Court cases arguing the UK has already left the EU

Some correspondents want to know why we learn nothing about these cases. As far as I can see it is because their sponsors are not writing or talking about them, so we do not know where they have reached and what is happening. On this occasion it does not appear to be a media inspired news blackout as some fear.

I checked with Mr Robin Tilbrook’s website yesterday, as he brought the first case. His  last blog post I could see about the court case was 14 May when he attacked Bill Cash and Nigel Farage but did not bring us up to date on how well his case is progressing. Maybe his lawyers are telling him not to tell the rest of us about it.

Nor have I seen any news on the Barry Legg case. I would be happy to comment here if news is released that we are allowed to talk about. Both cases I believe argue that Mrs May’s two delays were not legal in EU/UK law, though they are clearly being regarded as such by the government.

Supporters of Robin Tilbrook tell  me the Legg case has not yet appeared in the courts. They want me to write a positive article about their case. I have explained that if Mr Tilbrook  or his lawyers publish an up date I would be happy to write about it.

I just want us out of the EU. I have also been supportive of  Sir William Cash’s statements in Parliament about the failure of the government to delay our exit in a legally watertight way and joined in the unsuccessful Parliamentary pressure to defeat the move to delay. I spoke at the Committee we demanded to consider the relevant Statutory Instrument so I could condemn the delay.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

164 Comments

  1. Roy Grainger
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 6:02 am | Permalink

    These cases are a waste of time, the legal establishment will see to that.

    • Hope
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:29 am | Permalink

      JR, suggest you read Bruce Newsome’s article in Conservative Woman about your fake conservative government. He is spot on.

      Against grass root party wishes Cameron’s govt campaigned for Remain. Against grass root activism your govt has continued under fake Tory Mayhab to shift further left than even Cameron and promote a fake Brexit!

      Trust in the Tories being conservative has gone. There needs to be a clear out of the ones who claim they are liberal, they are left of New Labour. Tory associations need to be able to be involved in policy and their own MP candidature.

      Never before is it so clear the right to recall is required.

      Umuna now Liberal democrat! His voters wanted Labour, not a Cringe Uk or Liberal Dems. This is not democracy. If an MP changes parties the electorate must have a vote. Those wayward extreme EU fanatics MPs like Boles, Lee, Sandbach, Rudd, Gauke, Clarkex2, Gymiah, Bebb, Spelman and Grieve acting against their voters, party and govt must also go back to the electorate.

      • Hope
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

        JR, suggest you read this article by Martin Howe QC, if you have not already done so, along with all candidates for PM.

        https://briefingsforbrexit.com/avoiding-the-trap-of-the-withdrawal-agreement-the-way-ahead-for-a-new-prime-minister/

        Hammond quoted he will not serve under a PM who has no deal as a policy! What did the manifesto and article 50 say? Unbelievable. Suggest he reads the above as well.mwhatmdies this say about his integrity and what he stood for to be elected!

        • margaret
          Posted June 14, 2019 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

          Howe suggests here that a no deal Brexit doesn’t really mean that.Deals can be made with the EU outside the restrictive and binding WA. So what does Hammond mean? Is he aligned with the thought processes of Howe in that many deals can be made with more flexibility of tariffs or does he want the WA as it stands without any prospect of a recall of items in that agreement.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted June 15, 2019 at 3:12 am | Permalink

          Hammond has been an appalling tax and regulate to death/expensive energy, remoaner chancellor and he is equally responsible with May for the near destruction of the party and abject failure to deliver Brexit. No it seems he want to undermine the next leader. He is another LibDim at heart.

        • Al
          Posted June 15, 2019 at 4:40 am | Permalink

          “Hammond quoted he will not serve under a PM who has no deal as a policy”

          I personally find this an excellent reason to vote for any candidate who has no deal as a policy, and perhaps an extremely promising sign for the future.

        • allyvghn
          Posted June 15, 2019 at 5:23 am | Permalink

          Like all remain MP’s.. he changes tune with every ‘job offer’ that presents itself.. they are either being courted by the EU money machine.. or have one eye on the Tory leadership.. or maybe both.. but there is nothing rational about the infighting we have seen within the Tory Party.. or the path that the PM has followed over Brexit to date.. the last thing the country needs is a new PM offering more of the same.. blinded insistence that they know best.. this report is the most credible answer to the deadlock and sets out considered solutions to all the contentious areas of a ‘no deal’ Brexit.. it should be embraced by the new PM.. who should be urged to pick up the ball and run with it.. instead of chasing their tail and continuing to go round and round in circles.. no more kicking the can down the road !!!

