Brexit — the most important constitutional case of a generation.

Or why the Government should not be allowed “to use the rusty toolbox of medieval powers known as the Royal Prerogative” to trigger Article 50.

A group of concerned UK citizens has embarked on a legal challenge to the Government’s plans to use Royal Prerogative powers to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to exit the EU. The challenge, which will be funded through the Crowd Justice website, will be considered this October alongside those of investment manager Gina Miller and hairdresser Dier Dos Santos.

The group is headed by Grahame Pigney, a UK citizen living in France, who ran the Say Yes 2 Europe grassroots campaign.  Others involved also campaigned in the run-up to the Referendum. They include Rob Pigney, Paul Cartwright, a Gibraltarian national who runs Brex-IN, Christopher Formaggia, who lives in Wales, Tahmid Chowdhury, a London student and Fergal McFerran who lives in Northern Ireland

At last month’s Divisional Court hearing their QC, Helen Mountfield, told Sir Brian Leveson, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division, that ordinary UK citizens should have the right to participate in the litigation because they have strongly held views that Parliament should  make all key decisions on Brexit, including when, how and whether to evoke Article 50, because EU citizenship rights were granted by Acts of Parliament.

John Halford, Bindmans LLP said:

“By the time of that hearing, the Government had pinned its legal colours to the mast — there would be no Act of Parliament to authorise Brexit, instead the new Prime Minister planned to use the rusty toolbox of medieval powers known as the Royal Prerogative to give effect to the EU Referendum result.”

Grahame Pigney said:

“The enforced removal of citizenship rights from 65 million people is unprecedented in a modern democracy. If it is to happen, it must involve proper Parliamentary process. Parliament has granted these rights. It is for Parliament to decide under what circumstances they are taken away.”

“It is critical that ordinary people are involved and represented. Our rights and benefits were hardly mentioned during the referendum, lost in the rhetoric about trade, influence and “taking back control”. We must now act to make sure those rights are not, once again, ignored in the decisions about when, how and under what circumstances the UK leaves the EU.”

But what can a small group of concerned citizens add to a case where the UK’s biggest constitutional law gun — Lord Pannick QC — has already been commissioned and pointed towards the Government by Ms Miller?

There are three answers.

First, involvement of ordinary UK Citizens in this extraordinary case adds a critical democratic ingredient. None are wealthy or in the public eye, they are united by a concern about a Prime Minister making profoundly undemocratic decisions about UK Citizen’s rights. In a representative democracy, these are matters for Parliament alone, not the Executive.

Second, the reason why they say that is important. Parliament has given citizenship rights to ordinary British Citizens and only Parliament can strip away those rights. This freestanding argument needs to be put to the court because it affects every one of the UK’s 65 million citizens.

Third, the group is deeply committed to transparency, and will press for others, particularly the government, to reciprocate. Those who are interested should be able to see, understand, debate, applaud or disagree with those arguments.

For these things to happen though, the case needs to be funded through public contributions. Those who are interested in making a contribution to help fund this People’s Challenge can do so at: https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/parliament-should-decide/

 

Posted in Article 50, Crowd Justice, funding | Tagged , ,

People’s Challenge to the Government on Art. 50 – why is it important?

People’s Challenge to the Government on Art. 50 – CrowdJustice

I believe that the individual rights and benefits of ordinary British (UK) Citizens deserve special attention in addition to more general arguments about whether the Government can trigger the UK’s exit from the EU without an Act of Parliament.

We must make sure that the rights of ordinary UK Citizens are not, once again, ignored in the decisions about when, how and under what circumstances the UK leaves the EU.

This is the value, importance, impact that ordinary people’s involvement in the challenge will add – making sure the court understands why it is unacceptable for our rights to be stripped away without an Act of Parliament.

For ordinary UK Citizens to have the chance to argue that their individual, personal rights and benefits justify that the timing and conditions of a Brexit should be decided by our democratically elected Parliament and not an appointed Government, crowdfunding is essential.

 

Posted in Article 50, Crowd Justice, funding | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Art. 50 – This Government wants to ignore Parliamentary democracy

People’s Challenge to the Government on Art. 50 – CrowdJustice

Following the referendum this Government proposes ignoring the rest of the process that Parliament set in train when it passed the 2015 Referendum Act.

The current Government wants to use ancient (archaic) Royal Prerogative to trigger the process of the UK leaving the EU in the interest of the Government’s sectional and party political interest.

By using the Royal Prerogative to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon this Government will be sweeping away rights at a stroke of a pen without the proper scrutiny of and a final decision being made by our Sovereign Parliament.

This is an act of constitutional vandalism.

