First legal attempt to prevent Brexit set for preliminary hearing
It’s not over until we’re actually out of the EU, it seems.
The first legal attempt to prevent the prime minister initiating Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union is to be heard later this month.
A high court judge, Mr Justice Cranston, has set 19 July for a preliminary hearing of the judicial review challenge brought on behalf of the British citizen Deir Dos Santos.
The claim argues that only parliament – not the prime minister – can authorise the signing of article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, which begins the UK’s formal withdrawal process.
Other legal claims making a similar point are also being prepared by the law firm Mishcon de Reya. Brexit supporters staged a demonstration outside their London office on Thursday with a banner and placards declaring “‘Invoke article 50 now” and “‘Uphold the Brexit vote”.
Source: First legal attempt to prevent Brexit set for preliminary hearing | Politics | The Guardian
ADVERT
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
It is also clear that what was given was not “informed consent” which is required for even fairly trivial medical procedures, never mind a complete upheaval of the status of the UK.
Now that the promises given by the brexiters have been shown to be false, it renders the vote itself invalid.
Furthermore, the voting age on EU matters is 16 (see EU elections), as it is for matters of constitutional reform (see Scottish referendum for precedent on that) so the votes of 16 & 17 year olds needs to be included.
The vote was fatally flawed, and no majority was achieved even so (around 37% I believe voted against the PM, many as a protest vote in the belief that they’d lose anyway, but could embarrass the PM). Now that distraction and the lies are out of the way, there should be a CLEAN vote, with all the eligible electorate included.
Whilst I firmly believe we are better off in the EU and voted to remain, the whole point of the referendum was to give the electorate the chance to vote on a democratic basis. This done, with a consensus voting to leave, to try and undermine it because we in the remain camp don’t want to accept the vote is the equivalent of undermining that democratic process and vote. We cannot be sore losers, democracy is too valuable to treat arbitrarily.
(a)As it hasn’t actually been signed yet – left to the incoming PM (whoever that might be); How is this even possible?
(b) It was a democratic vote, won democratically- Either we ARE a democratic country or we’re NOT!
I sense something bad about Brexit, why would the two champions of it who got what they wanted then quit, what do they know that we don’t!