Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #A50challenge
Most recents (10)
From Liz Webster /Atricle 50 Challenge today:
New #brexit legal challenge launched #UKEUchallenge š which builds on achievements of #A50challenge.
1. The Supreme Court ruled in Miller ministers alone canāt make major constitutional changes.
New #brexit legal challenge launched #UKEUchallenge š which builds on achievements of #A50challenge.
1. The Supreme Court ruled in Miller ministers alone canāt make major constitutional changes.
From Liz Webster /Article 50 Challenge today
2. Our sovereign. Parliament has to make decisions by passing Acts which change the law.
3. @A50Challenge started proceedings in Nov 17 as many FOI requests to identify the decision to leave EU returned different answers.
2. Our sovereign. Parliament has to make decisions by passing Acts which change the law.
3. @A50Challenge started proceedings in Nov 17 as many FOI requests to identify the decision to leave EU returned different answers.
From Liz Webster /Atricle 50 Challenge today:
4. HMG in defence said a decision wasnāt needed.
5. On 12/6/18 court permission hearing ruled the PM made the decision to leave
4. HMG in defence said a decision wasnāt needed.
5. On 12/6/18 court permission hearing ruled the PM made the decision to leave
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.Kās 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.
Important Thread.
Until now weāve underestimated the importance of this case (Shindler) which is being brought before the EU General Court (GC). It seeks to declare the Brexit process illegal because people were inappropriately disenfranchised. 1/
curia.europa.eu/juris/documentā¦
Until now weāve underestimated the importance of this case (Shindler) which is being brought before the EU General Court (GC). It seeks to declare the Brexit process illegal because people were inappropriately disenfranchised. 1/
curia.europa.eu/juris/documentā¦
Because (as is usual for Theresa Mayās administration) the Government has been saying different things in London & Brussels, the case will look very different to the General Court in Luxembourg than it does to us in the UK 2/.
In the UK we know that the Referendum was not the decision, just a consultation that Parliament decided we had to go through first. It didnāt matter too much to the Courts who voted in the referendum because it only had political, not legal, effect.3/ 
Here's a thought or two for all you sensible #FBPE people...
Perhaps we should not place so much emphasis on demanding a vote on the "final deal".
In the first place, there's a quite high probability that May will either prove to be incapable of getting that far, and she might
Perhaps we should not place so much emphasis on demanding a vote on the "final deal".
In the first place, there's a quite high probability that May will either prove to be incapable of getting that far, and she might
not even intend to. It's quite possible she intends to delay until we crash out of the EU with no deal at all.
Secondly, we have a clear case, with good, solid evidence, that the very narrow "win" in the advisory referendum was totally invalid. Given that the win was dishonest,
Secondly, we have a clear case, with good, solid evidence, that the very narrow "win" in the advisory referendum was totally invalid. Given that the win was dishonest,
there can be no excuse for our feeble negotiators to continue with their charade, and no reason why EU negotiators should waste any more of their time on such a fraudulent farce.
May's Article 50 letter should be withdrawn, now.
And that brings me to the third reason why we
May's Article 50 letter should be withdrawn, now.
And that brings me to the third reason why we
There are 2 theories as to how Brexit may be stopped. The first (Revocation) is that a conclusive decision to leave the EU is not required to commence the Article 50 process & that the UK can unilaterally change its mind. 1/
lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbonā¦
lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbonā¦
The second, #A50Challenge, is that an express, legally effective decision is required to legally start the process, which has not yet been made.
The first theory, Revocation, depends on two untested assertions about EU law which can only be decided by the European Court. 2/
The first theory, Revocation, depends on two untested assertions about EU law which can only be decided by the European Court. 2/
#A50Challenge relies on existing UK law which was the basis for the decision in Miller. The solution lies in the hands of UK Courts under UK law.
It is not Parliament that has failed us, but Govt, which didnāt ask Parl for the decision needed for A50 to be lawfully invoked. 3/
It is not Parliament that has failed us, but Govt, which didnāt ask Parl for the decision needed for A50 to be lawfully invoked. 3/
Thread on #A50challenge
Where is the decision?
