Earlier today I tweeted out the text of an email I’d sent to those who had helped fund this Crowd Justice campaign.
I promised to name the legal team you had funded and reproduce a copy of our letter to the Government.
Our legal team (in alphabetical order) is as follows (with further names to be added).
Paul Bowen QC, Gerry Facenna QC, Ben Jaffey, John Halford, Tim Johnston, Helen Mountfield QC and Jack Williams.
The letter reads as follows.
Waiting for Godot 
Thank you for publishing this. The letter is formidable. My thanks also go to the whole legal team.
Thank you Jo for letting us all see this. While it is music to my ears, I am not hopeful that the choir of the HoCs is capable of carrying this tune.
However, a thorough airing of the matters raised would make a welcome change from the propaganda and fear-mongering that have clouded things these past months.
Excellent work. Maybe you should redact the recipient’s e-mail address on the letter for publication purposes. Interested to see you receive a substantive response.
When I was young, I rebuilt the top-end of my 4.2 E-type’s engine. It was polished, elegantly constructed and, when complete, extremely powerful. While there is a similar aesthetic attraction (at least to my probably odd mind) to this letter, the more important aspects are the two key arguments that, as far as I can see, may be irrefutable.
One is that, while the effect of applying the process described in Article 50 would inevitable alter people’s rights, such rights cannot be changed except by Parliament. Therefore the process cannot be commenced by the executive alone.
The other is the clear wording of the 2011 Act as described in Parliament by William Hague.
Thank you so much for this encouraging news. There seems to some of us to be a moral principle here: that something so seismic in its effects should not be determined by an executive, potentially acting opportunistically on the result of an advisory referendum, but only after full consideration by the Houses of Parliament. And now it appears that there is a clear legal basis for what seems morally right.
Once again, thank you all.
Lindsay Porter
This is great. Is there anything we can do to help publicise this on our website, facebook page or to our email list?
Great work
Thank you for this. Can this letter be attached via hyperlink somehow, so that it can be saved/printed?
If it must, Parliament will vote according to the will of the people as expressed in the referendum. Parliament decided that the will of the people should decide the membership of the EU, so obviously now it knows that will it shall do the necessary legislative work.
Parliament and government have superb lawyers who have forgotten more about constitutional matters that most of us will ever know. Have no fear – they know why must be done both morally and legally.
(It’s not like Tony Blair is still around, after all!)
Thank you to the legal team and all that are helping on this matter.
The referendum was a glorified opinion poll as it had no legal triggers. It does not represent all British citizens but is a snapshot of opinions of a crowd that in the extreme certainly does not represent all Britons. A large percentage of Britons who would be affected by the loss of freedom of the EU were disenfranchised by the 15 year rule on voter rights and certainly new voters who have not yet been enfranchised would would be affected by the time the article 50 period expires.
The UK is a representative democracy and parliament sovereignty has not changed with the EU but if the leave rabble get their way with a demand that someone bash the article 50 button then parliament is circumvented as it has been handing a ticking countdown clock with an ultimatum. This is just plain wrong – for better or for worse, the process of parliament does not act on fleeting popular opinion but considers the long term effect on all the UK. We regularly are allowed to change our representatives to reflect fleeting opinions but in the end Parliament acts.
p.s.
As an aside, If you want to convert the set of images to a PDF then on unix you can save each image to a folder and then run,
convert capture1.png capture2.png capture3.png capture4.png capture5.png capture6.png capture7.png capture8.png capture9.png capture10.png capture11.png capture12.png out.pdf
Thank you to the legal team and all that are helping on this.
The referendum was a glorified opinion poll as it had no legal triggers. It does not represent all British citizens but is a snapshot of opinions of a crowd that in the extreme certainly does not represent all Britons. A large percentage of Britons who would be affected by the loss of freedom of the EU were disenfranchised by the 15 year rule on voter rights and certainly new voters who have not yet been enfranchised would would be affected by the time the article 50 period expires.
The UK is a representative democracy and parliament sovereignty has not changed with the EU but if the leave rabble get their way with a demand that someone bash the article 50 button then parliament is circumvented as it has been handing a ticking countdown clock with an ultimatum. This is just plain wrong – for better or for worse, the process of parliament does not act on fleeting popular opinion but considers the long term effect on all the UK. We regularly are allowed to change our representatives to reflect fleeting opinions but in the end Parliament acts.
p.s.
As an aside, If you want to convert the set of images to a PDF then on unix you can save each image to a folder and then run,
convert capture1.png capture2.png capture3.png capture4.png capture5.png capture6.png capture7.png capture8.png capture9.png capture10.png capture11.png capture12.png out.pdf
As one of the ‘leave rabble’ I have no problem with Parliament voting on the Article 50 issue. They & ‘lincolnphipps’ should consider:
– the documentation issued by the government was explicitly clear in that they would ‘implement the decision’ of the referendum
– the electorate for the referendum was determined by Parliament
– the result of the latest European elections showed that the ‘leave’ opinion is hardly fleeting.
If Parliament votes on this issue and decides to reject the Article 50 trigger, will the same group of lawyers represent the ‘leave rabble’ and get the referendum result implemented?
The referendum was an advisory one and not mandatory. The law of the land that enabled the referendum i.e. the European Union Referendum Act 2015, is the only documentation needed. Whilst politicians may say they would ‘implement the decision’ they have no legal obligation to act especially for such a marginal result. Political promises are not enforceable.
