THREAD: Why as my MP - @PriskMark - and democract, you must CONDEM the decision of the Prime Minister to proceed with the result of the EU referendum DESPITE KNOWING it was corrupted.
@A50Challenge @UKEUchallenge
@A50Challenge @UKEUchallenge
1. Facts revealed since the Prime Minister exercised her power under the aforesaid s.1 of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 show that the 2016 referendum (“The Referendum”) was vitiated by illegality and/or unlawful misconduct.
2. More particularly, the Electoral Commission has recently found (to the criminal standard of proof) that serious offences were committed by the official campaign for leaving the EU and by others, in breach of the statutory framework established by Parliament for the Referendum.
3. Therefore, the Prime Minister’s decision to withdraw from the EU and the notification of that decision (“the Notification”), was unlawful having not been made in accordance with the UK’s constitutional requirements under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (“TEU”)
4. In the context of the provision of the Referendum, it was unnecessary for the European Union Referendum Act 2015 (“the 2015 Act”) to make provision for the annulment of the referendum result in the case of illegality because the Referendum was advisory.
5. It is, however, uncontentious that the common law principles of legality and constitutionality apply. Thus, in considering whether, how and when to exercise her statutory power under Section 1(1) the 2017 Act the Prime Minister was required to act lawfully.
6. The PM's decision is vitiated by conduct - of which the PM is aware - which would fall within the definition of ‘corrupt and illegal practices’ in the Representation of the People Act 1983 and similar legislation, which the Electoral Commission has found to have taken place
7. The Decision and Notification are, in any event, in breach of the requirements of Article 3 of the First Protocol.
8. Further or in the further alternative, it is not constitutionally open to the Prime Minister to ignore the findings of the Electoral Commission and to take no material steps to give anxious scrutiny to their important or otherwise in response to them in relation to her
9. The conferral of that power to notify under Article 50(2), plainly contemplated and encompassed the power to take a decision to withdraw and conferred that power expressly on the Prime Minister (see: R (on the application of Webster) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU.
10. The Prime Minister is obliged to exercise the power: for the purpose for which it was conferred; lawfully, on public law principles & in accordance with: the principle of legality.
11. The UK’s constitutional requirements include well established principles which value and seek to preserve the integrity of democracy, including the voting process, as well as lawful decision-making. The right to vote is a fundamental constitutional right.
12. (see: R (Preston) v Wandsworth London BC [2012] 2 WLR 1134 at [40] per Elias LJ). The integrity of the democratic process is one of the common law’s fundamental values which underlie the UK’s constitutional requirements in this case.
13. The UK constitutional requirements for binding referendums and elections are entirely consistent with the Code. In an election, false declarations as to election expenses that are made knowingly constitute 'corrupt practices'.....
14. : section 82 of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1983 ("1983 Act"). Further, under s. 159 where a candidate is personally guilty or guilty by his agents of any corrupt or illegal practice, his election shall be void.....
15. Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, as incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998, applied so as to require that the Referendum was conducted lawfully, fairly and under conditions that would ensure the expression of the opinion of the people.
16. Further or alternatively, it applied to the making of the Decision and/or Notification. In any event, in each case, there were underlying common law constitutional requirements to similar effect.
17. In the case of the Referendum, it is now clear that it was not conducted in accordance with the UK’s constitutional requirements.
