A few weeks ago Nick Boles MP put forward a proposal that asserted that the United Kingdom had a "treaty right" to remain a member of the European Economic Area.
In my view that proposal by Nick Boles is, legally speaking, a dead-end.
Brexit Briefing Paper No.5 which can be accessed
Brexit Briefing Paper No.5: Nick Boles MP's so-called "Better Brexit" proposal is a dead-end
sets out a line of legal argument which demonstrates that Mr. Boles' proposal is a dead-end.
Monday 29 October 2018
Sunday 12 August 2018
Brexit Briefing Paper No.3: "The June 2016 Referendum franchise was rigged. The Referendum result should be rejected."
Serious questions have been raised over the last several weeks about the integrity (or lack of it) of the process of the June 2016 Referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union.
Those questions are important but are not the only cause of concern about the June 2016 Referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union.
In Brexit Briefing Paper No.3, entitled "The June 2016 Referendum franchise was rigged. The Referendum result should be rejected." I focus on the even more fundamental issue of the franchise of the Referendum.
The rigged franchise in the June 2016 Referendum shows that its result should be rejected.
Whatever the result of inquiries into the the Referendum campaigns in favour of Leave, the fundamental unfairness and unlawfulness of the Referendum franchise shows that the result is worthless.
It is an outrage against the principles of democracy that a Referendum based on a rigged franchise has been mis-used by unscrupulous politicians to achieve an aim that will be enormously damaging to the United Kingdom.
I am not saying that there isn't a significant number of people who might, in the abstract, prefer that the UK wasn't a member of the European Union.
What I am saying is that the result of the June 2016 Referendum which we're told represented the "will of the British people" did no such thing.
The franchise was rigged.
Up to 5 million UK citizens who lived abroad were denied the right to vote in a Referendum that risks removing their EU citizenship and other EU-derived rights.
Around 1 million Commonwealth citizens were allowed a vote despite their having no proper basis on which to have a vote to remove the rights of UK citizens, including the EU citizenship rights of those UK citizens.
The result of the June 2016 Referendum should be rejected.
A copy of the Brexit Briefing Paper may be downloaded from
"The June 2016 Referendum franchise was rigged. The Referendum result should be rejected."
Those questions are important but are not the only cause of concern about the June 2016 Referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union.
In Brexit Briefing Paper No.3, entitled "The June 2016 Referendum franchise was rigged. The Referendum result should be rejected." I focus on the even more fundamental issue of the franchise of the Referendum.
The rigged franchise in the June 2016 Referendum shows that its result should be rejected.
Whatever the result of inquiries into the the Referendum campaigns in favour of Leave, the fundamental unfairness and unlawfulness of the Referendum franchise shows that the result is worthless.
It is an outrage against the principles of democracy that a Referendum based on a rigged franchise has been mis-used by unscrupulous politicians to achieve an aim that will be enormously damaging to the United Kingdom.
I am not saying that there isn't a significant number of people who might, in the abstract, prefer that the UK wasn't a member of the European Union.
What I am saying is that the result of the June 2016 Referendum which we're told represented the "will of the British people" did no such thing.
The franchise was rigged.
Up to 5 million UK citizens who lived abroad were denied the right to vote in a Referendum that risks removing their EU citizenship and other EU-derived rights.
Around 1 million Commonwealth citizens were allowed a vote despite their having no proper basis on which to have a vote to remove the rights of UK citizens, including the EU citizenship rights of those UK citizens.
The result of the June 2016 Referendum should be rejected.
A copy of the Brexit Briefing Paper may be downloaded from
"The June 2016 Referendum franchise was rigged. The Referendum result should be rejected."
Wednesday 1 August 2018
Brexit Briefing Paper No.1: Brexit (in 2019) is doomed
An updated version of Brexit Briefing Paper No.1, "Brexit (in 2019) is doomed" is now available.
In the paper I set out why I believe that there is an unrecognised risk of a Type 2 "No Deal" Brexit (a term explained in the paper) at the end of March 2019.
The sensible ways to attempt to avoid the dangerous effects of that "No Deal" Brexit are for the Prime Minister to seek to extend the Article 50 TEU negotiation period or to cancel Brexit.
