexit” document and the reason we extended our fund-raising target from £45,000 to £75,000.

All this depends on being able to move our fund-raising beyond the £41,700 it has reached. The £75,000 target we recently set is very much the minimum we need to raise under these new circumstances. Mounting a challenge in a national court, let alone an international court, even just helping in one is an expensive process no matter whether that is in the UK, an EU member state or one of the supra-national courts such as the CJEU, ECHR etc.

Whether we mount our own challenge or work with others as we did in the “Miller” case, the principle of defending fundamental citizenship rights of British nationals and ensuring the rule of law is paramount.

We believe we can add considerable value to the challenge that is being mounted in Amsterdam, but this relies once again on people spreading the word and helping to raise the funding.

____________________________________________________

We value your support. Just keeping track of the campaigns and challenges that have The People's Challenge - logoobjectives 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.

If you share our concerns about the work needed to promote the outcome which is in the best interests of the UK, please consider making a donation by clicking on the Gold Card image above.

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 another contribution 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 send us a donation 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, Legal Milestones, The People's Challenge | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Why protecting EU citizenship rights needs more than one approach.

Posted on February 14, 2018 by Grahame Pigney

I have been asked whether the work we are doing isn’t duplicating the “Amsterdam” challenge and the questions being asked of the CJEU.

In fact the two issues are separate and reasonably distinct and both, for their own reasons, deserve to be supported and followed through.

The Amsterdam challenge is based in what has been called the “stone-by-stone” approach that the CJEU follows when making decisions and establishing the jurisprudence of EU law.

In this case the stones are a series of CJEU rulings relating to the right of individuals to their EU citizenship rights under circumstances where individual member states had sought to remove or ignore those rights.

The Amsterdam challenge is seeking to add another “stone” to the process and asking the CJEU to declare that EU citizenship rights are personal and individual and as such cannot be removed because your country of nationality decides to leave the EU. The CJEU is also being asked what, if any, criteria apply to the retention of EU citizenship rights under such circumstances.

The work we are doing is focused on the arbitrary and possibly discriminatory framework being used by the EU and the UK to protect what they define as EU citizenship rights for the purposes of the exit negotiations.

Broadly speaking the EU and the UK have decided that EU citizenship rights have only been exercised, and therefore need protecting, in the situation where an EU citizen is currently resident in an EU country other than his/her country of nationality.

This is plainly a nonsense as there are many ways of making significant personal, family and financial decisions based on EU citizenship rights which do not involve being resident in another EU member state at the time of making the decision or perhaps at all.

Equally nonsensically the individual may well have been resident in another EU state at some time in the past, the fact that they are currently not resident in that state, or any other of the states, does not in some way “un-exercise” those rights.

We are looking at the various courses of action open to individuals and groups of individuals in a wider context than just EU law and in a wider context than just the British nationals currently living in EU27 countries.

We also want to be able to present this researched and documented legal advice to MPs, MEPs and members of the UK devolved assemblies. Ultimately it is these representatives of ours who need to be fully informed of what is happening so that they can make the appropriate decisions.

Both sets of work are important, perhaps even crucial, for the reasonable and equitable treatment of all EU citizens, including British nationals at home or in EU27 countries, at a time when governments and administrations are seemingly focused on simplistic and expedient solutions.

Contrary to what the Government would like us to believe, we are faced with a complex, multi-facetted problem.

A problem which is open to multiple solutions and it will require a number of the best of those solutions in order to find the answer that is the best interest of Britain and its people.

____________________________________________________

We value your support. If you share our concerns about the work needed to promote the outcome which is in the best interests of the UK, please consider making a donation by clicking on the Gold Card image. The People's Challenge - logo

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.

To help protect our fundamental rights, and support Parliament in safeguarding them, please send us a donation 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, The People's Challenge, What is Best for the UK? | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Everybody, not just the few, deserves to have their citizenship rights protected.

Posted on February 12, 2018 by Robert Pigney

Ensuring the rule of law and the protection of people’s fundamental citizenship rights are key elements of our challenge.

They go back to the very first action we took when we initiated a challenge to the UK government’s intention to illegally use the Royal Prerogative to trigger the Article 50 notice.

The arguments we put forward in court about fundamental citizenship rights were decisive in winning that case; indeed some involved in the case have said the government would have won the case if we had not put those arguments forward.