 

Posted in Article 50, Crowd Justice, funding | Tagged ,

Brexit — the most important constitutional case of our time

Link to our Crowd Justice Page: https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/parliament-should-decide/

Brexit — the most important constitutional case of a generation

Parliament Should Decide — Three good reasons to back the People’s Challenge

By John Halford, Bindmans LLP

The most important constitutional case of a generation began somewhat inauspiciously this Summer when a Spanish hairdresser, Dier Dos Santos, issued an urgent claim seeking judicial review of the decision the Government had then yet to make about precisely how to exit the EU at the unglamorous counter of London’s Administrative Court.

It also came as something as a surprise to the Government because there had been none of the normal correspondence back and forth between solicitors beforehand. Yet the courts took the claim seriously and listed it for an urgent directions hearing on 19 July before the Queens Bench Division’s President.

By the time of that hearing, the Government had pinned its legal colours to the mast — there would be no Act of Parliament to authorise Brexit, instead the new Prime Minister planned to use the rusty toolbox of medieval powers known as the Royal Prerogative to give effect to the EU Referendum result.

Meanwhile, two other legal claims were threatened — one by city firm Mishcon de Reya, acting for an unidentified group of wealthy clients, another by Bindmans, whose work was funded rather differently through a CrowdJustice campaign co-ordinated by Jolyon Maugham QC.

Both sets of lawyers — and several others — were invited along to court to explain their intentions at the De Santos directions hearing. It emerged that the Mishcon claim was to be courageously headed by investment manager Gina Miller. Her claim was also designated as the lead case, though the Court was told, and accepted, that others besides needed to be heard.

After considering the Government’s response to the letter sent on their behalf, the Bindmans client group decided to actively participate in the litigation — something which the Court had anticipated by making special directions for them to be ‘interested parties’ and so entitled to be heard as of right.

But what can a small group of concerned citizens add to a case where the UK’s biggest constitutional law gun — Lord Pannick QC — has already been commissioned and pointed towards the Government by Ms Miller?

There are three answers.

First, involvement of ordinary British Citizens from around the UK and abroad in this extraordinary case will add a critical democratic ingredient. The Bindmans group is headed by Grahame Pigney, a British citizen living in France, who ran the Say Yes 2 Europe grassroots campaign against Brexit, his son Rob Pigney, 52, Paul Cartwright, 50, a Gibraltarian national who runs Brex-IN, Christopher Formaggia, 49, who lives in Wales, and Tahmid Chowdhury, 21, a London student.

None are wealthy or in the public eye. None answer to shareholders or directors. What unites them is a concern about a profoundly undemocratic decisions being made by the Prime Minister alone as to whether, how and when Britain leaves the EU and what becomes of the EU rights they and others currently hold. They say that, in representative democracy, these are matters for Parliament alone, not the Executive.

Secondly, the reason why they say that is important. The group believe that, although EU rights originate in the EU, they have been given to ordinary British Citizens like them as part of a citizenship package by the UK Parliament and so only Parliament can strip away these rights, especially in circumstances where the UK is a union of different states and has a sovereign relationship with other territories such as Gibraltar.

This freestanding argument needs to be put to the court because it affects each and every one of Britain’s 65 million citizens.

Thirdly, the group is deeply committed to transparency — and it matter more in this case than almost any other. All have publicly campaigned to promote the benefits of EU rights, but none have benefited financially from doing so. All have agreed to being identified as involve din the case, despite the criticism they are likely to face. The funding for their case will be publicly raised direct from the public through the CrowdJustice site. Their lawyers will not become rich from the case, not least because they are working at rates lower than those of the government team. And most importantly, the group will be completely transparent about the legal arguments it is putting to the court for example by publishing their lawyers’ written submissions, and they will press for others, particularly the government, to reciprocate. This is a case which affects every member of the public. Those who are interested should be able to see, and understand, debate, applaud or disagree with those arguments.

For these things to happen though, the case needs to be funded through those public contributions. Those who are interested in making one can visit: https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/parliament-should-decide/

Originally published by John Halford

Posted in Article 50, Crowd Justice, funding | Tagged ,

People’s Challenge to Government on Art. 50 – Update No.1

No. 1: Getting Started – John Halford, Bindmans LLP

This is the first of a number of updates to keep you – a supporter of the Crowdjustice funded Article 50 People’s Challenge –  up-to-date with what is happening on the case  and how the money that is being fund raised through CrowdJustice will be used  if the target is reached.  There will also be further updates from the “interested parties” bringing the challenge, Grahame and Rob Pigney, Paul Cartwright, Christopher Formaggia and Tahmid Chowdhury. Jolyon Maugham QC, who first had the idea for a challenge by and for ordinary citizens and raised the money to bring the legal team together, will also provide updates from time to time.

