Total Visits

Tuesday, 14 May 2019

Opponents are attempting to undermine the Brexit case

‘The flak is heaviest when you are over the target!’

Opponents are attempting to undermine the Brexit case

It has been interesting over the last few weeks to see a rise in attacks on the English Democrats and on myself and also on anybody who has supported us over our case (to have the High Court Declare that the UK left the EU at the expiry of our Notice on the 29th March). 

Initially some opponents tried to suggest that the case was simply hopeless. 

Nigel Farage was one of those saying on his LBC Show that the constitution was so vague and that the judges are so doubtful that the case had no hope.  Since he said that he has come fully out with his The Brexit Party Limited, in which he seems to be the sole shareholder and is a joint director with Richard Tice.  I found it odd that Nigel should say that.

Hasn’t his behaviour over the leadership of UKIP and recently in his attacks on UKIP shown all too clearly the nature of Nigel Farage’s character?  Especially when you consider it was UKIP that gave Farage his platform, not the other way around. 

To be fair to him, he has, however, developed into a fantastic public speaker and debater and no doubt in this EU election the Brexit Party may even get 30 of the 72 UK European Parliamentary seats, which would be an achievement almost at the top of the range of possible.  However once that has been achieved that result will make absolutely no difference either to what happens in the European Parliament or what happens in the Westminster Parliament.  Those Leavers who think that The Brexit Party might help achieve Brexit are doomed to be disappointed. 

We have also had Bill Cash, his respective claimant, Barry Legg, and the Tory Thatcherite Eurosceptic Bruges Group make out that they are going to run a case.  Interestingly the case that they proposed to run, even if successful, wouldn’t actually get us out of the EU. In any case, they haven’t as yet even issued proceedings.  They have merely written to the Government’s lawyers.  This decoy has however received more mainstream media coverage than our case, which if successful will get us out! 

It is to my mind suspicious that the mainstream media have also given Nigel Farage and his The Brexit Party as much coverage as they have.  They are no doubt hoping to decoy Leavers’ support, money and efforts into The Brexit Party as ‘Displacement Activity’.

Since I have published the legal arguments, both on our side and on the Government’s side, it has become very difficult for opponents to argue that this is a case without substance. 

I might add that both I and our barrister, Francis Hoar, have shown the case and arguments to many solicitors and barristers, including quite a few QCs.  It is only the few that have been paid to argue against us who have suggested that our case is not a strong one in law.  This makes it hard for opponents to argue against the case.  They also would have little influence on its outcome since that will be decided in the High Court, where the result will not be capable of being influenced by them. 

In the circumstances they have chosen to attack the only thing where we have a weakness which of course is fundraising. 

The mainstream media have played their part by refusing to give us any coverage.  In contrast to the Gina Miller case which by this stage in her case she was receiving almost daily wall to wall coverage.  My recollection is that you could hardly turn on the radio or television for any “news” items without hearing something about Gina Miller and her case! 

Of course Gina Miller was not so dependent on the good wishes of lots of supportive donors as we are.  She seems to have got her money for her case from extremely well-funded Remain supporting Big Business, Financiers and Lobby Groups, who collectively were able to provide all the financial resources needed. 

Of course part of the reason she got as much coverage as she did was because at that time Remainers thought that her case could derail Brexit entirely.  It was no doubt the thought that she might be going to succeed in blocking Brexit that led to her receiving the on-line abuse that she has complained of. 

The fact that she has now signed up to front one of George Soros’ organisations to try and derail Brexit (I have been told), shows that her motivation probably was to try to derail Brexit. However the poetic justice that occasionally emerges in life is that her case helps ours no end and may actually be the key to getting us out of the EU on a ‘no deal’ basis as of the 29th March. 

Going back to the attacks on funding, the way in which donations have been made so far have been partly through the English Democrats website:- EnglishDemocrats.Party.  

Over £58,000 of donations have been earmarked for the case, although we have also had an upsurge in people joining our Party and in donating to the other appeals that we have made, such as to pay for leaflets to distribute in the EU elections.  

We have also had kind volunteers help promote the case and help collect money for us.  We are very grateful to those, but they are of course not part of the English Democrats.  It is simply dishonest of our opponents to suggest otherwise. 

We have a crowd.justice page for any genuine supporters of the case who do not wish to donate in any way through the English Democrats, as, of course, they may be politically opposed to English nationalism, but yet still be very much in favour of Brexit.  Our crowd funder page is:-

Despite having done all this to make our fundraising as easily accessible and as open as possible, we have had attacks from various sides. 

