December 2023
« Nov    

Why don’t Brexiteers use the courts too?

(Sunday/Monday blog)

What a mess! What a f**king disaster! Brexit delayed yet again and again and again by (IMHO) scumbag lying Remainers. Letwin, Grieve, Soubry, Gauke and all the other (IMHO) lying Remainer garbage.

But, if the Remoaner scum can use the courts to block the Government and Brexit, why can’t Brexiteers use them to outwit the lying, treacherous, UK-hating, pieces-of-sh*t Remainers?

It’s clear to me that the (IMHO) treacherous, UK-Hating surrender monkeys Letwin, Grieve, Hammond, Gauke etc plus the Libdems and Labour and the howling, intellectually-challenged Scrots are going to try to use a 3-month delay to get a second referendum. And the question in the referendum will be Boris’s Deal or Remain. Or maybe it will just be Remain or Remain? The one thing they won’t risk is a General Election as Remainers know that nobody wants Comrade Corbyn and Lenin McDonnell running the country and that Boris Johnson’s popularity goes up with every dirty trick the Remainers use to keep us in their beloved EU

So I was wondering why Brexiteers can’t start using the courts to block the Remainer scum’s tricks.

I’m not a lawyer. But I wonder if the Brexit Party could get ahead of events by doing the following:

1. Investigate whether the promise made in the Government’s 2016 booklet sent at a cost of £9m of taxpayers’ money to every home in which the Government promises to implement what the British people decide could be viewed as a legally-binding contract between the Government and voters. This legally-binding aspect is reinforced by the fact that all political parties committed many times verbally and in their 2017 written election manifestos to respect the result of the 2016 Referendum

2. If the commitment to implement the result of the Referendum can be established as a legally-binding contract between the main parties and voters, then the Brexit Party could launch a pre-emptive legal action against the Electoral Commission. The action would be based on the principle that, as all political parties have given legally-binding commitments to abide by the result of the 2016 Referendum, then Remain cannot be an option in any second Referendum as the people would have already voted to Leave in 2016 – a result all the main parties said they accepted. Therefore the only permissable options in any second Referendum would be either “Leave with Johnson’s Deal” or “Leave with No Deal”.

3. If this could be done, this would totally sink Labour’s and the LibDems’ and the SNP’s attempts to block Brexit by calling a second Referendum.

The repulsive Remoaners are not the only people who can use the courts. Moreover, the Brexit Party must have the funds (or could raise them easily from supporters like myself) to pay for such legal action

So, come on Brexit Party. Instead of bitching and moaning about how awful Boris Johnson’s deal is, accept that most of the country support it and get behind it. And for God’s sake hire some decent lawyers and fight this shambles in court.

I’ve given you one idea of how this can be done. But if you pull your fingers out, you can probably find others.

Farage, Tice, Widdecome and the rest of you – get your act together, get some lawyers and fight for Britain!!!!!

6 comments to Why don’t Brexiteers use the courts too?

  • A Thorpe

    Lady Hale would never allow that to happen.

  • David Craig

    Maybe. Or maybe the learned judges have realised they went too far last time they got involved and were manipulated by the Remoaners who achieved nothing anyway. Maybe next time the judges will be a bit more circumspect?

  • Judd

    Johnson’s deal isn’t a deal at all.
    Its May’s turd of a treaty with a smattering of polished glitter on the odd spot with all cameras being focused on said glitter.

    Look how quickly the mass media hailed it as the best things since Y fronts, smiles all round in the EU.

    This is not a deal it is just another surrender document, the worse aspect of all being the ECJ holds the final say over the next stages should we be daft enough to pass it.

    I get the panic, that if this doesn’t pass then the enemy within will get their second referendum, but be under no illusion that this pigs ear of a deal will allow us to be free of the EU.

    What everyone is forgetting is that Johnson until 5 minutes ago had EU running through him like lettering in a stick of rock, we are once again being played by a deceitful untrustworthy tory party, rewording May’s surrender document and offering Northern Ireland as a sacrifice…the DUP are the only reason the tories were able to make a govt, tories as usual the party of betrayal.

  • twi5ted

    This was posted to twitter this morning and explains what was going on unreported by the media:

    1. I’m looking at twitter and there’s a lot of smoke & mirrors out there. Here’s what actually happened today. It will help you understand if you look over the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. aka the ‘Benn Act’
    2. You can find the Benn Act here:…

    As you know, a few days ago the PM concluded negotiations with the EU for a revised Withdrawal Agreement (WA).