We originally launched our current GoFundMe campaign in order to do two things: raise money to sustain the campaign work and relieve the financial burden on the 2-3 people who previously shouldered it, we also needed funds in order to update some of our previously-published material and re-examine the opportunities for further challenges in the light of the on-going exit negotiations.

The questions of people’s fundamental rights and the observance of the rule of law are now coming into sharp focus again.

At this time the negotiations are still extremely vague and it is still unclear who will be protected under the final agreement.

It is even less clear who should be protected by law from the fallout of a politically expedient set of negotiations.

The EU and the UK are treating EU citizenship rights as something that is only triggered by a single event: you move to a country and stay there, like transplanting a tree. We are not trees.

The reality of the situation is that EU citizenship rights are embodied in a variety of laws and regulations that enable an individual to live, study, work, retire in any of the EU member states. Exercising these citizenship rights can happen in a singular, discrete moment or they can be exercised as part of an ongoing event or events. Entitlement to these citizenship rights is in no way predicated on residing in an EU state other than your country of nationality.

It is unlikely that all EU citizenship rights can be preserved for all UK citizens; there is only one way that can be done with certainty. On the other hand it is clear that both the UK and the EU have opted for an arbitrary and simplistic scenario as a basis for the agreement on citizenship rights.

We have discussed this with our legal team led by John Halford and feel that The People’s Challenge can make a significant contribution to casting light on these issues, as indicated in previous posts.

Therefore we’ve put together an expert team to advise on who should be protected by the draft citizens’ agreement but have been left out of it, and the deficiencies in the protections being proposed for those groups covered by the draft.

We will then publish two documents – one for those groups of people who have reasonable prospects of being able to protect some or all of their EU citizenship rights through some form of legal challenge, and another document for those who have been left behind with seemingly little or no practical legal recourse.

And so now we have raised the limit for our campaign in order to fund work which will be undertaken by a team of legal experts led by John Halford.

This work affects millions of people. As well as publishing this material we will use it to inform and lobby MPs, MEPs and the members of the UK devolved assemblies on the deficiencies in the current draft agreement on protecting EU citizenship rights.

The era of governments being unaccountable for their actions is long gone and we need your help to again remind our political representatives of this.

If you care about the fundamental rights that Brexit puts in jeopardy, and the need for Parliament to safeguard them effectively, please help us to maintain our campaign and continue to stand up for you.

We need your support, please share and donate.

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

____________________________________________________

We value your support. If you share our concerns about the work needed to promote the outcome which is in the best interests of the UK, please consider making a donation by clicking on the Gold Card image.The People's Challenge - logo

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.

To help protect our fundamental rights, and support Parliament in safeguarding them, please send us a donation 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

What was that Mr Rees-Mogg? – For Queen and Party?

Posted on January 28, 2018 by Robert Pigney

In a piece in the Telegraph, reported here via Pressreader, Jacob Rees-Mogg describes how important Brexit is:

“If the Conservative party doesn’t deliver the Brexit that the British people voted for, the Conservatives will not win the next election. The leader is important, but the party is more important. Brexit is more important than anyone other than the Queen.”

Significantly what is missing is any mention of either the UK or its people.

So Jacob Rees-Mogg’s take on the situation is that this is all for Queen and Tory party, even the leader of the Tory party coming somewhere after that.

This is not exactly news, it has been clear for some time that the Brexit agenda has been and is being driven by party political motives and a desire to remain in power.

In the same article Jacob Rees-Mogg says:

“The less of Brexit you get, the more likely you are to get Jeremy Corbyn, If you get a good, clean Brexit, and get the advantages from it, then the chances of getting Jeremy Corbyn are much diminished.”

This party political motive has been confirmed today by David Liddington, the deputy Prime Minster, when he said:

“There are differences in any broad church, but look at what the bigger picture is showing. The bigger picture is showing that after eight years in government, we’re neck and neck with the Labour party in the polls.”

Whatever we think Brexit is about, it is not about party politics, it is about what is best for the UK.

Members of Parliament and the members of the House of Lords have a sworn duty to act in the best interest of the UK and its people.  Jacob Rees-Mogg seems to need reminding of this.

Mr Rees-Mogg, and some of our other elected officials, would do well to reflect on what the Queen said in 1953 on the matter of sworn duty to the country and its people – Queen’s Coronation speech.