When agreeing to give permission for a Judicial Review recently on whether Article 50 can be revoked, the Scottish court highlighted points which made our ears prick up.
1/6
Where is the decision?
When agreeing to give permission for a Judicial Review recently on whether Article 50 can be revoked, the Scottish court highlighted points which made our ears prick up.
1/6
Firstly they dealt with permission. The government is relying heavily on the fact we brought the claim out of the 3 month rule for Judicial Review. The court makes it clear, matters of constitutional importance deserve exceptional status and should be heard.
2/6
2/6
Then they dealt with article 50 itself & laid out in sequence how it works. We know parliament voted to pass a bill which gave power to the PM to notify. However that bill contained no decision. Article 50 makes it clear para 1 a decision has to made, next step notification.
3/6
3/6
Either @abcpoppins is right about #A50Challenge or we have a profound constitutional crisis, b/c it will be determined that Parliament can be tricked by a sleight of hand into giving the PM power to bypass a legally required process, in effect giving the PM power to break the law
The decision process required by #A50 is simply that which separates democracy from dictatorship. Executive decides on policy within its party political perception of national interest, based on evidence, impact analysis, etc. parliament scrutinizes, then legislates if required.
As the EU ref was advisory (confirmed in Miller), this process is not bypassed. The ref result is simply one of the factors in the decision process, but not the only factor. There is scope on how much weight it is given, but not indefinite scope. It must be Wednesbury reasonable
1.#A50Challenge disputes the govt's claims that a 'decision' to leave the EU has been made 'in accordance with [our] constitutional requirements'. The underlying assumptions of that decision haven't been tested in court. THREAD explaining why the ref result isn't a decision #FBPE
2. In 2011 the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act was legislated during the 1st Cameroon govt. It was unique as it was a 'madatory' referendum. The same administration legislated for the Referendum Act 2015 as an 'advisory' ref; 2011 bound parliament 2015 didn't.
3. The 1975 ref process was different. It was, what's termed as, a post-legislative ref. In other words, Parliament voted for EC membership, then legislated for the Referendum Act 1975. The assent of the people (67% to 33%) then made that result binding; theoretically.
THREAD: May & Corbyn have perpetuated a lie, so successfully that even Remain politicians fall in line: The people decided to leave the EU in the 23 June referendum,
*Referendum was a decision* was exposed as untrue in the Miller case, but the lie persists. #A50Challenge
*Referendum was a decision* was exposed as untrue in the Miller case, but the lie persists. #A50Challenge
So why do they persist with a lie? B/c the ref was advisory. Brexit was supposed to be May's policy decision, then for Parliament's scrutiny. But Brexit is a stupid policy. May didn't want to own it or have Parliament scrutinize it. Easier to bypass this procedure w *ppl decided*
*Cameron promised to implement* is irrelevant to the legal position. Legislation was only for advisory ref. May overrode the legal status of an Act of Parliament, illegal in itself IMO & bypassed the req't to give notice to EU *in accordance with [UK] constitutional requirements*
Starmer: "With Labour having consented to the plebiscite it would be intellectually dishonest to say āNow itās gone the way I donāt want, Iām not going to accept the result.ā
What is dishonest is to legislate for advisory ref w/out safeguards & assessment a mandate would require
What is dishonest is to legislate for advisory ref w/out safeguards & assessment a mandate would require
Then to deceive the electorate, telling them it is their decision - a mandate - when the law says it is not their decision, but advisory.
Then, though you're a barrister, to contradict what the law says & confirms in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
Then, though you're a barrister, to contradict what the law says & confirms in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
that the plebiscite was an opinion. It followed a campaign in which feeling was manipulated, facts ridiculed, making a mockery of democracy
It was Govt's duty to assess the result together with relevant factors & Parliament's duty to debate Govt's policy, not to rubber stamp it.
It was Govt's duty to assess the result together with relevant factors & Parliament's duty to debate Govt's policy, not to rubber stamp it.
