English Democrats Judicial Review of Extension

From WikiTacticalVoting

DECLARATION THAT THE UNITED KINGDOM LEFT THE EUROPEAN UNION ON 29TH MARCH[edit]

This is our PRESS RELEASE:-

ENGLISH DEMOCRATS – CLAIM FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE UNITED KINGDOM LEFT THE EUROPEAN UNION ON 29TH MARCH 2019


On 2nd April the English Democrats, the English nationalist political party, issued a judicial review claiming the Prime Minister could not lawfully agree to an extension to the period before the United Kingdom could leave the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. The Court is asked to declare that, because she had no such power, the UK automatically left the EU on 29th March – the original ‘exit day’, two years after notification was made. This challenge was to the extension offered by the EU on 27.3.2019 and accepted by the PM on 28th March not to the additional extension the PM claimed to agree to today (11th April). There is a link below to the Submissions filed in support of the challenge. The Government is expected to reply by 17th April. The English Democrats’ case is that the PM has no statutory power to agree to an extension. The change to ‘exit day’, in a statutory instrument under the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018, can only be made if the Article 50 period has already been extended under international law. If the PM had no power to extend, Parliament could not lawfully make the statutory instrument. The English Democrats rely on the Supreme Court decision in Miller v Secretary of State, which found that the government cannot change how and whether EU law applies to the UK by the Royal Prerogative. The PM could only notify under Article 50 under the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. The inevitable result was that the UK would leave the EU after two years, when EU law would cease to apply to the UK. Any extension would change the law by making EU law apply beyond that date, which the Act did not give the PM the power to do. In addition, the English Democrats’ case (also relying on Miller) is that an agreement to extend the Article 50 period would frustrate the purpose of the 2017 and 2018 Acts; particularly as there is no restriction on the length of any potential extension and the number of extensions that may be requested – as the latest extension has shown. The ‘Cooper-Letwin’ Act giving Parliament power over extension requests has no effect, as no further extension could be given if the UK had already left the EU by the time it came into law. The English Democrats rely on the Wightman decision of the European Court of Justice in support of our contention that, under EU law, the PM can only agree to an extension ‘on behalf of the UK’ if she has the constitutional authority to do so. Therefore, the UK left the EU on 29th March under EU as well as UK law. Former Court of Appeal judge, Sir Richard Aikens, has said the English Democrats’ argument is at least ‘highly arguable’, see https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6882583/Former-appeal-judge-says-legality-Brexit-extension-tested-court.html. Solicitor Robin Tilbrook, who is the Chairman of the English Democrats, said that:- “The good news for all those who voted Leave is that we could already be Out of the EU without being saddled with Theresa May’s appallingly bad deal! The challenge to Leave supporters is that this case is our best and maybe our only chance of actually getting out of the EU. This means that we must win it at all costs! I therefore appeal to all Leave supporters to put all differences aside and to unite in supporting this case” The claim is being crowd-funded and donations can be made here: https://www.englishdemocrats.party/donate

The English Democrats’ Submissions in full have been published here: https://robintilbrook.blogspot.com/2019/04/detailed-submissions-in-re-queen-on.html

Monday, 15 April 2019 WHAT THE MEDIA BLACKOUT TELLS US ABOUT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

WHAT THE MEDIA BLACKOUT TELLS US ABOUT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA[edit]

Donald Trump and his Campaign Team famously developed the expression “Fake News” to comment on the left-liberal, blatant bias of the US mainstream media.

In this country I think the mainstream media are at least as biased as the US media.

For the last three years or more we have had wall to wall and utterly shameless and blatant Remainer bias from the BBC and all the other main broadcast channels on any topic relating to Brexit.

Charles Moore on last week’s Question Time brilliantly exposed the BBC’s and Question Time’s bias against Leavers, whilst the BBC’s Fiona Bruce desperately tried to shut him up!

The mainstream media’s bias however goes much further than disproportionate coverage to include outright censorship of any story which goes against their internationalist, left-liberal bias.

I think few stories illustrate this better than the coverage of our case.

The English Democrats are bringing a High Court case using the Judicial Review procedure to sue Theresa May and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Case No. CO/1322/2019). We have a strong case that, according to law, the United Kingdom left the European Union on the 29th March at the expiry of our two year notice period which was given under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

This case is therefore the only realistic chance that we have of getting any real Brexit. The media are falling over themselves to report displacement activity that cannot make any difference. For example, as I write this, they are falling over themselves to report about Nigel Farage and his new Party. The safe fact for the Remain supporting media is that however many MEPs Farage’s Party wins it cannot make any difference whatsoever to whether we are in or out of the EU or on what terms! Misdirecting Leave support into that cul-de-sac is therefore useful for Remain.

I and numerous others whom I know of have tried very hard to get the mainstream media to report about the case, but with very little success.

This is of course also in stark contrast to the massive and persistent reporting of the much less important constitutional case brought by Gina Miller to require the Government to get an Act of Parliament to permit it to serve the Article 50 Notice. That case, as I am sure anybody who listened to any of the “news” output of the mainstream media, received literally massive coverage because the Remainers in the media thought that it might derail Brexit.

By contrast our case which may actually get a Declaration that we are already Out of the European Union has only had the Mail On-line do two items about it, both of which were top trending political news stories on-line.

I have been informed that those in charge of the Mail On-line were told by the Daily Mail’s new editor (who is a Remainer) that they were to let the story drop.

The Express On-line also began to cover the story, but again I understand they were told to drop the story by their new owners from the Mirror Group.

Apart from those two media outlets there has been, so far as I am aware, no other coverage at all.

Given the significance of this case I think we can draw some important conclusions from this treatment.

The first is that despite the claims of the mainstream media to report “News”, this claim is quite simply ‘fake news’. The so-called “News” which they report is subordinate to their propaganda objective of furthering their internationalist, left-liberal bias.

So, any of us that take our understanding of what is going on in the world from the mainstream media is therefore running a big risk that their awareness of news will be so tainted by this propaganda objective that their understanding may well be led into fundamental errors about what is going on.

This of course has important implications for political policy and decision making because our politicians seem to take much of their agenda from what appears in the mainstream media. No wonder they make such a mess of almost every decision that they are involved in!

Also no wonder so many people are misled into supporting displacement activity!

Another important point to consider is the effectiveness of social media. Despite not receiving any proper coverage by the mainstream media, we have still been able raise over £80,000 toward the case. That does enable us to carry on with the case with some confidence. However against that we have to set what happened with the Gina Miller case where the fake news mainstream media furore led to the funding of a case which cost over £1.2 million! Social Media therefore is helpful but does not fully compensate us for being completely cut out of the mainstream media reporting.

Last but not least, it also does need to be noted that the Remainer cartel politicians like Yvette Cooper and Tom Watson have been campaigning for social media access to be cut-off for all those who oppose the current British Political Establishment cartel.

Our window of potential opportunity on social media is therefore already being closed off, as the recent treatment of Tommy Robinson so vividly demonstrates!

This of course means that it is urgent to find ways to break through politically before the window of opportunity finally closes on us!

Posted by Robin Tilbrook at 13:28 13 comments: Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Pinterest Labels: BBC, bbc bias, brexit, English Democrats, eu, eu referendum, European Union, fake news, gina miller, mainstream media, media, national media, nigel farage