Open Letter to Bill Cash MP re the need for an urgent Parliamentary Question

The serious questions which exist about whether or not a lawful Article 50(1) decision has been taken form one component of my Claim for Judicial Review of the Prime Minister's Brexit strategy.

Next week, beginning on Tuesday 14th November, the House of Commons is scheduled to begin its consideration of the Committee Stage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

In a situation where it is, at a minimum, questionable whether an Article 50(1) decision has been taken it seems to me to be crazy for the House of Commons to proceed to consideration of the Bill.

I've written to Sir William Cash who, in March 2017, asked the Prime Minister about the risk of future legal challenges to Brexit, to ask him to consider whether he should ask an Urgent Parliamentary Question before the Committee Stage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

A copy of my letter to Sir William Cash MP is online here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bYTOJ3XLPIypD54DwzuQFV0q9yHXfGY1

It seems to me that I have a right to be angry at the Prime Minister because her stunning incompetence has led to my having to launch a legal challenge.

Sir William has a right to be angry at the Prime Minister's stunning incompetence for quite different reasons.

The UK public deserves to know whether there is or is not an Article 50(1) decision.
 
In my opinion Brexit is doomed and the Prime Minister is knowingly fighting on knowing that she is on a sinking ship.

The Prime Minister needs to be exposed in Parliament as a confidence trickster of the most unsavoury kind.

The Prime Minister needs to resign.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

There are TWO legal challenges to Brexit currently active

Things took an interesting turn yesterday when I was contacted with information that my legal challenge to Brexit,  Brexit Legal Challenge: The Prime Minister has three weeks to respond , is not the only active legal challenge to Brexit. Before yesterday I was totally unaware of the other Claim for Judicial Review. Due to confidentiality considerations I can't disclose much about the other Claim for Judicial Review. The other Claim has a single Defendant, the Prime Minister. The other Claim was sealed by the Court on 31st October 2017. My own Claim was sealed by the Court on 1st November 2017. By chance, both Claims were served on the Government Legal Department on 6th November 2017. The effect is that the Government Legal Department must respond with its Grounds of Resistance to my Claim and the other Claim by 27th November 2017. Things are getting really interesting for the Prime Minister. Watch this space.
Read more

CO/5012/2017: An application to renew was made some time ago

Permission for Judicial Review in CO/5012/2017 was refused by Phillip Mott QC in January. See CO/5012/2017: Phillip Mott QC refuses permission for Judicial Review for a link to the decision of Phillip Mott QC. An application was made some weeks ago to renew. This means that in due course that CO/5012/2017 will be considered at an oral hearing. There is significant overlap between the substance of CO/5012/2017 and the so-called Article 50 Challenge by Liz Webster (CO/5929/2017) regarding which an application was made to renew in the last 48 hours. It would make a great deal of sense if both Claims for Judicial Review were considered at the same oral hearing.
Read more