News

David Lammy calls for Amnesty for Illegals

Labour’s David Lammy has called for an amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants living in the united Kingdom.


English Democrats v UK Gov

ENGLISH DEMOCRATS – CLAIM FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE UNITED KINGDOM LEFT THE EUROPEAN UNION ON 29TH MARCH 2019

PRESS RELEASE

On 2nd April the English Democrats, the English nationalist political party, issued a judicial review claiming the Prime Minister could not lawfully agree to an extension to the period before the United Kingdom could leave the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. The Court is asked to declare that, because she had no such power, the UK automatically left the EU on 29th March – the original ‘exit day’, two years after notification was made.

This challenge was to the extension offered by the EU on 27.3.2019 and accepted by the PM on 28th March not to the additional extension the PM claimed to agree to today (11th April).

Attached are submissions filed in support of the challenge. The Government is expected to reply by 17th April.

The English Democrats’ case is that the PM has no statutory power to agree to an extension. The change to ‘exit day’, in a statutory instrument under the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018, can only be made if the Article 50 period has already been extended under international law. If the PM had no power to extend, Parliament could not lawfully make the statutory instrument.

The English Democrats rely on the Supreme Court decision in Miller v Secretary of State, which found that the government cannot change how and whether EU law applies to the UK by the Royal Prerogative. The PM could only notify under Article 50 under the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. The inevitable result was that the UK would leave the EU after two years, when EU law would cease to apply to the UK. Any extension would change the law by making EU law apply beyond that date, which the Act did not give the PM the power to do.

In addition, the English Democrats’ case (also relying on Miller) is that an agreement to extend the Article 50 period would frustrate the purpose of the 2017 and 2018 Acts; particularly as there is no restriction on the length of any potential extension and the number of extensions that may be requested – as the latest extension has shown.

The ‘Cooper-Letwin’ Act giving Parliament power over extension requests has no effect, as no further extension could be given if the UK had already left the EU by the time it came into law.

The English Democrats rely on the Wightman decision of the European Court of Justice in support of our contention that, under EU law, the PM can only agree to an extension ‘on behalf of the UK’ if she has the constitutional authority to do so. Therefore, the UK left the EU on 29th March under EU as well as UK law.

Former Court of Appeal judge, Sir Richard Aikens, has said the English Democrats’ argument is at least ‘highly arguable’, see https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6882583/Former-appeal-judge-says-legality-Brexit-extension-tested-court.html.

Solicitor Robin Tilbrook, who is the Chairman of the English Democrats, said that:

“The good news for all those who voted Leave is that we could already be Out of the EU without being saddled with Theresa May’s appallingly bad deal! The challenge to Leave supporters is that this case is our best and maybe our only chance of actually getting out of the EU. This means that we must win it at all costs! I therefore appeal to all Leave supporters to put all differences aside and to unite in supporting this case”

The claim is being crowd-funded and donations can be made here: https://www.englishdemocrats.party/donate

The English Democrats’ Submissions in full have been published here: https://robintilbrook.blogspot.com/2019/04/detailed-submissions-in-re-queen-on.html

Please contact Robin Tilbrook with any queries:-

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats


Former appeal judge says legality of Brexit extension SHOULD be tested

A former appeal judge has said the legality of Theresa May's delay to Brexit should be tested in a court.

Sir Richard Aikens, who sat in the Court of Appeal from 2008 until 2015, spoke after the leader of the English Democrats political party launched a legal battle claiming that the UK has already left the EU. 

Britain was supposed to leave on March 29, but was granted an extension by the EU until April 12 at a meeting last in Brussels last month.

But The English Democrats leader Robin Tilbrook, as well as number of Tory Brexiteers, says the new exit date should have gone before the House of Commons and the House of Lords before it was approved.


Case to block Article 50 extension - Update 30.03.19

English Democrats bring the Case to get a Declaration that the UK has left the EU as of the 29th March 2019

 

This is our only chance to complete what we voted for in the EU Referendum!

We are serving the legal papers required to bring this case but we really need all the support that Leave supporters can give us to make sure that we can match the expensive legal muscle whom the Government and Remainers will instruct against us! 

Please help as generously as you can! 

