Our case has now fully served and issued and we are just waiting for the High Court to give us a hearing date in the near future.
Now we really need as much help as possible so that we can match the well funded Remain groups and the tax funded government lawyers!!
TAP – I have a copy of the 39 page Court application from Robin Tilbrook. This is for real and is a very strong case.
Essentially the Government tried to delay Brexit from coming into force by amending The Withdrawal Act 2018, which is not the Act which specifies the date of Britain’s exit from the EU. It is not the Act which complies with the requirements of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
The 2018 Withdrawal Act was a supplementary Act which only specifies details of which European Laws will cease to apply on ‘exit day’, and which will not cease to apply due to their being incorporated into British law. It is titled as ‘An Act to repeal The European Communities Act 1972 and make other provision in connection with the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU.’
The date of the application of the 2018 Act could only be amended to match alterations in the date of Brexit which must be made by addressing the 2017 Act, as that is the Act which complies with the requirements of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
The Government could only change the date of Brexit through complying with the terms of The Withdrawal Act 2017, in fact by superseding it with a new Act. Article 50 specifies that the withdrawing country must comply with its own constitutional requirements. The 2017 Withdrawal Act only empowers the Prime Minister to notify Britain’s withdrawal under Article 50. There is no provision within the Act for any extension to be made by the Prime Minister. Another Act Of Parliament was required if the date was to be delayed. Yet there wasn’t one. So the delay negotiated by British officials is Ultra Vires, null and void.
The Government’s other attempt to get round the requirement for an Act Of Parliament was to claim that the extension to Brexit Day was being made under the Royal Prerogative. This flies in the face of the recent decision R (on the application of Miller and another) – v – Secretary for Exiting The European Union (2017) which held that the Withdrawal Statute fully displaced any residual rights to use prerogative powers.
This looks like an open and shut case.
The Government is trying to shut the door on it as quickly and aggressively as it can, by stating that the request is for a Judicial Review of the actions of a government officer but that no specific action has as yet been provided in the claim which can be reviewed. This is a weak line to be taking as there are a few such actions which can be detailed by the applicant.
Tap – The government will try to state this is a vexatious suit based on political motives and not a proper legal challenge. That is clearly untrue and will need to be demonstrated. Of course it is political, but it is entirely legal, and all about the principle of The Rule Of Law. That is one of the key principles of the British Constitution – the the rulers must comply with the law as surely as the ruled. This is a case about the Rule Of Law.
The government had clearly got itself into a total muddle and did not comply with the law. This could have been because the government knew they could lose a Resolution to extend in the House Of Lords. They can’t simply skip requirements of Acts of Parliaments when they are inconvenient. Nor can the Royal Prerogative be used outside the rules of its limits, when they are clearly defined, as they are in the case of Brexit negotiations.