Brexit Briefing Paper No.1 can be downloaded from here:
Brexit Briefing Paper No.1: Brexit (in 2019) is doomed
Brexit in 2019 is, in my opinion, doomed.
Brexit, however, has yet to be killed off.
In the paper I set out why I believe that there is an unrecognised risk of a Type 2 "No Deal" Brexit (a term explained in the paper) at the end of March 2019.
The sensible ways to attempt to avoid the dangerous effects of that "No Deal" Brexit are for the Prime Minister to seek to extend the Article 50 TEU negotiation period or to cancel Brexit.
Brexit Briefing Paper No.1 can be downloaded from here:
Brexit Briefing Paper No.1: Brexit (in 2019) is doomed
Brexit in 2019 is, in my opinion, doomed.
Brexit, however, has yet to be killed off.
Tuesday 24 July 2018
Brexit Briefing Paper 4: A "No Deal" Brexit is a National Emergency
In the last few days increasing media attention has focussed on the possible dangers of a "No Deal" Brexit.
I view that as a good thing.
It focusses attention on what I believe to be a National Emergency which I expect to happen on 29th March 2019.
See, for example, my Written Evidence last month to the Transport Select Committee's "Freight and Brexit" Inquiry:
Written evidence submitted by Dr Andrew Watt (FAB0033)
I have now written a more detailed description of the dangers I see in a "No Deal" Brexit scenario.
Brexit Briefing Paper Number 4 is available for download here:
Brexit Briefing Paper 4: A "No Deal" Brexit is a National Emergency
If you are a concerned UK citizen then take time to email your MP, to phone him/her or to arrange to meet him/her.
MPs need to be educated about the risks of a "No Deal" Brexit. If they fully understand what it is at stake for the future of the country, surely they will put a stop to the Brexit Madness?
Surely?
The complexity of the issues involved in a "No Deal" Brexit is frightening.
Feedback on the Brexit Briefing Paper would be very welcome.
I don't pretend to know all that is relevant. Input from others with particular areas of specialist knowledge would help to improve future versions.
As always, you can feedback by email to killbrexitnow@gmail.com
I view that as a good thing.
It focusses attention on what I believe to be a National Emergency which I expect to happen on 29th March 2019.
See, for example, my Written Evidence last month to the Transport Select Committee's "Freight and Brexit" Inquiry:
Written evidence submitted by Dr Andrew Watt (FAB0033)
I have now written a more detailed description of the dangers I see in a "No Deal" Brexit scenario.
Brexit Briefing Paper Number 4 is available for download here:
Brexit Briefing Paper 4: A "No Deal" Brexit is a National Emergency
If you are a concerned UK citizen then take time to email your MP, to phone him/her or to arrange to meet him/her.
MPs need to be educated about the risks of a "No Deal" Brexit. If they fully understand what it is at stake for the future of the country, surely they will put a stop to the Brexit Madness?
Surely?
The complexity of the issues involved in a "No Deal" Brexit is frightening.
Feedback on the Brexit Briefing Paper would be very welcome.
I don't pretend to know all that is relevant. Input from others with particular areas of specialist knowledge would help to improve future versions.
As always, you can feedback by email to killbrexitnow@gmail.com
Saturday 31 March 2018
Brexit is doomed - Letter to Michel Barnier raising serious legal concerns about the draft Withdrawal Agreement of 19th March 2018
The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides a mechanism for the European Commission, Member States or the European Parliament to refer a draft agreement to the Court of Justice of the European Union for the Court's opinion as to its legality (or not).
In my view the draft UKExit Withdrawal Agreement of 19th March 2018 which was confirmed by the European Council on 23rd March 2018 is unlawful in several material respects.
Accordingly, I have written a letter to Michel Barnier asking that he refers the question of the legality of the draft Withdrawal Agreement to the Court of Justice of the European Union for its opinion.
The letter is long (11 pages) and attempts to summarise complex questions of European Union Law and World Trade Organisation Law which cause me to believe that the draft Withdrawal Agreement is fundamentally misconceived.
It is not a light read but I believe that the issues which I raise in the letter have the potential to demonstrate that Brexit is doomed.
The letter may be accessed here:
Letter of 30th March 2018 to Michel Barnier asking for urgent Article 218(11)TFEU referral to the CJEU
The letter may be freely distributed to others interested in the complexities of Brexit.