A valid question for anybody to ask their MP is – “Where do you stand on duty to your country and duty to your party, which takes precedence?”

____________________________________________________

We value your support. If you share our concerns about the work needed to promote the outcome which is in the best interests of the UK, please consider making a donation by clicking on the Gold Card image.The People's Challenge - logo

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.

To help protect our fundamental rights, and support Parliament in safeguarding them, please send us a donation 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, The People's Challenge, What is Best for the UK? | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Government excesses can no longer be tolerated, politics has to work for everyone.

Posted on January 21, 2018 by Grahame Pigney

In a Guardian article entitled “Boardroom excesses can no longer be tolerated. The economy has to work for all.” Theresa May wrote about how she wants to raise the standards of corporate governance, something that undoubtedly needs doing.

However, there seems to be more than a little of “the pot calling the kettle black” in what she says.

Theresa May said, “We should always aim for the best and never settle for anything less.” It is impossible to disagree with this statement, so why is it all but impossible to get the Government to spell out how their plan for the UK’s future is better than what we have as a member of the EU?

This brings us back to the impact analyses that the Government has apparently not done.

The presence, or absence, of these impact analyses leads us to another of the principles that Theresa May wants to see company directors adhere to: “And, for the first time, businesses will have to demonstrate that they have taken into account the long-term consequences of their decisions.”

If it is essential that businesses demonstrate the long-term consequences of their decisions, a point that no reasonable person could dispute, isn’t it just as important that the government not only applies the same due diligence to its policies, but also demonstrates that it has done so.

Theresa May’s admirable pursuit of corporate accountability leads her to say, “Companies will also have to explain how they take into account their employees’ interests at board level, giving unscrupulous employers nowhere to hide.”

This seems more than a little at odds with the self-serving secrecy surrounding the cabal at the heart of the current government. There is little evidence of consideration of the interests of UK citizens in the Cabinet Room, except of course for the imperative need for them to be able to carry blue passports.

Theresa May also says “Too often, we’ve seen top executives reaping big bonuses for recklessly putting short-term profit ahead of long-term success. Our best businesses know that is not a responsible way to run a company and those who do so will be forced to explain themselves.”

We know that this sort of short-termism is in part driven by share price and the ability to pay dividends. Despite these imperatives for a publicly-owned company, Theresa May highlights the more important need to focus on long-term need not short-term expediency.

Translating Theresa May’s phraseology about corporate responsibility into equally pithy phraseology about political responsibility:

“Too often, we’ve seen politicians reaping political kudos for recklessly putting short-term popularity ahead of the long-term interest of the UK and its people. Our best politicians know that is not a responsible way to run a country and those who do so will be forced to explain themselves.”

It would be very satisfying to find a political leader who would say “I will fine self-serving politicians who betray the electorate.”

A Prime Minister who would be prepared to stand up for this proposition could be considered as one of the great figures in the panoply of UK political leaders.

This is why we must continue to support those politicians who are seeking to hold the government to account and act in the best interest of the UK and the people of the UK.

At the same time we need to seek to persuade those who appear to be acting out of self-interest and/or short-termism that they have a greater duty than that.

We must show that we are not just fodder for the ballot box. If a political party wants our support, it must first and foremost be a party of substance and integrity that is prepared to act, not for popularity, but because it is first and foremost acting in the best interest of the country.

____________________________________________________

We value your support. If you share our concerns about the work needed to promote the outcome which is in the best interests of the UK, please consider making a donation by clicking on the Gold Card image.The People's Challenge - logo

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.

To help protect our fundamental rights, and support Parliament in safeguarding them, please send us a donation 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, Meaningful Vote, Political Integrity, What is Best for the UK?, What Is Best for UK | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

I don’t think I’ll be appearing on a chat show anytime soon but…

Posted on January 8, 2018 by Robert Pigney

 

Crowdjustice interviewed me about why I organised The People’s Challenge on Crowdjustice.

 

Posted in Crowd Justice, The People's Challenge | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Another year, another challenge.

Posted on January 3, 2018 by Robert Pigney

It’s 18 months since we initiated the challenge to the Government over its intention to bypass Parliament and use the ancient Royal Prerogative to trigger Article 50.

