Send me to argue a petition to the EU
Donation protected
For more than ten years ive watched the UK drift towards an ever more right wing state so much so that i left in 2011.- I decided to go and take up an offer to study law in Portugal including EU law never realising the sheer irony of what I was about to do. And then came Brexit and a further threat to our freedoms and rights. No one yet is asking why the government wants to leave the EU and it is nothing to do with borders freedom of movement or immigration. Its far more sinister.
The government decided to hold a referendum,which incidentally, is not specifically provided for in the treaties, which merely refer to a member state being able to reach such a decision by its own constitutional means.
The government introduced a bill which after passing parliament became know as the Referendum Act.
The bill did not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor did it set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented.
There is no mention in the referendum question put to the people as to what happens to your citizenship if your national government decides to leave the Union. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. It is not, in itself, binding upon government or parliament ,which would have debated the motion on the basis of the referendum being merely consultative rather than definitive.
There is a big difference.
If you ask a lawyer whether you should buy a property and you dont specify which, he will give you an appraisal of the virtues of property ownership but that opinion is in no way binding upon the recipient as it is does not specifically include a commitment to buy.
In the case of brexit it is arguably a similar situation, people were asked whether the country should leave the union but no specifics, no detailed information were provided as to what leaving would entail. No mention was made that leaving the Union would involve the loss of citizen's rights , rights that had been gained through EU membership. There should have been precise detail as to the consequences of a leave decision , and indeed those that pertain to a remain situation.
I intend to try and attend the Committee hearings on brexit in October and will ask to put the case for a new referendum .
In the absence of support from the EU parliament, we should ask for an injunction preventing any further negotiation or implementation of any decisions whatsoever until such time as the Court has ruled on the loss of citizens rights, the applicability of a consultative referendum in law and whether such a referendum result as was obtained was sufficient to enable the government to trigger article 50.
The authors of article 50 have made it very clear that they had not envisaged the triggering of article 50 s leave mechanism. It was by their own admission improperly worded and contained insufficient detail.
The only way of putting this s right is by the issue of a protocol which would contain specific detail as how to leave, and how to deal with the consequences.of any such decision.
The government made no attempt to apply to the Commission for such a protocol. They should have done.
To enable such steps to be taken will require financial support, best obtained by crowd funding. My feeling is that I would in the first instance contact a French lawyer and obtain a quote for his services.
As I speak fluent French comunication wont be a problem.A first contact will consist of an opinion as to the viablity of a request for an injunction on an urgent basis. Anything else is no good to us at this stage. I would need an assurance from an EU judge that the injunction will be considered as an urgent request.
I will ask for a consultation nothing else will do, and I will go to Brussels myself to attend such a meeting. If he says yes then we go full steam ahead and put in the injunction request formally.
I can then produce the injunction which the French lawyer can amend at will but I will ensure that the broad objectives of the injunction are satisfied.
We have absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain from such an intiative. If we dont succeed we will at least have tried..
My main concern will be to try an ensure we get a fair hearing, to date none of the various attempts to complain about brexit have actually been heard. And I question whether there is much interest in the EU to hear any plaint submitted by UK nationals. A more direct approach is needed hence the idea of asking for an injunction, in the hope that they will be forced to answer.
All of this is dependent on support, and on crowdfunding making it possible.
The government decided to hold a referendum,which incidentally, is not specifically provided for in the treaties, which merely refer to a member state being able to reach such a decision by its own constitutional means.
The government introduced a bill which after passing parliament became know as the Referendum Act.
The bill did not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor did it set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented.
There is no mention in the referendum question put to the people as to what happens to your citizenship if your national government decides to leave the Union. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. It is not, in itself, binding upon government or parliament ,which would have debated the motion on the basis of the referendum being merely consultative rather than definitive.
There is a big difference.
If you ask a lawyer whether you should buy a property and you dont specify which, he will give you an appraisal of the virtues of property ownership but that opinion is in no way binding upon the recipient as it is does not specifically include a commitment to buy.
In the case of brexit it is arguably a similar situation, people were asked whether the country should leave the union but no specifics, no detailed information were provided as to what leaving would entail. No mention was made that leaving the Union would involve the loss of citizen's rights , rights that had been gained through EU membership. There should have been precise detail as to the consequences of a leave decision , and indeed those that pertain to a remain situation.
I intend to try and attend the Committee hearings on brexit in October and will ask to put the case for a new referendum .
In the absence of support from the EU parliament, we should ask for an injunction preventing any further negotiation or implementation of any decisions whatsoever until such time as the Court has ruled on the loss of citizens rights, the applicability of a consultative referendum in law and whether such a referendum result as was obtained was sufficient to enable the government to trigger article 50.
The authors of article 50 have made it very clear that they had not envisaged the triggering of article 50 s leave mechanism. It was by their own admission improperly worded and contained insufficient detail.
The only way of putting this s right is by the issue of a protocol which would contain specific detail as how to leave, and how to deal with the consequences.of any such decision.
The government made no attempt to apply to the Commission for such a protocol. They should have done.
To enable such steps to be taken will require financial support, best obtained by crowd funding. My feeling is that I would in the first instance contact a French lawyer and obtain a quote for his services.
As I speak fluent French comunication wont be a problem.A first contact will consist of an opinion as to the viablity of a request for an injunction on an urgent basis. Anything else is no good to us at this stage. I would need an assurance from an EU judge that the injunction will be considered as an urgent request.
I will ask for a consultation nothing else will do, and I will go to Brussels myself to attend such a meeting. If he says yes then we go full steam ahead and put in the injunction request formally.
I can then produce the injunction which the French lawyer can amend at will but I will ensure that the broad objectives of the injunction are satisfied.
We have absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain from such an intiative. If we dont succeed we will at least have tried..
My main concern will be to try an ensure we get a fair hearing, to date none of the various attempts to complain about brexit have actually been heard. And I question whether there is much interest in the EU to hear any plaint submitted by UK nationals. A more direct approach is needed hence the idea of asking for an injunction, in the hope that they will be forced to answer.
All of this is dependent on support, and on crowdfunding making it possible.
Organizer
David Smith
Organizer
Beja
