This is another solicitor's view on our case:-
Section 20(4) European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018
‘A Minister of the Crown may by regulations-
amend the definition of ‘exit day’ in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment’
The language ‘Treaties are to cease to apply’ derive from Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union
Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union
Article 50.1 ‘Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with
its own constitutional requirements.’
Article 50.2 ‘A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Union of Its intention. In light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.’
Article 50.3 ‘The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry
Into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification
referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.’
At the time of drafting and subsequent enactment of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 the legal default position (in the absence of a concluded withdrawal agreement) was that the United Kingdom would leave the EU on 29th March 2019 at 11 pm. This flowed from the European Union Referendum Act 2015, the result of the 23rd June 2016 referendum for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 which conferred power on the Prime Minister to notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU (as established by the 2016 referendum), the Prime Minister’s letter of 29th March 2017 notifying the European Council of the United Kingdom’s intention to leave the EU and the provisions of Article 50.
Accordingly, when enacted and for many months thereafter the definition of ‘exit day’ in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 was stated to be 29 March 2019 at 11 p.m.
The Prime Minister reiterated on numerous occasions that the United Kingdom would be leaving the EU on 29th March 2019.
The power granted to a Minister of the Crown in Section 20(4) European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 was extremely limited. It was merely a power to amend a definition in the Act – the definition of ‘exit day’.
Furthermore, the definition could only be amended by a Minister of the Crown to ‘ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom.’ In other words, the power granted a Minister of the Crown no discretion or authority to do anything other than record a change of day and time determined by the day and time the Treaties were to cease to apply to the United Kingdom (something which was beyond the power or authority of a Minister of the Crown to determine).
The definition of exit day since enactment of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 reflected the legal default position of Article 50.3 ‘failing that, two years after the notification’ – 2 years after the notification on 29th March 2017 was 29th March 2019. The definition was precise ’29 March 2019 at 11 p.m.’
There were only two possibilities for the day and time ‘the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom’ to change as stated under Article 50:
A withdrawal agreement being concluded before 30th March 2019; or
The European Council in agreement with the Member State concerned (the United Kingdom) unanimously deciding to extend the two-year period
Before 30th March 2019:-
The Withdrawal Agreement had not been concluded.
Option 1 did not apply.
There was no new Referendum Act;There was no referendum to establish whether the United Kingdom should extend the Article 50 period and delay the United Kingdom’s departure from the EU;
There was no primary legislation to reverse the intention of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union as set out in the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017;
There was no primary legislation to repeal the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017;
There was no removal of the Prime Minister’s notification of the United Kingdom’s intention to leave the European Union;
There was no primary legislation granting the Prime Minister or any other minister power to seek or obtain on behalf of the United Kingdom an extension under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union;
There was no democratic mandate to reverse the result of the 2016 referendum (on the contrary there was a clear democratic mandate in a general election to implement the result of that referendum);
There was no change in the fundamental constitutional position as set out in the Gina Miller case;
‘it is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution that, unless primary legislation permits it, the Royal prerogative does not enable ministers to change statute law or common law.’
‘ministers cannot frustrate the purpose of a statute or a statutory provision, for example by emptying it of content or preventing its effectual legislation (and, in some cases, even without any domestic legislation)’
The United Kingdom (as compared with the Government/ Prime Minister) did not agree to an extension of Article 50; and
The United Kingdom did not provide authority for anyone to seek or agree an extension of Article 50
In other words, the Member State concerned (the United Kingdom, as compared with the Government/Prime Minister) had not agreed to extend the two-year Article 50 period.
Option 2 did not apply.
The definition of ‘exit day’ had not changed from 29 March 2019 at 11 pm. Accordingly, a Minister of the Crown did not have the power or authority to change the definition.
The Treaties of the European Union ceased to apply to the United Kingdom on 29th March 2019 i.e. the United Kingdom left the EU on 29th March 2019 without a withdrawal agreement.
Yes, yes, yes.
ReplyDeleteWe have left the EU.
Time after time, it has been proven.
We left on the 29/3/2019. Period.
Thank you Robin.
WELL THERE YOU HAVE IT...IN BLACK AND WHITE!!
ReplyDeleteExcellent News I only wish somebody would announce this on the MSM and that the appeal of Judicial Review of Solicitor Robin Tilbrook is heard in the Royal Court of Justice soon.
ReplyDeleteBehind you Robin 100% God bless you
ReplyDeleteThis is a pretty compelling argument. The prime minister and a few of his/her stooges is not the same as the "member state" as a whole, as defined in Article 50.3... it may be that the discord in Parliament ultimately already caused a no deal Brexit.
ReplyDeleteYet it is taking so long to be anounced by the High Court. One can only assume the judiciary handling the case are going against the Democratic vote of 17.4 million of us.This being a deliberate action to attempt to stop BREXIT. 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧.