This was the start of a fight to ensure that it is Parliament that decides where the future of the UK lies and not a handful of people in Whitehall.

In less than a fortnight it will be the first anniversary of the UK’s Supreme Court upholding our challenge by saying that it was for Parliament to decide and the Government could not use Royal Prerogative to trigger Article 50.

At the same time as the Supreme Court did this we commissioned the “Three Knights Opinion”, the most authoritative opinion yet on the revocability of the Article 50 notification, which takes into account both UK and EU law.

The Three Knights’ assertion that Article 50 is unilaterally revocable is supported by the opinions of both Lord Kerr, one of the authors of Article 50, and Jean-Claude Piris, Legal Counsel to the EU Council, Director of its Legal Services from 1988 to 2010 and also Legal Advisor to the inter-governmental conference which negotiated the Treaty of Lisbon of which Article 50 is a part.

The question of the revocability of Article 50, the EU law element of it at least, is now to be tested in the courts. A group of Scottish parliamentarians have asked the Court of Session in Edinburgh to refer the question to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Obviously we, with our legal team, are keeping a close watch on this challenge, if we feel that we can contribute to the challenge, and by doing so improve the chances of the challenge being successful, we will apply to be a participant.

The other work that has occupied a great deal of our time, and money, over the past year has been working with other groups to inform people and politicians of the absolute necessity to ensure that decisions are made based on “What is Best for the UK” rather than some dogmatic philosophy of “Brexit is Brexit”.

From the very start of our campaign 18 months ago, a fundamental principle has been “What is in the best interest of the UK?”

That is why we have to ensure that Parliament makes these decisions: MPs and members of the House of Lords have a sworn duty to act in the national and public interest.

While the referendum result said, by a miniscule margin, that more UK citizens who voted preferred to leave the EU than to remain, the decisions about what happens next have not been made by the public or their representatives in Parliament.

Indeed, it seems as if not even the Cabinet has made these decisions.

What has happened is in-fighting within the Government, in-fighting which sadly seems to have more to do with personal political advancement than what is best for the UK.

This has produced an inconclusive and ill-defined position based on anodyne soundbites, as the Government seeks to take the UK out of the EU without Parliament ever making the decision on what is best for the future of the UK and its people.

But our Sovereign Parliament has demonstrated that this is not acceptable behaviour by the Government.

The unprecedented number of amendments tabled to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, which brought on the first Government defeat when the Dominic Grieve’s amendment 7 was passed, shows that Parliament is not prepared to see the Government annexe wide-ranging powers to take further action without Parliament’s approval (i.e. the passing of an Act of Parliament). And the debate over amendments isn’t finished yet!

MPs’ sworn duty is to act in the best interest of the UK, also taking account of the views of their constituents. Making them aware of the feeling in the country is vital. This is a major objective of the lobbying process.

Another key objective is to inform them of important facts they might be unaware of – given the amount of information not being divulged by the Government unless it’s compelled to, this latter role becomes even more important.

To this end, we have been working on how best to pursue the lobbying process. Working with experienced professionals, we have expanded what we do from lobbying UK parliamentarians to lobbying EU parliamentarians and other key decision-makers in both the UK and the rest of the EU.

As an example we have written to key decision-makers in the EU setting out how the deal on EU citizenship rights falls far short of protecting those EU citizens, including those from the UK, who have made life-changing decisions based on the UK’s membership of the EU.

This work is far less obvious and much less dramatic than beating the Government in court. However, it is no less important.

There were 494 amendments to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill in the committee stage, all of which we had to read and understand so that we could decide where to apply our resources most effectively.

Whatever the outcome of the “Brexit” process, what is happening has an even greater significance for the future of UK democracy and Parliament’s sovereignty.

If the UK is to leave the EU it has to be because that is “What is Best for the UK” and not because some cabal in the Government has decided that leaving the EU is in their best interest.

At present, Parliament is being “allowed” a very grudgingly-given opportunity to debate and vote on some of the “mechanics” of the leaving process. But when the result of the negotiations is known, our MPs must have a meaningful vote as to whether that result will leave the UK in a better position than its current one.

So the work goes on. We continue to be vigilant about costs, but the making of omelettes inevitably involves the breaking of eggs! Aside from the usual overheads of running any campaign organisation we need specialist advice from our litigation team, plus advice from professionals on how best to influence what is happening in the UK and EU parliaments.

