Kill Brexit Now!

If all works correctly you should be able to access the four component documents at this link: "Kill Brexit Now - Letter Before Claim documents"

Perhaps this post is just me being a pedant but the constant repetition by Government Ministers that they are seeking "Free Trade Agreements" annoys me. If there was free trade you don't need an agreement. What David Davis and his ilk are seeking are "Defined Trade Agreements" - agreements that trade may take place on defined conditions. There you go. I've proved I'm a pedant.

Tens of millions of UK citizens have been or will be affected by the Brexit Madness which is sweeping the country. In the "Kill Brexit Now" Judicial Review mentioned here, The "Kill Brexit Now" Judicial Review has been launched I'm seeking to have a UK Court (and the Court of Justice of the European Union) carefully examine 19 legal issues which lead me to believe that the Prime Minister and others have acted unlawfully in the steps taken towards Brexit. The Prime Minister's legal mistakes have, in my estimation, effects in Civil Law and in Criminal Law. If you are someone who is a UK citizen it is likely that you are an "Interested Party" in the "Kill Brexit Now" Judicial Review. If you have a business in the UK or in the EU which has had to make contingency plans to cope with the uncertainty generated by Brexit, you may be an Interested Party. As the prospective Claimant in the Judicial Review the Pre-Action Protocol for Jud...

A short time ago I sent to the Government Legal Department a Letter Before Claim relating to what I think of as the "Kill Brexit Now" Judicial Review. There are 19 Grounds of Judicial Review expressed in the Letter Before Claim. I have given the Government Legal Department until 11th October to respond but I wouldn't be surprised if they ask for an extension in light of the range, complexity and novelty of the legal arguments deployed in the Letter Before Claim. The Letter Before Action is in excess of 20,000 words and is the result of in excess of 2,000 hours of work since November last year. I think of the Judicial Review as the "Kill Brexit Now" Judicial Review because its explicit aim is to KILL Brexit, not merely to stop it, delay it or dilute it. The "Kill Brexit Now" Judicial Review aims to be a Comprehensive Judicial Review of Brexit. It raises issues which, to the best of my knowledge, have never been considered before by a United ...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE LEGAL CHALLENGE LAUNCHED TO PRIME MINISTER’S BREXIT STRATEGY Less than 24 hours after the Prime Minister set out her Brexit strategy in her Florence speech she was facing the prospect of Judicial Review of a key element of that strategy – the so-called “Implementation Period”. On 24 th September a Letter Before Claim, the first formal step towards Judicial Review of Theresa May’s policy, was sent to the Prime Minister and to Oliver Gilman who is a Senior Lawyer at the Government Legal Department. The Letter Before Claim asserts that the “Implementation Period” proposed by the Prime Minister is not lawfully possible. The Letter Before Claim indicates an intention to bring the legal issues which are of concern before the Divisional Court in London. The Prime Minister sent what purported to be an Article 50 “notification” to Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council on 29 th March 2017. The negotiations which are based on t...

This post is a brief placeholder to inform readers of this blog that a short time ago I took the first formal step towards Judicial Review of the Prime Minister's policy of an "implementation period" in her Brexit strategy. For reasons that I won't spell out here I believe there are serious legal difficulties with the proposed "implementation period". I gave the Government Legal Department until 17.00 on Wednesday 11th October to respond formally.

The speech yesterday by Theresa May in Florence doesn't take us significantly towards a viable Brexit. In this post I want to offer a short overview of why it is so difficult for anyone, including Theresa May, to identify a viable Brexit. The difficulties in arriving at a viable Brexit depend on what I call the LEPP Principles. A viable Brexit must meet four criteria. A viable Brexit MUST be Legally watertight Economically sensible Practically achievable Politically acceptable A viable Brexit must satisfy all four of the LEPP Principles at the same time. Let's look at Theresa May's "Implementation period" which she included in her Florence speech. The Prime Minister has grasped that without what she calls an "Implementation Period" (and I call an "Interim Withdrawal Agreement") there would be huge economic damage to the UK. Similarly, something like an Interim Withdrawal Agreement is essential to allow time to create softw...

In the last few weeks the UK media has been filled with discussion about a so-called Interim Agreement between the UK and the EU27. In this post I want to explore two questions: What does the term "Interim Agreement" mean? Is an "Interim Agreement" legally possible? It seems to me that there are two possible meanings that the term "Interim Agreement" might consist of. Legally and politically the possible meanings of the term "Interim Agreement" are very different and create different problems in achieving them. The first meaning is what I will call a Deferred Exit Agreement. That is legally straightforward but politically less than straightforward. In paragraph 3 of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union we read the following: The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, ...

The volume of discussion and chatter about Brexit is, at times, overwhelming. The huge volume of information and chatter has, so it seems to me, obscured a hugely important question. Is Brexit possible? It seems to me that nobody has identified a scenario where even a hypothetical Brexit is possible. There are four broad criteria which all need to be satisfied for Brexit to be possible: Legal coherence Economic sense Practicality Politically acceptability I can't identify any solution where all four criteria are satisfied. Nor have I found in the multiple "position papers" and "partnership papers" produced by the Department for Exiting the European Union a scenario that even theoretically works. Has anyone read any document that claims to satisfy my four criteria (or some criteria broadly similar to them)? If so, please leave a comment on this post or email me at killbrexitnow@gmail.com with a link.