        • matthu
          Posted June 15, 2019 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

          The following point made by Martin Howe QC is the really frightening one and why we need to be assured that any future PM is well aware of its implications:

          5. Because Article 184 of the WA requires the UK (and EU) to use best endeavours to negotiate a long term agreement which conforms to the principles set out in the Political Declaration (PD), the UK cannot attempt to negotiate for any future agreement that departs from those principles. A failure to agree a long term relationship in accordance with those principles will mean that the UK is locked into the backstop Protocol terms with no way out and no legal means of complaint. This constraint does not appear to have been appreciated by either Mrs May, her advisors or any of the current Conservative party leadership candidates.

          • mancunius
            Posted June 15, 2019 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

            matthu, I interpret the WA, the political declaration, and the intentions of the EU in exactly the same way as Martyn Howe.
            Where I differ from MH is in my conclusion: I would confidently assert that Mrs May and the civil service (who are at least treaty-literate) knowingly agreed to those terms precisely because they obstruct any lasting settlement consistent with UK independence, and would effectively force the UK to vote to rejoin the EU.

          • We've Already Left
            Posted June 16, 2019 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

            Caught like a fly in a spider’s web forever. The politicians must have got a right shock when the first time we were allowed to speak in 45 years it was to say the British People are not the sheep you thought we were sitting there in your Westminster bubble and no, we are not going to walk into that endless dark night for no man.

      • Graham Beck
        Posted June 15, 2019 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

        Hammond says this as is he has a choice!

    • NickC
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

      Roy Grainger, Bitter, but probably justified. The interpretation of law is subject to the biases of the interpreter. That is why the appointment of conservative judges in the USA arouses such controversy with Democrats.

      Tilbrook’s case is based on the absence of prior parliamentary instruction to extend, and also the Miller case (principally; though citing precedent, law and the constitution back to 1689). His references to Miller, etc, is, I think, sound. Where I think he loses his way is his consideration of the 2017 EU Notification Act and the 2018 EU Withdrawal Act.

      The 2017 Act authorises Notification, but it does not specify when, either for notification or for the date of exit. Therefore there is no impediment in the 2017 Act to extend the TEU Art50 period.

      The 2018 Act uses the term “exit day” throughout the text. It is only in subsection 20, in one place, that “exit day” is defined as 29 March. And exactly the same subsection also specifies that a Minister may amend that date to another. Tilbrook states that that confers no power on the PM (prerogative or otherwise) to extend the nominal A50 period beyond 2 years, without further legislation (which did not take place).

      I beg to differ. MPs passed legislation (the 2018 Act) which explicitly contains a provision to extend the A50 period beyond 2 years. That provision has the same status in UK law as the original date (29 March). It may be a conceit of MPs that they know what they are doing, but that is the basis of UK law. MPs have allowed – legislated for – an extension beyond 29 March already.

      Unfortunately.

      • Anthony Heslop
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

        If your right the government should not have a problem with going to court don’t you think so

        • nic walker
          Posted June 19, 2019 at 10:36 am | Permalink

          The MP’s don’t want to go to court because they want to keep us tied to the EU and it’s stupid laws and institutions. All this nonsense about no deal is just a bluff to cover up for the fact theyy know we would be totally free from the EU.

      • GilesB
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

        The 2018 Act may have created a power for a Minister through an SI to vary the exit day in domestic legislation in order to bring that date in domestic legislation in line with the date in an international treaty with the EU.

        However the 2018 Act does not create a power for a Minister to commit to an international treaty or vary the terms of such a treaty.

        • S W
          Posted June 17, 2019 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

          Yes, the date could remain unchanged in the 2018 Act and the extension would still be legal under EU law, which trumps UK law. The illegality of agreeing to the extension has been brought into question because the Prime Minister could have agreed to an extension of any length without parliamentary approval. If the courts sanction this use of the royal prerogative, it sets a poor precedent for the future.