So we continue to rely on contributions from our supporters both new and existing. As always, thank you to those who have been sticking with us along the way, and to new supporters, thank you for joining us. Please help us as much as you can, any and every contribution is valuable, and again, thank you.

Finally, let us wish you a Happy New Year! And may this year be even more successful than the last!

____________________________________________________

We value your support. If you share our concerns about the work needed to promote the outcome which is in the best interests of the UK, please consider making a donation by clicking on the Gold Card image.The People's Challenge - logo

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.

To help protect our fundamental rights, and support Parliament in safeguarding them, please send us a donation 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 People's Challenge | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Democracy Strikes Back

Posted on December 13, 2017 by Robert Pigney

On Wednesday evening, in the most emphatic manner, Westminster democracy delivered a blow to Whitehall dictatorship. Parliament will endure the Government’s Brexit shenanigans no more.

The most extreme and condescending of the Henry VIII powers the Govt. was seeking to grab in the EU (Withdrawal) bill was turned into a “meaningful” vote in Parliament by principled and persistent MPs who disclosed the whips’ methods.

David Davis had tried to head this off by offering each chamber of Parliament a largely meaningless resolution on the eventual exit agreement, as a sop supposedly evidencing that the Govt. had no intention to ignore Parliament.

As anybody with knowledge of Parliamentary procedure knows, a resolution, even of both houses, is not binding. A Govt. can easily ignore such parliamentary devices, as they have been doing for months now with various Opposition resolutions passed in the Commons.

The Govt. whips have gone to extraordinary lengths to persuade MPs to “toe the line”, to the extent that they have apparently threatened legal action against MPs who disclose the whips’ methods.

Wednesday’s result is the product of a great deal of effort and resilience by MPs, and the campaigners who have mobilised support for them, to make sure that Parliament and not the Govt. retains control of both the process and the final outcome.

This is what The People’s Challenge has been talking about for some time: Parliamentary Sovereignty. Our elected MPs are taking charge, as they have done before and will continue to do.

This is not the end of what we need to do. The Govt. is likely to try and reverse this vote before this bill receives Royal Assent and more Henry VIII powers are surely to come in future Bills, but it could be the beginning of “Taking Back Control”.

Thank you to all of you who have contacted your MPs to express your concerns about unrestricted Govt. powers, you helped tonights victory happen. If your MP supported amendment 7 congratulate him/her on making a stand on your behalf, if not, ask them why he/she did not support Parliamentary Sovereignty?

____________________________________________________

We value your support. If you share our concerns about the work needed to promote the outcome which is in the best interests of the UK, please consider making a donation by clicking on the Gold Card image.The People's Challenge - logo

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.

To help protect our fundamental rights, and support Parliament in safeguarding them, please send us a donation 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, What is Best for the UK? | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Forging ahead to secure accountability and protect rights

Posted on December 9, 2017 by Robert Pigney

Fuelled by the generous donations of our supporters to our ‘core funding’ GoFundMe campaign, we have been preparing in earnest for the next stages of The People’s Challenge. Here’s a short update on what we and our lawyers have been up to.

To begin with, we asked our solicitor, Bindmans’ John Halford, for a full update of our unique Legal Milestones Guide on the direction of travel, the points at which the politics of Brexit must give way to the demands of the law and how some of the fundamental rights which individuals currently enjoy, thanks to the UK’s membership of the EU, might be protected for the future.

Here then is the updated Guide packed with hyperlinks to the information that underpins it.

John and some of our barristers have also been busy identifying where legal and other action might most effectively safeguard rights and genuinely democratic accountability. They have identified five pressure points where we are actively considering action, or supporting others in taking it.

They are:

  • Helping enforce information rights. Parliament has secured a “compendium” of the much-mentioned sectoral impact assessments, but the public has yet to see even that. Depending on developments in Parliament, we may take or intervene in litigation to press for full disclosure of civil servants’ view of the impact of Brexit in all of its forms.

 

  • Shining a spotlight on the EU ‘fundamental rights safety net’. There is no prospect whatsoever of a withdrawal agreement preserving all EU rights that have been exercised in the past by UK nationals elsewhere in the EU or other EU nationals here in the UK in a form that means they will be freely available for future use.