If parliament votes on the matter then parliamentary sovereignty is maintained. If parliament deems the result of the referendum to be not a sufficient mandate to proceed with article 50 then there are no grounds for any lawyer group whatsoever to appeal. With parliament sovereignty being upheld on an advisory referendum then what grounds could they appeal ? On the other hand the use of royal prerogative to bypass parliamentary sovereignty for an advisory referendum is certainly an abuse of procedure that circumvents the very sovereignty that Brexiters whine about.
Reblogged this on grainetoroot and commented:
Listen up to what the lawyers have to say!
Pingback: Gerry Facenna QC and Jack Williams advise on Article 50 TEU – should Parliament or the executive trigger UK withdrawal from the EU? - Monckton Chambers
Much as I want to embrace your conclusion (and believe that it may indeed be correct, I have to say that I find your argument incomplete and unsatisfactory.
Specifically, I find your basing your ground of challenge on the effect of Article 50 notification as abrogating the European Communities Act 1972 difficult to accept. It seems to me that, however bizarrely, in the event of Article 50’s triggering and operation to the extent that the UK’s withdrawal did follow, the 1972 Acct could stand and could continue to give UK citizens domestically continued access to rights that were derived from the EU, until such time as the UK Parliament chose to repeal the Act or individual instruments made under it.
However, EU citizenship, enfranchisement and free movement are not simply matters of domestic law. A UK citizen wishing to exercise his or her rights in mainland Europe relies on the adherence of other member States to the EU treaties. the effect of our withdrawal would end their obligation to recognise our rights. That recognition, and the ability to enforce it in the ECJ, is what the UK’s citizens stand to lose. The 1972 Act cannot make good this loss which is substantial and substantive.
The case law that you have cited rests on the inability of the Crown to use the prerogative to abrogate domestic rights granted by Parliament. It is silent on extra territorial rights. Does that mean that those rights cannot be protected?
Well, I believe that it is possible that they can, but I have to say I have yet to persuade anyone. The key to this is that the ECHR takes a broad view of property rights under Protocol 1 to the Convention. If it is broad enough to embrace rights to social security, might it also be broad enough to embrace voting rights and other rights granted by the EU Treaties?
Let us suppose it might. How does that help us? I suggest that because the Human Rights Act 1998 guarantees us these rights unless they are removed by operation of law, therefore it would be necessary for Parliament to enact laws providing for their removal before the UK Government could exercise its prerogative right to trigger Article 50.
I have already sent you this link but here is my argument in longer form: http://blog.spardagus.com/post/146946392930/missing-the-gravy-the-debate-about-article-50
For what it is worth,
Iain M Spardagus,
11 July 2016
Let us assume that the legal action is successful and parliament is required to trigger article 50.
The result today would very likely mean that article 50 would be triggered as both Corbyn and May have indicated that out means out. In other words I have seen no indication that there is a parliamentary majority in favour of not triggering article 50.
There is indeed that cloud upon the horizon Keith.
However:
-Few if any bills are ever presented to parliament that are thought unlikely of success. Some of those do fail though.
-This is a bill that neither the Government nor the ‘loyal’ opposition wish to see presented, as you say.
-The reality of whether such a bill would be required to pass in both houses is also moot – as far as I’ve read here and elsewhere.
And, of course, this is not only a Political issue but a Party Political issue. It is inconceivable that the MPs and the Partys shall have their own fortunes at the forefront of their minds.
A – Will a Brexit Party or MP be re-elected?
B – Will a Remain stance offer a better chance of getting elected?
I am firmly with option ‘B’.
As we have been – as a Nation, as a United Kingdom and as a population, tested almost to destruction.
Reconstruction demands no less of we who all along wanted to; Remain, review & renew.
Pingback: Teresa May will be PM by Wednesday | Brexit Issues
In addition Keith, there is this…
“Conclusion
Whether only Parliament has the authority to trigger Article 50 and begin the Brexit process, or whether the Prime Minister, acting under the Royal Prerogative, can act without the approval of Parliament, both Parliament and the Prime Minister must take into consideration the reasons against perceiving the referendum’s result as morally-politically authoritative. While Parliament is under no legal duty to perceive the referendum’s result as not morally-politically binding, the Prime Minister is under such duty, unless Parliament explicitly states otherwise.”
From…
Y. Nehushtan, ‘Why is it Illegal for the Prime Minister to Perceive the EU Referendum’s Result as Morally-Politically Authoritative?’, U.K. Const. L. Blog (11th Jul 2016) (available at https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/))
Thomas thanks. I see the exact opposite politically (unfortunately).
I suspect what will happen is that leavers will support May because she is promising Brexit, whereas Conservative Remainers will support May because they are Conservatives.
On the other hand Labour’s woes are now redoubled since there is now a fundamental policy difference (to support Remain and go against many Labour voters or to accept Leave) to add to its strategic problems of leadership.
The net result is a (more or less) united Conservative party and a hopelessly divided Labour party.
While it is possible that ‘Remain MPs’ may get a boost, only the Lib Dems are standing on that platform, and they can’t win in this system.
Pingback: Charles Streeten: Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube: Can an Article 50 Notification Be Revoked? | UK Constitutional Law Association
Pingback: John Adenitire: The Executive Cannot Abrogate Fundamental Rights without Specific Parliamentary Mandate – The Implications of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights for Triggering Art 50 | UK Constitutional Law Association