Some are supporters of the decoy The Brexit Party, but, of course, some are Leftist, internationalist, Remainers.  So far as I can work out none of those that have attacked us have actually donated to funding the case at all.  Therefore their attacks are simply ‘instrumentalist’ devices to try to undermine the only weakness in our bringing our case effectively to trial, sufficiently well-resourced to give us the best chance possible of success and therefore of getting the UK Out of the EU.  

I was once told that crews of Lancaster Bombers over Germany’s cities in the 2nd World War always knew that they were over the target when the flak was thickest.  As the flak thickens around us I think we can take comfort from that thought!


  1. We know the snakes, I know what you mean about the Brexit party, I have asked questions myself but got no answer, regretfully they have destroyed the UKIP. I am only thinking in voting for them as a protest vote because I am aware the EU parliament is not a real one unless you have someone in the South East?

    1. UKIP have been partially responsible for there own demise because of extremist involvement, which is one of the reasons Nigel Farage left.

  2. It is a bit surprising that the PM does not instruct her lawyers to accept your case in its entirety. She will then have achieved her Brexit and can retire with honour. She can blame those who forced through the spoiling Act for their bad drafting. No doubt there will be one hell of a muddle for a bit but a least we would have a clear direction of travel.

    1. That presupposes that May ever wished to leave the eu. She didn't and has connived with various elitist elements to ensure that Britain is tied to the Brussels/Berlin axis forever.

    2. I suspect Anonymous it's a little matter of pride. To have got us out by her failure to do what she was attempting would be too bitter a pill, but it's a bold idea!

  3. It would probably be helpful if you were able to estimate how much you needed to crowdfund. For example, I am familiar with a case in Australia where a university professor, sacked over his views on climate change and its impact on the Great Barrier Reef, took his previous employer to court and estimated that he needed Aus $ 250,000. He managed to raise that target in double quick time (and won his case). But without a target, there is insufficient sense of urgency.

  4. Word needs to be spread on social media.

  5. I'm presuming, if the High Court rejects your case and rules that the Royal Perogative can be executed though a Minister of the Crown in the case of extending the exit date, does that not mean the binding of the Royal Perogative with Parliamentary approval in the EU Withdrawal Act 2018 is nullified. Thereby allowing a Minister to execute the leaving of the EU Treaties immediately.

    If this is the case, would the Treaty making powers also be re-established at the Prime Ministerial level in that the Royal Perogative is no longer bound to Parliamentary approval as per the EU Withdrawal Act 2018.

    1. Interesting point. Here:
      the reasons both courts found in favour of Miller are summarized. May could not use the prerogative to issue Article 50 - she needed Parliament's permission in the form of Primary legislation.

      ...the same author argues May could extend Article 50 with just the Prerogative power - conveniently ignoring all the reasons set out before in the Miller case. Presumably his arguing this was in part owing to wanting to justify the Letwin-Cooper Bill (giving May a 'fill in the blank' extension date) as the way to stop May using the Prerogative to extend Article 50

      His arguments make no sense unless you regard them as coming from a position of wanting to stop the UK leaving the EU. Issuing Article 50 had no immediate impact on domestic legislation. Only on leaving the EU and the triggering of the 'exit day' of the 2018 Act (repealing the 1972 Act) did it affect domestic legislation. Yet the Miller case was largely based on the notion that issuing Article 50 impacted on domestic law - something using the 'Prerogative' cannot be seen to do.

      Arguing that extending Article 50 has no impact on domestic law is erroneous. Extending means the difference between leaving the EU and repealing the 1972 Act and not leaving the EU/not repealing the 1972 Act. Extending Article 50 had an immediate impact on domestic legislation(the 2018 Withdrawal Act/the 1972 Act) so May should have had Primary legislative power to do it. She didn't. The subsequent Letwin-Cooper Bill gained Royal Assent on 8th April, 2019. That's when it came in to force. It did not explicitly say it was 'Retrospective' legislation to apply from 29th March, 2019 or earlier. Legislation has to explicitly say that it is 'Retrospective' to an earlier date otherwise it is deemed to apply only to the future. Therefore, as with the Miller Case, May needed Primary legislation, in force at the time she requested an extension, to request an extension. She didn't have it so it is fair to say we left the EU on 29th March, 2019. The Letwin-Cooper Bill, together with the SI, came after that date and were applying an extension to something that no longer existed - our membership of the EU.


  7. Banned from Facebook? Poke 'em in the eye with a stick


  8. Why are those on the Left so NASTY? There really is no need for this abuse. But then, it appears colleges no longer teach them how to hold debates. The do not want their little snowflakes to get upset by somebody speaking to them who holds a different point of view to their own.