But, to be lawful, any withdrawal agreement must itself be compatible with the basic principles of the existing EU treaties, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights (of which the UK but also the EU as an institution are signatories).

We are investigating who might be ‘left behind’ by the citizens’ rights chapter of any UK/EU withdrawal agreement, and how MEPs may intervene to test whether this is lawful.

  • Enforcing anti-discrimination rights. Pending Brexit, EU law remains fully enforceable within the UK too. Besides the Charter, there are the free movement and anti-discrimination provisions of the Treaties and particular directives. And this is complemented by the UK’s own domestic anti-discrimination framework, found in the Equality Act 2010 and relevant parts of the Human Rights Act 1998. We are on the lookout for systemic policies and practices of discrimination against EU and EEA nationals in the UK that might be decisively challenged by ourselves, or affected people, using existing law.

 Brexit must not become a licence to discriminate against anyone.

  • Unpacking the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. It is well known that the Bill is riddled with Henry VIII clauses – power granting provisions that purport to allow Ministers to amend the law without further Parliamentary scrutiny to manage the consequences of Brexit behind closed Whitehall doors.

 It is far less well understood how that might be challenged, especially when fundamental rights end up overridden. We are planning a citizens’ guide to the Bill, the true extent of what it could permit and the dangers that presents.

  • Securing Parliament’s final say. The current Withdrawal Bill cannot satisfy the UK constitution’s loudest demand – that Parliament always has the final say when citizens’ rights may be lost.

 This applies to any withdrawal agreement – and to departure from the EU if talks break down. And the demand will not be met by the Bill being amended to set 29 March 2019 as an EU departure date. That is because the negotiations are not yet concluded, the Bill is likely to be passed ahead of any agreement and, at best, the Bill is concerned only with those rights that can be transposed into UK law.

Once the extent to which rights will be abrogated or extinguished it becomes clearer, and if at that time the Government is unwilling to seek Parliament’s authority for withdrawal in an Act, a further Miller-style challenge may be mounted by way of judicial review.

 

Ultimately, this issue would need to be determined by the UK’s Supreme Court. As in Miller, it would need to decide who must ultimately take responsibility for Brexit on the terms that will then be known – the Government or Parliament itself.

We are pleased to see that our and other groups’ efforts on one subject are starting to produce results: Guy Verhofstadt has said that UK citizens living in the EU 27 having their EU freedom of movement rights guaranteed post-Brexit should be one of the EU Parliament’s red-lines.

It’s a start, and it’s one of the topics we covered when writing to Messrs Barnier, Juncker, Tajani, Tusk and Verhofstadt in October.

We also made a submission last month to the House of Lords EU Justice sub-committee on how the currently-proposed protections fall short of providing “reciprocal protection for Union and UK citizens, to enable the effective exercise of rights derived from Union law and based on past life choices, where those citizens have exercised free movement rights by the specified date”.

As we have said all along, for UK citizens resident in the EU 27, right to reside on its own is insufficient for them to retain parity of rights with EU 27s resident in the UK, let alone their existing rights.

Nor will the currently-proposed protections stop major losses of rights for UK citizens currently living in the UK who have made life choices based on the EU freedoms they currently enjoy.

In order to develop and publicise these issues further, we will be compiling a categorised list of people directly affected by Brexit-related loss of rights, and more information about what they stand to lose (rights, guarantees, recourse, etc.) as things currently stand.

This list will be a “roadmap” for a (hopefully) clearer understanding of who is affected and how. Although we have written quite extensively on this subject, we feel that a lot of people will still be unpleasantly surprised by the extent of the losses and the numbers affected.

This list will be as exhaustive as we can make it, but we have to produce it in a meaningful timescale. We hope to co-operate with other groups in this endeavour in order to minimise any duplication of effort and to produce a consolidated and verified list.

Notes.

  1. EU Commission Press Release on “sufficient progress” having been made;
  2. The Three Knights Opinion on the revocability of the Article 50 notification;
  3. The People’s Challenge “Legal Milestones on the road to Brexit”.

____________________________________________________

We value your support. If you share our concerns about the work needed to promote the outcome which is in the best interests of the UK, please consider making a donation by clicking on the Gold Card image.The People's Challenge - logo

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.

To help protect our fundamental rights, and support Parliament in safeguarding them, please send us a donation 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, Legal Milestones | Tagged , , | Leave a comment