The most important thing to say at this stage is ‘thank you’. This challenge cannot happen without support from you and others like you.  Funds need to be raised both to protect the interested parties from the Government’s legal costs that they could be ordered to pay, and also to pay members of the legal team for some of their time (at rates lower than the Government’s lawyers, I stress).  This is not the kind of case that can be presented properly by fitting in the time needed around paid work.

What has happened so far?

As discussed yesterday in a published blog, the Article 50 litigation began with a judicial review claim issued by hairdresser Dier Dos Santos.  His claim was listed for a ‘directions hearing’ (at which the court makes arrangements  to progress complex litigation) and my firm, Bindmans, was invited to attend because it had already  sent a letter to the government for my clients asking whether it intended to use the Royal Prerogative to activate Article 50.  The Prerogative is the set of residual mediaeval powers which the Monarch delegates to ministers to exercise on her behalf.   They are generally used for extraordinary decision-making, or where  there is no  clear  Parliamentary authority for the use of power,  such as entering into international treaties and granting pardons for criminal offences.

At the hearing, the QC leading our legal team, Helen Mountfield, argued that Bindmans clients ought to have a say as the litigation moved forward.

The court also heard from Lord Pannick QC, who represents Gina Miller.  As she was about to issue a claim and could face the risk of paying the government’s costs in defending its plans to use the Prerogative, hers was made the lead case.  But directions were also made in the Order to allow interested parties to participate.

Grahame, Rob, Paul, Christopher and Tahmid then instructed me jointly to participate in this way. All have separately campaigned about the benefits of EU citizenship rights and, given the outcome of the Referendum, feel very strongly that those rights should not be taken away by the Prime Minister acting alone.  They say only an Act of Parliament will do. Their arguments so far are set out in the Article 50 letter and Summary Grounds document.

Meanwhile, Ms Miller has issued her claim, so the ball is now in the Government’s court.  Its lawyers must produce ‘Detailed Grounds of Resistance’ – a written defence to Ms Miller’s claim – by 2 September 2016.  Ms Miller gets the opportunity to respond to that in a “skeleton argument” to be filed by 14 September.

Provided enough CrowdJustice funds have been raised by then,  the legal team then have an opportunity to put in detailed written arguments on behalf of Grahame, Rob, Paul, Christopher and Tahmid (and anyone else who  has joined the group by that point –  we are in discussion with  others in  Northern Ireland and Scotland).

This will be a critical stage in the proceedings – the first opportunity to make a powerful response to the Government’s defence of its position.   There will need to be a significant amount of legal research and careful drafting to make sure the best use is made of it.

Further written submissions will be made and then the court will hear the case on the 13th and 17th of October.  It has been listed to fit in with the commitments of the most senior judge outside of the Supreme Court, John Thomas who is the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales is the head of the judiciary and President of the Courts of England and Wales.  He will hear it in a specially-convened “Divisional Court” most likely with two other judges.  Generally cases in the High Court are heard by a single judge alone.

It is very unlikely that the case will be concluded in this way, however.  Even at the preliminary hearing, the judges indicated that they thought it should proceed to the Supreme Court on a fast-track basis, and officials were sent away to check the Supreme Court justices diaries for December.

The stakes are high.  As Grahame has said,  each and every one of the U.K.’s 65 million nationals are directly affected by this case,  which is one of the reasons why  a range of people, not just one or two,  is being allowed to  put arguments to the courts.

Thank you again for your support in making that possible. Although the fundraising campaign is gaining momentum, the first few days are critical and so please do share information about it with everyone you are in contact with  directly and through social media. Grahame, Rob, Paul, Christopher and Tahmid are counting on your support  to enable them  to speak up for you.

John Halford

Bindmans LLP

Posted in Article 50, Crowd Justice, funding | Tagged , ,

People’s Challenge to the Government on Art. 50

People’s Challenge to the Government on Art. 50 – CrowdJustice

My name is Grahame Pigney. I am organising this crowd funding campaign because I believe important individual rights and benefits of ordinary British (UK) Citizens are at risk as a result of the UK leaving the EU.

The enforced removal of citizenship rights from 65 million people is completely unprecedented in a modern democracy.

The rights and benefits of ordinary UK Citizens were hardly mentioned during the referendum, lost in the general rhetoric about trade, influence and taking back control.

I believe that, as Parliament has granted us these rights, it is for Parliament to decide when, how and under what circumstances they are taken away.

The Government disagrees and is being challenged in the courts.This campaign seeks funding to make sure ordinary UK Citizens are involved, represented and can have a say.

