Update: I will try and get more information on his reasons.
The Hon. Mr Justice Martin Benedict Spencer, has said NO to a Judicial Review. This is an Establishment delaying tactic. This was a single Judge ruling and he was only appointed in 2017. He was formerly a Medical Malpractice lawyer.
As you can see below we are appealing his decision on Friday.
No this is NOT normal, I can see what they are doing. Delaying Tactic!
when a 40 year veteran QC says we are out and a retired High Court Judge says its highly arguable and then a single Judge says – no to a Judicial review that STINKS
“The court then sends the papers to a judge for a decision on paper. If permission is refused, you can “renew” the decision to be heard in open court. The other parties may or may not attend. Our experience is that permission is often refused on paper but granted upon renewal in open court. Sometimes the judge will order that the matter be referred to open court anyway.”
Stanley Brodie QC says the UK left the EU on the 29th March 2019
Stanley Brodie QC has written an article where he details that the UK, has legally left the EU as of the 29th of March 2019 and he explains that not only is that clear in law, but also that the way the law was presented to Parliament was illegally modified.
Whichever way one looks at it, the Agreement was either unlawful or made for an unlawful purpose or ultra vires .That means that the UK left the EU on the 29th March 2019 by default as there was no valid or lawful impediment to prevent it.
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.
The proviso could not be used to reopen, or continue, never ending debate. Nor can it be used as a general power to extend time.
The Article 50 period is set at 2 years unless, as provided for in Article 50 “the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend [it]”.
So the version put out by the civil servants was false. The differences in meaning between the two versions were considerable.
So the civil servants responsible for briefing parliament to enable an informed debate to take place, themselves were misleading it. The alteration of the text of Article 50, and of the proviso to paragraph 3, must have been deliberate.
This is a truly alarming state of affairs; it should be exposed sooner rather than later.
Stating the outcome shortly, it would seem to be as follows:
(i) The application by the Prime Minister for an extension of time until June 30th under the proviso to Article 50, made on or about the 14th March 2019, was legally valid, but was rejected by the EU.
(ii) This was followed by the Agreement proposed by the EU. It did not comply with the terms of the proviso; nor was Article 50 referred to or relied on by the EU. It was not effective to stop the Article 50 process running up to and including the 29th March at 11 p.m. Whichever way one looks at it, the Agreement was either unlawful or made for an unlawful purpose or ultra vires .That means that the UK left the EU on the 29th March 2019 by default as there was no valid or lawful impediment to prevent it.
This should come as no surprise to anyone who has taken an objective view of the entire EU experiment. The British public were led in the EEC with lies, by Edward Heath and Margaret Thatcher, because they knew that the people would not support the real agenda behind joining.
We were lied to again and again, whilst the political classes pushed ahead with their agenda for ever closer union, in total contempt of the people.
Read the full article written by Stanley Brodie QC