There is a donate button on our website >>> EnglishDemocrats.Party/donate

Here are the draft Grounds:-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

 

BETWEEN

 

THE QUEEN

ON THE APPLICATION OF THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS

(REG. NO. 6132268)

Applicant

 

-and-

 

THE PRIME MINISTER (1)

 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION (2)

Respondents

 

 

 

________________________________

 

GROUNDS OF THE APPLICATION

_________________________________

 

 

  1. It is submitted that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has left the European Union as of the 29th March 2019 after the expiry of its two year Notice to Leave dated 29th March 2017.

 

  1. Much of the relevant law has been explored and ruled upon by this Honourable Court and by the Court of Appeal and by the Supreme Court in the case of R (on the application of Miller and another) – v – Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC5. Consequently Parliament enacted the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.

 

  1. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland joined the European Union pursuant to Treaty in 1972 and subsequently the European Union Act 1972 was enacted to give domestic legal force to the Treaty obligations to the European Union.

 

  1. The current overarching constitution of the European Union was reformed under the Lisbon Treaty which was brought into direct legal force in the United Kingdom pursuant to the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008.

 

  1. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty reads as follows:-

 

“Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)

 

  1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

 

  1. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

 

  1. 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 notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

 

  1. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

 

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

 

  1. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asked to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.”

                          

  1. On the 23rd June 2016 the voters of the United Kingdom, by a majority, and the voters of England by a larger majority, voted, in the largest democratic mandate in the United Kingdom’s history, to leave the European Union.

 

  1. In accordance with the United Kingdom’s “Constitutional Requirements” Parliament enacted the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. The Preamble to that Act states that it is:- “An Act to confer power on the Prime Minister to notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU”

 

The Act provides:-

 

“1. Power to notify withdrawal from the EU

  • The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.”

 

  1. Pursuant to the statutory power granted by the European Withdrawal Act 2017 the Prime Minister duly served the Notice on 29th March 2017. That Notice expired on the 29th March 2019.

 

  1. Accordingly it is submitted that as of the scintilla temporis after the expiry of the said notice on the 29th March 2019, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has left the European Union.

 

  1. In the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 Parliament further enacted a transitional scheme whereby it proposed to transpose all EU law into a direct effect in the UK jurisdictions of Northern Ireland, Scotland and England and Wales. Much of that Act has not been brought into force. The Act mis-describes its implementation date as “exit day”. This is something of a misnomer since under the true construction of this Act it has no role, either purported or implicit, in determining the date of departure of the UK leaving the European Union. Within the meaning of the Act, “exit date” is merely the implementation date for the Act’s transactional arrangements.

 

  1. The Applicant is aware that there has been purported ministerial Regulation under the 2018 Act which may have been approved by resolution in both Houses. However even if it has, it is submitted that such a Regulation cannot of itself be in any way definitive of the UK’s actual departure from the European Union. The relevant wording of the Act makes this clear:-

 

“European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

 

An act to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and make other provision in connection with the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU.

 

[26th June 2018]

 

1 Repeal of the European Communities Act 1972

 

The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day.

 

2 Saving for EU-derived domestic legislation

 

(1) EU-derived domestic legislation, as it has effect in domestic law immediately before exit day, continues to have effect in domestic law on and after exit day.

 

20 Interpretation

 

(1) In this Act—

 

“exit day” means 29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m. (and see subsections (2) to (5));

 

(2) In this Act references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day.

 

(3) Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).

 

(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—

 

(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and

 

(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.”

 

  1. Despite the express wording of the European Union (Notification f Withdrawal) Act 2017, expressly only empowering the Prime Minister to give Notice to withdraw the United Kingdom from the EU, the Prime Minister has purported to request an extension of the Article 50 date for departure and subsequently purported to agree an extension to the date of departure.

 

  1. It is submitted, in accordance with long and high authority of legal precedents and also recently and comprehensively in R (on the application of Miller and another) – v – Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC5 that, statute fully displaces any residual prerogative powers.

 

  1. In the premises the only power that the Prime Minister had, as regards Article 50, was the service of the Notice withdrawing the United Kingdom from the EU and giving two years notice. That power was functus officio on the 29th March 2017. Accordingly, her purported request for an extension of the date of departure and the Government’s purported agreement to such an extension is and was unlawful and is and was null and void.