This is one of the most important constitutional cases of our time.

It will decide whether it is for an appointed executive (the Government) or our democratically elected Sovereign Parliament to decide when and how the UK leaves the EU.

 

Posted in Article 50, Crowd Justice, funding | Tagged , ,

People’s Challenge to the Government on Art. 50 – Take Back Control

People’s Challenge to the Government on Art. 50 – CrowdJustice

Make sure our Parliament retains its Sovereignty and that the Government respects that Sovereignty.

This was a very important part of the referendum campaign that everybody should be able to agree on.

Parliament has been the lynch-pin of the UK’s democracy for centuries, don’t let anyone rob us of our Parliamentary Democracy.

 

Posted in Article 50, Crowd Justice, funding | Tagged , ,

Nil Desperandum, and Illegitimi non carborundum!

With thanks to Emma, our dialogue helped inspire this article.

We’re all trying to get to grips with what happened on 23rd June.

It appears that the top brass of the Quitters’ campaign were no less distressed than the Remain supporters – Boris, Nigel, Michael etc. ran screaming for the trees at speeds the eye could barely follow.

For some of the latter, their chickens appear to be coming home to roost, which seems appropriate all ways round, really!

But let’s just have a look at where we are now.

The advisory referendum delivered an inconclusive result. Nigel Farage himself said that a 52% versus 48% result would constitute “unfinished business”. Of course, he thought that he would be on the 48% side, but that’s just a detail, isn’t it?

But only the Remainers appear to support a 2nd referendum. Why is this? Is it possible that the Quitters think the result was a fluke, and want to hang on to what they’ve got? If it really is the preference of a substantial majority, won’t a 2nd referendum demonstrate this?

Why the clamour to invoke Article 50 immediately? We have no idea how the exit negotiations would go, it’s surely more sensible to see what the “deal” would look like, if the red button were to be pressed, before actually doing it?

Might it be that they want to try to hustle things through, before enough people notice that the referendum was advisory only, not conclusive and that its result was obtained through lies, deceit and misrepresentation which the Quitters abandoned within hours of the referendum result.

Before they notice that the claim of loss of Parliamentary sovereignty was one of those lies, and that it’s Parliament’s job (in its role as elected representatives of the people) to debate and decide what’s in the best interests of the whole of the UK.

Don’t let the reality get swept under the carpet! We’re a long way from “morituri te salutant” – please don’t let anyone tell you differently.

Posted in 2nd Referendum, Article 50, brexit | Tagged , ,

LED by the nose

One of the most transparently fraudulent tactics of the Leave campaign was its use of rabble rousing “examples” of EU interference in people’s everyday lives.

Yes, we’re talking about a world filled with bent bananas, barmaids’ cleavages and one size fits all condoms.

One of the most persistent myths, often used by the Daily Mail and the like to stir its readers up into a gibbering froth, is that surrounding light bulbs.

This handy series of charts compares incandescent, halogen and LED light bulbs in a variety of ways – cost to run (in dollars but it serves for comparison), efficiency, CO2 production and durability, amongst many others.

LED bulbs come out on top as clear winners, with halogens second and incandescents last.

With the caveat that they cost more to buy, LED bulbs are a clear winner. They’re now actually very much cheaper than when they were first available, and the cost will probably continue to go down.

What’s not to like?

They’re cheap to use, they won’t break or fail easily, they’re good for the planet and they give an excellent light that is available in different qualities.

However, like a dog with a bone, there’s a certain sort of Daily Mail reader who just wants to cling on to them.

“It’s my right to use a bulb that costs ten times as much to run as those foreign LED things and I’m not having some unelected bureaucrat in Brussels telling me what to do! They will have to pry this 100 watt bulb from my cold dead hand!”

So, this person enjoys paying higher electricity bills than they need to? Is this individual so replete with cash to throw around on energy that they don’t mind driving a car that does 10 mpg, and then cheerfully pays higher prices at the pump? Wasting energy? It’s their right!

In fact, this idiocy isn’t just self defeating, it’s also based on a great big fat lie.

The EU hasn’t banned incandescent bulbs; it’s phasing them out. Ditto the halogen variety. In fact, you can still buy any type of bulb you want.

So, the light bulb myth boils down to a matter of principle based on a lie.

Just like the rest of the Brexit campaign then…

Posted in brexit, business, EU, EUFacts, Leavers Lies, myths | Tagged , ,

Boris Johnson – UK Foreign Secretary and Leave Liar – Do you trust this man?

350 million Lie

Vote Leaves commitment.

Image | Posted on by | Tagged , ,