ReplyDeleteSo you are a solicitor, you should know how to get this in front of the courts and clear the purposely constructed logjam.... please sort it.
ReplyDeleteWe have left and we left on the 29th March 2019 at 11pm. We have found out and are still finding out that there is Parliament and then there are the people, Parliament does not represent the people.
ReplyDeleteIt's been an almost unending nightmare, due to may&co, but the end IS now in sight!
ReplyDeleteThe end is indeed in sight.
DeleteOh, the irony.
Leavers can't give a straight story, did Theresa May extend Art.50 by Royal prerogative or by "delegated powers", the two are very different. If by Royal prerogative then it was done "ultra vires" because the EU is an enemy power intent on destroying the realm, which the Queen and whole state are bound to defend. If by delegated powers, then as the courts have said, "parliament is sovereign", which means delegated powers are ultra vires. Every time Parliament delegates powers, it is in contempt of court, the parliament can not bind our successors or as the saying was originally known, "exclude itself". Parliament can not delegate its powers under the fundamental constitution. All this primary and secondary legislation talk is modern nonsense.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter how many solicitors agree with the case that we have already left if you can't get the case in front of the courts.
ReplyDeleteSadly, this doesn't seem to be a problem for the latest case brought by the remainers to stop a no deal brexit:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/13/date-set-court-bid-prevent-boris-johnson-forcing-no-deal-brexit/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_Act_2019
ReplyDeleteIts all there second paragraph this is hokum and you know it
"There was no change in the fundamental constitutional position as set out in the Gina Miller case;
ReplyDelete‘it is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution that, unless primary legislation permits it, the Royal prerogative does not enable ministers to change statute law or common law.’"
That isn't relevant, because the government didn't use the Royal Prerogative. It used a Statutory Instrument, which is legislation (secondary legislation, to be precise) which needs to be passed by Commons and Lords in order to be effective - and it was passed by them in this case.
I suspect this "solicitor" didn't pass their exams.
I take it that you have not read the papers which I have published in this case which shows what you say to be a poor argument.
DeleteI am a solicitor who passed his exams and have read the above opinion which I understand. In a democracy where we are all subject to the law, a Minister of the Crown can do only what the particlar Statute authorises, otherwise ministers be unrestricted. The precise wording of statutes is what matters. In this case changing the exit date is not authorised for the purpose of an extension of Art 50. In the end of course, unless the parties agree the outcome in a binding consent order, the decision of the Court of Appeal and possibly the Supreme Court is what matters. We all wish that they would just get on with it. André
DeleteYou say you have "published papers" that "shows what you say to be a poor argument" - yet it seems you can't immediately point out what is wrong with what I said?
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you tell me why the "solicitor" is right and I am wrong? Why is what you say so vague?
Please, educate me - if only because there will be many people reading this who have forgotten what these "papers" of yours say.
Hmmm... Could Boris similarly amend the October 31st date to be, uh, tomorrow?
ReplyDeleteloose lips sink ships
ReplyDeleteGraham Moore has suggested that a consent order may co-inside with an agreement that the leave date is 25/08/19, for example.
ReplyDeleteThis could however be a trap, because Parliament did pass a law to extend Article 50 prior to 25/08/19, which now comes into play, and lawyers can swoop in to retrospectively make that argument. With the Judicial Review now disposed of, you possibly have no opportunity to re-open the matter.
I propose no compromise, no surrender. We left on 31/03/19, end of.
What is holding this case up? The evidence is all there, it needs Boris to sign a form and for him to push it through court and the outcome to be that we did leave on March 31st. All that came after will be void and it will stop anymore backbiting from the saboteurs,
ReplyDeleteUK Judiciary is corrupt to it's Paedophile Core!
ReplyDeleteYou will NEVER get any justice, no matter how solid your case is, from any Judge in the UK, unless your case furthers THEIR destructive/replacement agenda.
If we get even more fundamental, the UK Parliament is bound by the Treaty of Union 1707 under international law. So the European Communities Act 1972 which allowed the UK to be represented in a future European parliament, is void under international law. This is because the 1707 treaty as a "fundamental" conditions says the people of the UK can only be represented by "One and the same parliament to be styled the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain". This treaty of 1707 binds both the UK government and parliament. The English Bill of Rights is also entrenched into the 1707 treaty, this bill abolished "suspending" and "dispensing" powers. So only Acts of Parliament count, which are permitted by the 1707 treaty conditions. All delegated powers, which allow ministers to alter Acts, are unlawful by treaty, and even the UK parliament has no power to alter this under international law. Also Royal prerogative is subject to the Treaty of Union 1707, the UK constitution is the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701, these need to be read because they are entrenched into the Treaty of Union.
ReplyDelete"Order drawn and sent to parties" ??
ReplyDelete