 

  1. In the premises the Applicant seeks a Declaration from this Honourable Court that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland left the European Union upon the expiry of the Article 50 Notice on the 29th March 2019.

 

 

 

 

Statement of Fact

 

I believe that the facts in these Grounds are true.

 

 

 

Signed …………………………………           Dated ……………………..

           Robin Charles William Tilbrook


Latest Twist in Brexit Parliamentary Fiasco

Latest twists in the Brexit Parliamentary fiasco and about the case to stop any extension to Article 50

Following the latest twists in the Brexit Parliamentary fiasco and my previous blog article about the case to stop any extension to Article 50 except by a full Act of Parliament, I have written again to the Government’s lawyers as follows:-

 

Mr Jonathan Stowell

c/o Government Legal Department

 

Dear Sir

 

Re:  Proposed Action

        English Democrats – v - the Secretary of State for Exiting the          

        European Union

 

We refer to the above matter and to our letter of 20th March.  We note that, since that letter was dictated, the Prime Minister has written a letter to the President of the European Council, Mr Donald Tusk, formally asking for an extension of the Article 50 Notice period.  This request for an extension has been made without the authorisation of an Act of Parliament. 

Ministers, including the Prime Minister, only have official power either on the basis of Statutory powers or on the basis of Royal Prerogative powers. 

A long line of legal authority, including the Gina Miller case, has repeatedly reaffirmed that the Prerogative powers only exist in the absence of Statutory powers.  The only relevant Statutory power was that set out in the EU Withdrawal Act 2017, which gave the Prime Minister power to serve a Notice to terminate the UK’s membership of the EU. 

It follows that on the face of it, the Prime Minister’s request for an extension is illegal. 

Also any agreement for an extension which might have been agreed by the European Council is also without any Statutory authority. 

We thought it only proper to raise these points in the light of on-going developments, especially in view of your not having fully responded to our initial Letter before Claim. 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Tilbrook’s


Case to block Article 50 extension - Update 22.03.19

Latest twists in the Brexit Parliamentary fiasco and about the case to stop any extension to Article 50

 

Following the latest twists in the Brexit Parliamentary fiasco and my previous blog article about the case to stop any extension to Article 50 except by a full Act of Parliament, I have written again to the Government’s lawyers as follows:-

 

Mr Jonathan Stowell

c/o Government Legal Department

 

Dear Sir

 

Re:  Proposed Action

        English Democrats – v - the Secretary of State for Exiting the          

        European Union

 

We refer to the above matter and to our letter of 20th March.  We note that, since that letter was dictated, the Prime Minister has written a letter to the President of the European Council, Mr Donald Tusk, formally asking for an extension of the Article 50 Notice period.  This request for an extension has been made without the authorisation of an Act of Parliament. 

 

Ministers, including the Prime Minister, only have official power either on the basis of Statutory powers or on the basis of Royal Prerogative powers. 

 

A long line of legal authority, including the Gina Miller case, has repeatedly reaffirmed that the Prerogative powers only exist in the absence of Statutory powers.  The only relevant Statutory power was that set out in the EU Withdrawal Act 2017, which gave the Prime Minister power to serve a Notice to terminate the UK’s membership of the EU. 

 

It follows that on the face of it, the Prime Minister’s request for an extension is illegal. 

 

Also any agreement for an extension which might have been agreed by the European Council is also without any Statutory authority. 

 

We thought it only proper to raise these points in the light of on-going developments, especially in view of your not having fully responded to our initial Letter before Claim. 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Tilbrook’s

Support the legal case to stop extension to Article 50 http://englishdemocrats.party/donate


Lawyer starts case to block extension to article 50 notice

ENGLISH DEMOCRATS CHAIRMAN STARTS CASE TO BLOCK EXTENSION TO ARTICLE 50 NOTICE.

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats and a Solicitor, has started a case to block the UK Government from extending the Article 50 Notice or revoking it without having to get an Act of Parliament.

 

 


What's the SNP playing at over Brexit?

WHAT’S THE SNP PLAYING AT OVER BREXIT?
Ever since its foundation, in 1927, the Scottish National Party has been loudly dedicated to getting Independence for Scotland from the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 

During the heady days of Alex Salmond’s leadership it looked as if it might actually achieve that ambition, but with Nicola Sturgeon it would appear that the SNP have lost their way. 