      • richard verney
        Posted June 15, 2019 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

        @NickC Posted June 14, 2019 at 5:21 pm

        I have not read these cases in great detail, nor am I a specialist in constitutional law, but it seems to me that there is an argument pursuant the Miller case as follows:

        1). The PM does not have unfettered perogative powers by virtue of her office, and, in circumstances, needs to be expressly authorised by Parliament, in advance of the PM, taking certain steps.
        2) Just like with respect to the serving of the Article 50 Notice, the PM does not have unfettered perogative powers to agree to an extension to the withdrawal date, and needs to be expressly authorised, in advance of negotiations , to negotiate an extension.
        3) Parliament authorised the PM to negotiate an extension to the withdrawal date, but she was not given unfetterd authorisation to negotiate any deal whatsoever, or to negotiate the best deal on offer. To the contrary, her authorisation to negotiate and obtain an extension to the withdrawal date was expressly restricted to agreeing an extension through to the end of June (30th June).
        4) May did not obtain the extension which she had been authorised to obtain. Instead, she was given, and she agreed to, some hybrid extension through to 12th April, or if her Withdrawal Agreement was passed then through to 22nd May.
        5) May lacked the necessary authorisation to agree to and obtain such extension. Since she was unauthorised with respect to that, her actions were ultra vires, and the extension ‘agreement’ was therefore null and void.
        6) It is not clear whether Parliament can ratify, on a retrospective basis, an unauthorised act by the PM, but even if it can do so, Parliament did not do so.
        7) The Statutory Instrument is insufficient to ratify, on a retrospective basis, the unauthorised act by the PM (ie., the unauthorised extension through to 12th April, alternatively 22nd May), especially since there is no express statement, in the Statutory Instrument, expressly stating that it is ratifying, on a retrospective basis, the unauthorised act by the PM.

        Of course there is one significant difference between the facts of the Miller case and the facts surrounding the extension. In the Miller case, the Article 50 Notice was to withdraw from a treaty, whereas the extension was to stay within the existing treaty. Perhaps that distinction is material, but I have not read the Miller case so I am unable to form a view.

        • richard verney
          Posted June 15, 2019 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

          In fact there is a further argument based upon the expression this period used in Article 50(3). Article 50(3) reads;

          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. (my emphasis)

          The argument goes:

          1) The UK served the Article 50 Notice on 29th March 2017, such that the period for withdrawing was set as 29th March 2019.
          2) The expression this period, in Article 50(3), is intentionally resptrictive, and refers back to the expiry of the 2 year date, following the servive of the Article 50 Notice, ie., it refers to 29th March 2019.
          3) Because of the wording of Article 50(3), and the reference to this period (ie, 29th March 2019), Article 50(3) permits agreement to only one extension of time.
          4) In April, the UK Government sought a 2nd extension of time. This extension was sought to extent the period not that expiring on 29th March 2019 , but rather the period expiring on 12th April 2019 (ie., the date set out in the Statutory Instrument, given that May’s Withdrawal agreement was rejected)
          5) The treaty does not provide for an extension to the 12 th April 2019 date, and does not permit there to be a second extension. The only extension is that permitted to extend the date 29th March 2019 to some other specific date, but not for there to be endless rolling extensions.

          If not already done so, Tilbrook should argue in the alternative that teh UK left the EU on 12th April 2019 since there can be no legitimate 2nd extension, and any such purported extension is null and void.

        • S W
          Posted June 17, 2019 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

          If the royal prerogative allows the Prime Minister to agree to any length of extension before or after the June 30th date, as in the present extension, then it follows that the Prime Minister could agree to an extension until the end of the fixed term period of the present government, that is 2022, or beyond. At what point is abuse of the royal prerogative seen as a breach of parliamentary law?

    • Gaz preece
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

      The Government lost the case against Gina Miller and this case is based on that case!!!…The government are even using the very same QC that lost the case against Gina Miller and do you know why??? They know there is a case to answer and they are using him because he is do expensive they hope to run Robin Tillbrook out of money…..plain and simple.

    • Adrian Rushmer
      Posted June 15, 2019 at 3:26 am | Permalink

      Why are they a waste of time? the government is going against the constitution and the electorate, I think you should re-word you comment to say you hope the legal establishment goes against it.

      I had great respect for John but seeing this post I found it hard to understand, Robin was de platformed by Facebook for no reason apart from daring to stand up against the establishment, there are plenty of updates given regulary, he doesn’t have big sponsors only crowd funding and 17.4 million people hoping he can give something the Conservative government is clearly refusing to give, the only reason I can see for this post is that the author is complicit and isn’t a real Conservative who acts on the rule of law!!!

      Reply Don’t be silly. I just want us out. I have reminded people there is a court case underway.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted June 15, 2019 at 3:30 am | Permalink

      Perhaps/probably true, but they will I suppose serve the purpose of exposing the legal establishment biases further.

