Stanley Brodie QC has written an article where he details that the UK, has legally left the EU as of the 29th of March 2019 and he explains that not only is that clear in law, but also that the way the law was presented to Parliament was illegally modified.
Whichever way one looks at it, the Agreement was either unlawful or made for an unlawful purpose or ultra vires .That means that the UK left the EU on the 29th March 2019 by default as there was no valid or lawful impediment to prevent it.
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, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
The proviso could not be used to reopen, or continue, never ending debate. Nor can it be used as a general power to extend time.
The Article 50 period is set at 2 years unless, as provided for in Article 50 “the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend [it]”.
So the version put out by the civil servants was false. The differences in meaning between the two versions were considerable.
So the civil servants responsible for briefing parliament to enable an informed debate to take place, themselves were misleading it. The alteration of the text of Article 50, and of the proviso to paragraph 3, must have been deliberate.
This is a truly alarming state of affairs; it should be exposed sooner rather than later.
Stating the outcome shortly, it would seem to be as follows:
(i) The application by the Prime Minister for an extension of time until June 30th under the proviso to Article 50, made on or about the 14th March 2019, was legally valid, but was rejected by the EU.
(ii) This was followed by the Agreement proposed by the EU. It did not comply with the terms of the proviso; nor was Article 50 referred to or relied on by the EU. It was not effective to stop the Article 50 process running up to and including the 29th March at 11 p.m. Whichever way one looks at it, the Agreement was either unlawful or made for an unlawful purpose or ultra vires .That means that the UK left the EU on the 29th March 2019 by default as there was no valid or lawful impediment to prevent it.
This should come as no surprise to anyone who has taken an objective view of the entire EU experiment. The British public were led in the EEC with lies, by Edward Heath and Margaret Thatcher, because they knew that the people would not support the real agenda behind joining.
We were lied to again and again, whilst the political classes pushed ahead with their agenda for ever closer union, in total contempt of the people.
Read the full article written by Stanley Brodie QC
ARTICLE 50 – TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION
Can we have our money back then?
Hopefully Robin Tilbrooks current Legal case in support of the above will be heard at the High Court and prove that we are already out of the EU. I do not hold my breath though because of our biased PRO EU Judiciary at the top.
How can these other cases be heard and decided immediately and the Tillbrook case is taking so long
Why has NO ONE in the Common, or even one MP/MEP mentioned this case there is no doubt they ALL know about are they trying to betray the British people again hoping that if they don’t acknowledge it doesn’t exist, WHAT will happen IF and it’s a big if we actually get a court date and a miracle happens that we don’t get a remain/bias judge who states that we have left on 29th March 2019???
I don’t get why this man isn’t shouting it from the roof tops. He’s in a position to put it right and let every single person in this country know this important information and he could have backed up Robin Tillbrook in his plight to prove the same. He’s also in a high up position to get on national TV news and let everyone know. I get so mad when i happen to stumble onto stuff like this ’cause I know it was only by accident that I saw it which makes me think not many other people will see… Read more »
State of play- proceeding slowly, but bound to succeed.
This sounds very plausible, amazing even, but is It CORRECT. Who is telling the truth, How many times has the legal position changed, who can we believe? How many QC’S does it take to CHANGE A LOOPHOLE?
If this is THE LEGAL RULING TELL EVERYONE!.
I agree, I have noticed that some of my articles and posts mysteriously vanish when they are too close to the mark, and I was recently blocked by FB for a week, when I shared a video of Tony Blair talking rubbish. I would really appreciate those with a legal background to look in to this and let us know what the position is, they have successfully divided a nation with their scare tactics. The choice was leave or remain, not leave but only with a deal, we all voted to leave and the deal would come by itself, it… Read more »
If we have left why the mp saying we haven’t so how can Boris go to jail to say no deal??
Should this situation be legal fact undisbutable, then why are we pursuing any further with an agreement.
So why are we still negotiating with the EU if this is correct by default ,and why is our judicial system not agreeing with this and interfering with government policies? As a lay person you cannot have one law for one person and not everyone!! Or am I stupid,,
This fact was taken to court by the British Democrats and thrown out as no case to answer or a similar reason.
If this article is correct, it means our courts are totally corrupt and most certainly not independent.
I have just read article 61,find it on Google, see what everyone thinks
It had Absolutely Nothing to do with Margaret Thatcher, SIMPLES
Why o why is this not made public and legally perused by the Tory’s just make sure they don’t get that Scottish idiot judge
Yes we certainly were lied to in the 70’s,we believed the treaty was for common market of goods,primarily foodstuffs….we were shown no information about union of countries governments,superstate,taxing proposals,or anything else.
Who are the law makers – very confused with the. All
The refusal by the establishment to accept this, with them trying to stifle discussion by blocking the Robin Tilbrook case, is scary and infuriating in equal measure.
I am in touch with Robin Tilbrook who, as you will probably know is trying again to get it through court. I recantly read about article 61,would this help us?
That’s really interesting Betty, my fear is that people like him are at risk if they speak out, but it would be wonderful to hear more from him. Thank you
Why is it remain’s court cases get heard and decisions made immediately yet the Brexit one seems to be dragging along like a ton weight? Is there no way we can get a decision from impartial or non EU funded judges? It seems dreadful that our laws are being broken and bent by remain MPs with impunity, whilst those same lawbreakers claim they are doing it to prevent Boris breaking laws which don’t seem to exist? It’s corrupt, despicable and an affront to the people of this country.
I agree, this is almost our last bastion of freedom, they are desperate to thwart our desire to leave, because it will signal the end of the EU. If we capitulate now, it will be the end. The Lisbon treaty will dictate what we can and can’t do soon and it will actually be illegal for us to even want to leave in the not too distant future. The EU is a political Frankenstein that threatens us all, if we allow them to get away with this, it will still fall apart one day, but not peacefully. We must stand… Read more »
This is disgusting