Rather like the questioning about why Theresa May was making such a poor job of Brexit (was it incompetence or duplicity?); we now have to ask the same question of Nicola Sturgeon and her leadership of the Scottish National Party about Scottish Independence and Brexit.

On Thursday last week Scottish Nationalist MPs proposed a resolution in the House of Commons to try to trigger Article 50 being revoked and thus to abort Brexit altogether.

This is a strikingly ironic and an apparently irrational thing for national ‘independence’ campaigners to do.  Not only are they trying to use Westminster parliamentary tricks to block the English Nation’s popular vote for independence from the EU, but also they are voting to block Scottish independence also. 

This last point needs explanation.  

During the Scottish Independence referendum, the then head of the European Commission, Mr Barosso, confirmed what numerous other EU figures had been saying, which was that Scotland leaving the UK would make Scotland automatically outside the EU.  

It follows that if the UK is kept within the EU Scotland cannot become independent of the UK without leaving the EU.  However, if the UK leaves the EU and Scotland then leaves the UK, Scotland could apply to become an “Accession State” to the EU.  

Instead the SNP are now trying to block the UK leaving the EU which shows either a startling degree of incompetence, or that their policy on Scottish independence is mere duplicity. 

In weighing up which you think it is, it may be worth considering Nicola Sturgeon’s remarks in saying that she doesn’t like the word ‘national’ in Scottish National Party’s name, to see whether you think that the Scottish National Party is still sincerely committed to Scottish independence or whether it is just parasitically hag-riding the support of duped Scottish Nationalists as yet another Internationalist, Leftist party. 

Here is the BBC report of what Nicola Sturgeon said: -

“Nicola Sturgeon has said she wishes she could turn the clock back and change the Scottish National Party's name.

The SNP leader admitted the word "national" could be "hugely problematic" during a debate at the Edinburgh International Book Festival.

She was speaking with Turkish author Elif Shafak, who said the word had a "negative meaning" to her.

However, the first minister insisted her party was about self government and was not insular.

Ms Shafak, who was wrongly accused of public denigration of Turkishness for her novel The Bastard Of Istanbul, told the audience at the sold-out event: "Coming from Turkey, seeing the experiences there, not only in Turkey, across the Middle East, the Balkans, for us for instance the word nationalism is, for me personally, has a very negative meaning because I've seen how ugly it can get, how destructive it can become, how violent it can become and how it can divide people into imaginary categories and make them lose that cultural coexistence.

"Whereas when I come here, I hear the word nationalism being used in a different way and I felt that, can nationalism ever be benign? Can it ever be a benevolent thing? So, there is a part of me that doubts that very much."

In response, Ms Sturgeon admitted: "The word is difficult."

She said: "If I could turn the clock back, what 90 years, to the establishment of my party, and choose its name all over again, I wouldn't choose the name it has got just now, I would call it something other than the Scottish National Party.

"Now people say why don't you change its name now? Well that would be far too complicated. Because what those of us who do support Scottish independence are all about could not be further removed from some of what you would recognise as nationalism in other parts of the world.

"Two things I believe that I think run so strongly through the Scottish independence movement are firstly that it doesn't matter where you come from, if Scotland is your home and you live here and you feel you have a stake in the country, you are Scottish and you have as much say over the future of the country as I do. And that is a civic, open, inclusive view of the world that is so far removed from what you would rightly fear.

"Secondly one of the great motivators for those of us who support Scottish independence is wanting to have a bigger voice in the world, it's about being outward looking and internationalist, not inward looking and insular.

"So the word is hugely, hugely problematic sometimes for those of us who ...but Scottish independence is about self-government, it's about running your own affairs and making your own mark in the world.

"So yes words do matter but I think we can't change the connotations that the word has in other parts of the world, what we have to do is just demonstrate through words of our own, through deeds, through actions, through how we carry ourselves, that we stand for something completely different to all of that."

Here is a link to the original report>>>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-40975105

So what do you think?  Is the SNP's policy on Brexit incompetent or duplicitous?


Spring Conference 9th March 19


-->