    3. The new WA is a treaty with the EU. We have a copy and the EU have a copy. The WA cannot be amended by our Parliament because our WA has to be identical to the EU’s. Any changes have to be negotiated by the Government and agreed by the EU.

    4. ‘Super Saturday’ was the day that the newly negotiated version of the WA should have been voted on in Parliament. If the WA had been approved the requirement to extend would have fallen away. S.1 of the Benn Act sets this out in detail.

    5. The WA on its own doesn’t put the treaty into our domestic law, it needs the accompanying Withdrawal Act Implementation Bill (WAIB). Once ratified the WAIB becomes an Act of Parliament. Bills can be amended as they pass through the Commons & Lords.

    6. But the WAIB would have to reflect accurately everything that is in the WA treaty, so that our domestic law matches international law within the WA. Had the WA been voted on today, the WAIB would have followed on over the coming days. It would be debated in the Commons & Lords

    7. Any amendments would have to be cross checked with the WA to make sure both documents set out the same details albeit in a different style (our laws are drafted differently to EU laws).

    8. What actually happened today in the Letwin Amendment was an attempt to put the cart before the horse. Parliament wanted to get its hands on the WAIB so that it could amend it before the new WA had been approved by a vote in the Commons.

    9. As the WA didn’t receive approval today, the Benn Act jumps to S.1(4), the bit known as the Kinnock Amendment (KA). If you take a look at it you will see that not only does it require the PM to ask for a 3 month extension, it also sets out a different version of the WA treaty.

    10. The KA refers to a soft version of the WA that Mrs May tried to negotiate with Labour. It contains a customs union & a vote in the commons for a 2nd referendum.

    That version of the WA didn’t get to the vote stage as talks broke down with Mrs May & Labour last Spring.

    11. So today’s Letwin Amendment was to try and get the WAIB through Parliament and to add a customs union and probably the single market to make it a very soft Brexit. That is why they wanted the WAIB to go through before a WA. It was a Brexit wrecking tactic.

    12. The new version of the WA would have been lost as it wouldn’t have matched the WAIB that Letwin tried to push through before the WA treaty. The softest Brexit WA would have been resurrected and put to a 2nd ref against remain.

    That’s what happened Saturday.

  • William Boreham

    Courtesy of the Bruges Group:

    So far as we are aware the only material changes in the Withdrawal Agreement (Treaty) are to the NI Protocol, which means that the critical ECJ oversight and Art 184 link to the Political Declaration remain. I am told by UKREP that there are two changes to other Articles in the Treaty but they were unable to tell us which ones.

