1. The decision to leave the EU was NOT made by the electorate nor by Parliament but by the PM alone relying on the result of the referendum and for purely political reasons: this is in breach of the U.K’s constitution.
2. Supreme Ct in Miller didn't specify how the UK should leave the EU, and the Government has obfuscated to create an illusion of a Parliamentary decision. However in reality the Notification Act 17 changed nothing. PM always had power to notify once a valid decision was made.
3. Without doubt an intention to leave the EU was birthed after the referendum which was a shock as the party canvassing for this eventuality only ever achieved 12% of votes.
A minor issue was magically blown up to centre stage overnight.
A minor issue was magically blown up to centre stage overnight.
4. The Labour party had an intention to ban fox hunting for decades before it won a mandate in 97 for a free Parliamentary vote. This intention took years to work through Parliament which agonised over the loss of people's rights to hunt foxes. It was finally legislated in 2005.
5. The Brexit plan was formulated around how to subvert Parliament which was always 2/3 majority in favour of EU membership. The illusions of an intention to leave the EU has been weaponised by the media and forced upon the country.
6. The 2017 Notification Act did not change the law, nor did it compel the Prime Minster to serve Notice. The PM always had the power to notify in the event Parliament decided to leave the EU.
7. There was no explicit authorisation of the PM to take the decision and, even if she was so authorised, the PM failed to conduct a decision making process in accordance with basic principles of administrative law, being part of the constitutional requirements of the UK.
8. The PM’s notification letter to the EU does not refer to the fact the PM made the decision. It asserts the decision was made by the people in the referendum, a claim which is wrong in law. It goes on to maintain that the result of the referendum was confirmed by Parliament.
9. BUT such confirmation was superfluous; the result was not in doubt. The Act does not ratify the “decision” taken at the referendum, it merely specifies who in the British Government has the authority to serve the Article 50 notice should such a decision be made.
10.The notice has been served without any decision to leave the EU having been made by the UK in accordance with its constitutional requirements as required by EU law.
11.Consequently, the service of notice by the Prime Minister and the European Commission’s conduct of negotiations are abuses of process. The Government and the Commission are in breach of their duty to uphold the EU Treaties and the rights of both UK citizens and EU Citizens.
12. Gov’s defence to #A50Challenge was that no decision to leave the EU was needed; a statutory entitlement to serve notice under A50 was sufficient. The Court dismissed that argument and ruled that in deciding to send the A50 notice, the PM made the decision on behalf of UK
13. #A50Challenge disputes that the 2017 Act gave authority for making such a decision to the PM. Any decision that was made was taken improperly. In deciding to invoke Article 50 the PM failed to comply with basic requirements for making decisions under delegated powers.
14. No consideration was given to anything other than the Gov’s commitment to implement the result of a deeply flawed referendum process. Moreover, contrary to the ruling of the Divisional Court, the purported Article 50 notification was not written in the language of decision.
15. It is for those reasons that we have appealed against the Divisional Court’s dismissal of our Judicial Review application.
We await news from the Court of Appeal.
Please share and support our lawful demand. We want our democracy back!
A50challenge.uk
We await news from the Court of Appeal.
Please share and support our lawful demand. We want our democracy back!
A50challenge.uk