As indicated in the letter to Mr. Barnier, I anticipate writing to the Prime Minister on this matter and asking her to inform the EU27 that the UK no longer wishes to leave the European Union.
In my view the draft UKExit Withdrawal Agreement of 19th March 2018 which was confirmed by the European Council on 23rd March 2018 is unlawful in several material respects.
Accordingly, I have written a letter to Michel Barnier asking that he refers the question of the legality of the draft Withdrawal Agreement to the Court of Justice of the European Union for its opinion.
The letter is long (11 pages) and attempts to summarise complex questions of European Union Law and World Trade Organisation Law which cause me to believe that the draft Withdrawal Agreement is fundamentally misconceived.
It is not a light read but I believe that the issues which I raise in the letter have the potential to demonstrate that Brexit is doomed.
The letter may be accessed here:
Letter of 30th March 2018 to Michel Barnier asking for urgent Article 218(11)TFEU referral to the CJEU
The letter may be freely distributed to others interested in the complexities of Brexit.
As indicated in the letter to Mr. Barnier, I anticipate writing to the Prime Minister on this matter and asking her to inform the EU27 that the UK no longer wishes to leave the European Union.
Wednesday 28 March 2018
Brexit is doomed - Letter of 28th March 2018 to International Trade Select Committee
World Trade Organisation Law will, I anticipate, cause severe unrecognised problems as far as the United Kingdom's ability to negotiate new trade agreements after UKExit.
Below is a link to a letter sent today to the International Trade Select Committee asking the Select Committee urgently to start an inquiry into the effects of WTO Law on UK trade if the draft Article 50 Withdrawal Agreement of 19th March 2018 is concluded.
Letter of 28th March 2018 to International Trade Select Committee
Below is a link to a letter sent today to the International Trade Select Committee asking the Select Committee urgently to start an inquiry into the effects of WTO Law on UK trade if the draft Article 50 Withdrawal Agreement of 19th March 2018 is concluded.
Letter of 28th March 2018 to International Trade Select Committee
Brexit is doomed - The complex and poorly understood legal framework
Nobody, so far as I'm aware, has yet presented an analysis of Brexit which addresses the full legal context in which it is contemplated.
In this brief post I want to identify the five types of Law which must be carefully considered if the flaws of Brexit are fully to be understood:
Analysis of these multiple factors is hugely complex.
Communicating a correct analysis of Brexit is ever more daunting due to the swirling mass of misinformation, disinformation and dishonesty which pervades the political and media discourse on Brexit.
In future posts on this blog I'll attempt to communicate the correct analysis of Brexit in a way which hopefully will make sense to those misled by the false trails laid in the United Kingdom media.
In this brief post I want to identify the five types of Law which must be carefully considered if the flaws of Brexit are fully to be understood:
- UK domestic Law (which itself is a composite of Scots Law, the Law of England and Wales, the Law of Northern Ireland and genuine United Kingdom Law)
- European Union Law
- The European Convention of Human Rights
- International Law
- World Trade Organisation Law
- The truncated timescale imposed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union
- Economics
- Political strengths and weaknesses
Analysis of these multiple factors is hugely complex.
Communicating a correct analysis of Brexit is ever more daunting due to the swirling mass of misinformation, disinformation and dishonesty which pervades the political and media discourse on Brexit.
In future posts on this blog I'll attempt to communicate the correct analysis of Brexit in a way which hopefully will make sense to those misled by the false trails laid in the United Kingdom media.
Tuesday 27 March 2018
Brexit is doomed! The UK will NOT leave the European Union in March 2019
Yesterday, in the House of Commons Theresa May made a statement about the supposed progress towards Brexit.
Theresa May is lying when she tells the public that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union in March 2019.
It's not going to happen!
The UK will NOT leave the European Union in March 2019.
The ongoing Article 50 negotiations have three possible endpoints:
Leaving the European Union with no Withdrawal Agreement will result in legal chaos and, as a result, there will be widespread disruption including of road and air transport to and from the United Kingdom.
No sane Prime Minister could proceed on the basis of no Withdrawal Agreement, although it is technically possible in European Union Law, if you assume that the March 2017 notification was founded on a lawful Article 50 decision.
The present Article 50 negotations are directed towards a Withdrawal Agreement which includes a "transition period".