    Executive Summary:
    The Treaty permanently restricts our military independence, demands payment of an unspecified sum, prevents independent arbitration, grants EU officials immunity from UK laws, leaves us with EIB contingent liabilities running into tens if not hundreds of billions and will impose punitive laws on the UK during a transition which is likely to be extended until mid 2022 (just a few months before the next General Election).
    The Political Declaration is such that a future FTA with the EU is made unpalatable because it will restrict our foreign policy and military independence as well as policies in trade, tax, fishing, environment, social and employment, competition and state aid. Free movement is replaced with vague notions of “mobility” and “non discrimination”.
    Specific Provisions in which the Withdrawal Treaty:-
    1.Restricts Parliamentary independence
    Just as before, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) governs the entire Treaty and EU law takes precedence – binding future British Parliaments and requiring judges to overturn laws passed by the British Parliament if the ECJ considers them to be inconsistent with obligations in the Treaty. (Articles 4, 87, 89 and 127).
    2. Restricts independent trade policy
    Although there is no longer any reference in the Political Declaration to “building on the customs territory” the new provisions may still create difficulties for the UK in agreeing trade deals because any FTA with the EU must satisfy principles and objectives that include “ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition” (para 17) and “deep regulatory and customs cooperation” (para 21). This will make it difficult for the UK to reduce non-tariff barriers as a means to facilitate a trade deal with a third country – particularly the United States.
    The Political Declaration requires that a FTA “ensure no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors with… ambitious customs objectives that are in line with the Parties’ objectives and principles” (para 22). This does not exclude the possibility of a Customs Union. It is not clear how the UK could protect its industries against dumping by third countries with which the EU has FTAs.
    The problem also remains that there is no definition in the Withdrawal Treaty for the word “goods”
    and so its scope will be interpreted as the ECJ determines from time to time (Articles 127, 184).
    3. Prevents an independent tax policy
    The Political Declaration still obliges the UK to adopt a future relationship which will impose EU State Aid rules and “relevant tax matters” on the UK (para 77), the EU specifically intends to curb the UK’s ability to have “harmful tax practices”, the Withdrawal Treaty also applies EU law to the UK during the transition period (Article 127) – allowing the EU to sue the UK, including infringement proceedings for: as yet unidentified breaches of State Aid rules (which can take the form of tax exemptions); and billions in unpaid VAT on commodity derivative transactions dating back to the 1970s (Articles 86 and 93).
    4. Controls Fishing
    The CFP continues in UK waters during the transition period (which can be extended) but the UK will have no say in its implementation or enforcement. After the transition, the Political Declaration requires “cooperation on… regulation of fisheries, in a non-discriminatory manner” (para 72), which is code for continuing the current arrangements for EU access to UK waters.
    The Political Declaration also requires that any FTA “ensure service providers and investors are treated in a non-discriminatory manner, including with regard to establishment” (para 29) – this would prevent the UK from introducing the modern equivalent of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 which sought to protect the British Fishing Fleet’s quota from being bought-up by foreign owners (and which was the subject of the infamous litigation in Factortame).
    5. and 6. Prevents independent military action
    The Treaty permanently restricts the UK’s sovereignty by preventing the UK from taking “any action likely to conflict with or impede” EU foreign policy (Article 129(6)). It is instructive that this contrasts with almost all the other sub-sections of Article 129 – each of which include language limiting them to the duration of the transition period.
    It is also very revealing in the Political Declaration that critical parts of the section on foreign policy and security are not reciprocal. For example, para 99 confirms that the future relationship will not “prejudice the decision-making autonomy of the EU” but no such language is afforded to the UK – we are merely permitted to “maintain the right to determine how [to respond] to any invitation to participate in operations or missions”.
    Additionally, in the Political Declaration the parties “agree to consider” security collaboration in the European Defence Agency, the European Defence Fund and PESCO “to the extent possible under [EU law]” (para 102(c)) which is a prescriptive obligation and not merely a permissive option. Despite making payments to the European Defence Agency during the transition period, British troops in EU battlegroups will not be led by British staff officers (Articles 129(7) and 156-157).
    7. Restricts Foreign Policy
    The UK will be bound by international agreements concluded by the EU despite having no influence in their negotiation during the transition period and must “refrain, during the transition period, from any action… which is likely to be prejudicial” to the interests of the EU (Article 129(3) and (6)).
    8. Demands Payment of a sum to be decided by the EU
    Possibly a 39bn payment to the EU according to HM Treasury but as that amount can’t anticipate EU fines and contingent liabilities it’s just a minimum figure (Articles 138-144, and 152-155).
    9. Replaces one Commission with another
    A new body is established with ‘powers equivalent to those of the European Commission’ (Article 159).
    10. Prevents independent arbitration
    The UK is expressly denied the right to take any dispute about the Treaty to the international courts and must accept the exclusive jurisdiction of the Arbitration Panel (half of whom are appointed by the EU) and, via it, judgments of the ECJ (Articles 168, 174).
    11. Grants EU officials immunity
    The EU and its employees are to be immune to UK regulations, criminal law and exempt from tax (Articles 101, 104, and 106-116).
    12. Imposes a gagging order on the UK
    The UK must keep all EU information confidential but the EU can use UK information as it sees fit. (Articles 74 and 105).
    13. Leaves the UK with EIB risks but no profits
    We abandon rights to not only past and future profits made from our investment in the EIB, but also our share of assets of the EIB and yet remain liable for contingent liabilities of up to 500bn euros of guarantees given to the EIB via the EU budget (Articles 143, 147, 150).
    14. Imposes EU public procurement rules
    EU public procurement rules continue at least during the transition period (Articles 75-78 and 127).
    15. Makes the UK a bystander in laws that govern it
    The UK is permitted to send a civil servant to Brussels to observe the EU passing laws designed to disadvantage our economy during the transition (which might last many years) (Article 34). For example, the EU is discussing regulating London’s huge Foreign Exchange Markets and also imposing a financial transaction tax that would be collected at our expense by HMRC but sent to foreign governments.

    Benjamin Wrench Barrister
    Brussels, 17th October 2019

  • david brown

    Letwins amendment if it results in another three month delay will cost us at least two and a half billion.As each year we pay more into the EU than we get back being more than nine billion more.
    So Boris photo copy if acceped is costing two and a half billion.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>