Kill Brexit Now!

In the last few days I've learned of a fourth application for Judicial Review of Brexit. I refer to the application as the "fourth" application but it is in fact the first of the four applications of which I'm aware in date order. The four applications of which I'm aware are: CO/3008/2017 CO/5012/2017 - which is subject to an application for a confidentiality order CO/5050/2017 - my own Claim CO/5929/2017 - the Claim of Elizabeth Margaret Webster Here are some basic facts about the Claim for Judicial Review CO/3008/2017. The Claimant was Martyn Truss. Martyn Truss's Claim was issued on 26th June 2017. The Government Legal Department's Summary Grounds of Resistance authored by the barrister Tom Cross was dated 13th July 2107. It appears that Martyn Truss made an application on 24th July 2017. I assume that application was for urgency but it's unclear from the limited documents that I have seen so far. Another possibility is that Ma...

Yesterday (30th November) at the High Court in London my Claim for Judicial Review of Brexit made its first, low-key appearance before Mr. Justice Stuart-Smith. When I submitted my Claim a few weeks ago I had asked that my Claim for Judicial Review of Brexit be considered by the Administrative Court as an urgent Claim. On 7th November Mr. Justice Supperstone after consideration of the papers refused to consider the Claim on an urgent basis. I then lodged an Application for Reconsideration. On 30th November Mr. Justice Stuart-Smith dismissed my application for reconsideration. The refusal to allow urgency and interim injunctive relief is, perhaps, unsurprising since I asked the Court for an interim injunction preventing the Prime Minister from carrying forward the Brexit negotiations. Since I believe that no lawful Article 50 decision has been taken it follows that, if I'm correct, the Prime Minister has no lawful basis on which to carry out the Brexit negotiations....

I know that lots of people who are horrified by Brexit can feel helpless as to how to make any impact to stop the Brexit Madness. Today I have written to two MPs, Dominic Grieve QC MP and Joanna Cherry QC MP, asking them to ask one or more Urgent Parliamentary Questions about the Prime Minister's Brexit strategy. Will they ask a Parliamentary Question? Or find it expedient to duck such potentially controversial issues? I don't know. So, to me, it makes sense to try to make sure that as many MPs as possible know about the legal challenges in the High Court and the legal issues which the Prime Minister will need to address. The letter and its attachments can be freely distributed to other MPs and it's by doing that you could help spread awareness in Parliament that the Prime Minister's Brexit strategy is legally fatally flawed. The letter to Dominic Grieve and Joanna Cherry is publicly available here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1bYTOJ3XLPIypD54Dw...

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.

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...

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...

The following is the text of a media release regarding my Claim for Judicial Review of the Prime Minister's Brexit strategy. A legal challenge has been launched in the Administrative Court in London to the Prime Minister’s Brexit strategy. The legal challenge which names the Prime Minister as First Defendant has been launched by a retired Scottish doctor, Dr. Andrew Watt, and includes four Grounds of Claim. The legal challenge goes to the heart of the Prime Minister’s approach to Brexit and includes a challenge to the legality of the Prime Minister’s purported notification letter of 29 th March 2017, on the grounds that the United Kingdom has not taken a decision compliant with Article 50(1) of the Treaty on European Union. The consequence in Law, so Dr. Watt argues, is that the ongoing negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union are unlawful. The most fundamental Ground of the four in Dr. Watt’s Claim is whether or not a decision compliant ...