The draft Withdrawal Agreement of 19th March 2018 includes a section specifically on a "transition period" as well as multiple references elsewhere in the draft to that "transition period".
The Prime Minister views that agreement as "progress". I view it as a dead-end.
An Article 50 Withdrawal Agreement which includes a "transition period" is wide open to legal challenge since the European Council (acting as the EU27) does not have "competence" to negotiate or conclude an agreement with a third country.
I expect the "transition period" to be removed from later versions of the draft Withdrawal Agreement since it is not legally possible for the European Union (acting as the EU27) to conclude such an agreement.
Since the EU27 cannot lawfully conclude a Withdrawal Agreement which includes a "transition period" that too is a dead-end.
What of the only remaining option - a Withdrawal Agreement which contains no "transition period" ? That is legally possible but practically is almost as bad as having no Withdrawal Agreement.
There is nowhere near enough time to allow negotiation of the necessary detailed new arrangements nor time to allow a suitably long "preparation period".
A Withdrawal Agreement with no "transition period" is also a dead-end and a recipe for legal chaos if the United Kingdom seeks to exit the European Union in March 2019.
Two options are available to a sane Prime Minister:
Asking for an extension of the negotiation period only postpones the inevitable in my view.
At some point the United Kingdom Prime Minister will have to notify the European Union that the United Kingdom has decided not to leave the European Union.
Given the persistent dishonesty and stubbornness which Theresa May has already shown in the Brexit saga the request for an extension or the withdrawal of the decision to leave may be very much at the eleventh hour and may very well take place in a fevered political context.
Brexit is doomed! But don't expect a smooth ride.
Theresa May is lying when she tells the public that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union in March 2019.
It's not going to happen!
The UK will NOT leave the European Union in March 2019.
The ongoing Article 50 negotiations have three possible endpoints:
- No Withdrawal Agreement
- A Withdrawal Agreement which includes a "transition period"
- A Withdrawal Agreement which does not include a "transition period".
Leaving the European Union with no Withdrawal Agreement will result in legal chaos and, as a result, there will be widespread disruption including of road and air transport to and from the United Kingdom.
No sane Prime Minister could proceed on the basis of no Withdrawal Agreement, although it is technically possible in European Union Law, if you assume that the March 2017 notification was founded on a lawful Article 50 decision.
The present Article 50 negotations are directed towards a Withdrawal Agreement which includes a "transition period".
The draft Withdrawal Agreement of 19th March 2018 includes a section specifically on a "transition period" as well as multiple references elsewhere in the draft to that "transition period".
The Prime Minister views that agreement as "progress". I view it as a dead-end.
An Article 50 Withdrawal Agreement which includes a "transition period" is wide open to legal challenge since the European Council (acting as the EU27) does not have "competence" to negotiate or conclude an agreement with a third country.
I expect the "transition period" to be removed from later versions of the draft Withdrawal Agreement since it is not legally possible for the European Union (acting as the EU27) to conclude such an agreement.
Since the EU27 cannot lawfully conclude a Withdrawal Agreement which includes a "transition period" that too is a dead-end.
What of the only remaining option - a Withdrawal Agreement which contains no "transition period" ? That is legally possible but practically is almost as bad as having no Withdrawal Agreement.
There is nowhere near enough time to allow negotiation of the necessary detailed new arrangements nor time to allow a suitably long "preparation period".
A Withdrawal Agreement with no "transition period" is also a dead-end and a recipe for legal chaos if the United Kingdom seeks to exit the European Union in March 2019.
Two options are available to a sane Prime Minister:
- Ask the European Union for an extension of the 2 year negotation period. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union allows such an extension but only if the UK and ALL 27 of the other European Union Member States agree.
- Notify the European Union that the United Kingdom no longer wishes to leave the European Union.
Asking for an extension of the negotiation period only postpones the inevitable in my view.
At some point the United Kingdom Prime Minister will have to notify the European Union that the United Kingdom has decided not to leave the European Union.
Given the persistent dishonesty and stubbornness which Theresa May has already shown in the Brexit saga the request for an extension or the withdrawal of the decision to leave may be very much at the eleventh hour and may very well take place in a fevered political context.
Brexit is doomed! But don't expect a smooth ride.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)