The "fake judgement" in the Gina Miller case

I imagine that every reader of this blog will be familiar with at least some aspects of the Gina Miller case which has frequently been lauded as the most important constitutional case in the UK for decades.

In this post I want to suggest a different analysis which leads me to the conclusion that the Divisional Court and the United Kingdom Supreme Court each produced a "fake judgement" in the Gina Miller case.

Gina Miller's argument, as put foward by Lord Pannick QC, was broadly that an Article 50(2) notification could not be sent by the Prime Minister in the absence of an Act of Parliament because of a supposed requirement of UK constitutional law.

Gina Miller's case, in my opinion, should have been thrown out because it was fatally misconceived.

Let me briefly explain why I believe that Gina Miller should never have been granted permission to seek Judicial Review.

The relevant parts of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union are as follows:

Article 50
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention.

The correct interpretation of these parts of Article 50 is, I suggest, as follows:

1. The Member State must make a decision to leave the European Union
2. That decision must be taken in accordance with the Member State's constitutional requirements
3. If a decision has been taken and that decision is in compliance with the constitutional requirements then the Member State is under a legal duty to notify the European Union (although no time limit for that is specified).

It seems to me that any competent judge, acting honestly, should have recognised that the "constitutional requirements" aspect of Article 50 TEU applied to the decision not the notification.


How, then, were the judgements of the Divisional Court and the United Kingdom Supreme Court "fake"?

Put very simply:

1. The Court did not seriously examine the question of whether or not a decision had been taken.
2. The Court therefore did not seriously examine the question of whether the UK's constitutional requirements had been met with respect to the Article 50(1) decision
3. The Court sought to create a legal requirement which it had no power to create with respect to the notification of the supposed Article 50(1) decision.

The "fake judgement" in Miller has allowed the Whitehall Farce that is Brexit to continue largely undisturbed.

Parliament passed the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 to supposedly give the Prime Minister permission to do something that she was already required to do by virtue of European Union Law, as expressed in the first sentence of Paragraph 2 of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.

Parliament made the mistake of trusting the "fake judgement" of the United Kingdom Supreme Court.

The inept subservience of Parliament would be laughable if it were not so serious.

The "fake judgement" of the Courts has allowed the Brexit farce to proceed.

In my view very serious questions need to be asked about the conduct of the fourteen senior judges in the Divisional Court and UK Supreme Court.

It is time that the "fake judgements" in Miller are overturned and that is one aspect of what my legal challenge to Brexit seeks to do.

In drawing attention to the "fake judgements" of the Divisional Court and the United Kingdom Supreme Court I do not absolve politicians of responsibility.

I believe that the Prime Minister has, for months, been deliberately misleading the UK public about Brexit.

My legal challenge seeks to bring the Prime Minister's dishonest behaviour to a halt.

As I have often said it is time to "kill brexit now"!