    • RuddyFarmer
      Posted June 15, 2019 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

      If we don’t believe in the rule of law, the only alternative is anarchy

    • TooleyStu
      Posted June 16, 2019 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

      Well, someone has got behind it, a friend went to Alicante in Spain to obtain their Residencia, and was moved from the EU que to the International que, as according to the Spanish authorities.. we left on 29th March.

      So even if we think we are still in.. our partners think we have left.

      TooleyStu

    • Marvin
      Posted June 21, 2019 at 11:40 am | Permalink

      Untested in Court, but conclusion made by a number of professional legal bodies:
      ” The application for an extension until June 30th was legally valid, under the proviso to Article 50. But – this was rejected by the EU.
      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 nor relied on by the EU. It was not effective to stop the Article 50 process running up to and including the 29th March at 11pm. The Agreement was either unlawful or made for an unlawful purpose or ultra vires. This means that the UK left the EU on the 29th of March by default as there was no valid or lawful impediment to prevent it.”

  2. Fed up with the bull
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 6:06 am | Permalink

    Have you done enough sucking up to Boris John to be considered for the next chancellor John? I do hope so. If Boris doesn’t get us out without the stupid new treat we are expected to sign then the party is toast. I hope he knows that.

    • NickC
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

      Fed up with the bull, I assume you get your winning ways from reading “How to Win Friends and Influence People”

    • Richard
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

      Boris is coming…
      Re Mr Sedwill’s comment that Britain is in “pretty good shape” for a WTO Brexit:
      My first thought – Wind of Change by The Scorpions!

      • We've Already Left
        Posted June 16, 2019 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

        Thank you, Mr. Redwood, for all your work on this which I have been following for some time. I have also been following the Tilbrook/English Democrats case which is here in the Parliamentary Library:

        https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8415

        To whit:

        “English Democrats
        Relying heavily on Miller, the English Democrats have challenged the Prime Minister’s legal authority to ask for and agree to an extension to Article 50 using the Royal Prerogative, thereby postponing exit day.”

        They have secured some very fine, top class lawyers, barristers and QCs – together with legal opinions from retired QC’s – who say this case does indeed have merit and could be every bit as successful as the Miller case.

        And of course as they look only at the LAW on the matter not the politics, a speedier result one hopes!

  3. J Bush
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 6:42 am | Permalink

    Hardly surprising given the fetish the UK government has for the EU, which quite happily ignores its own rules and laws when it suits.

    • margaret howard
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

      J Bush

      ” which quite happily ignores its own rules and laws when it suits.”

      Any examples?

      • Andy
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

        Yes, the Growth and Stability Pact; the Maastricht criteria; the selection of Juncker etc, etc, etc

      • Roy Grainger
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

        Happy to oblige Margaret.

        Appointment of Martin Selmayr as Secretary General of the EU civil service by Juncker which their own watchdog condemned as being against both the spirit and letter of their own rules for appointments and the EU parliament voted to overturn. But he’s still in the job be side the Commission ignored all that.

        • margaret howard
          Posted June 15, 2019 at 10:57 am | Permalink

          In Europe they say ‘Jobs for the Boys’ is an English disease. The latest bunch of Tory hopefuls are nearly all Oxford boys. The establishment still in charge.

          • Posted June 16, 2019 at 11:43 am | Permalink

            But what about the answers to your initial question, Ms Howard? Any further comment about those? Or just something you’d rather ignore if they show you don’t know what you’re talking about?

      • Steve
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

        MH

        Go to any southern EU member state, or France, and you’ll see plenty going on in blatant defiance of EU rules.

        • Fed up with the bull
          Posted June 15, 2019 at 7:37 am | Permalink

          For example, no hard hats on building sites, workers wearing slippers on building sites, no scaffolding being used, just wooden makeshift ladders, no drinking water on large housing estates, different rules for medicines you can buy over the counter like antibiotics and ditto for animals too. Oh yes, it is different in southern countries of the EU.

      • Hope
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

        Grow up Margaret. Bailing out countries under Maastrich is one very good example.

      • NickC
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

        Margaret Howard, Saving the Euro?

        • margaret howard
          Posted June 15, 2019 at 10:58 am | Permalink

          Nick

          Well it must have been worth saving seeing it has now replaced the £ as the world’s reserve currency while our own pound is dropping like a stone.

          • We've Already Left
            Posted June 16, 2019 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

            Not for long once we’re out and an independent, trading nation once again. And that’s what terrifies the EU no end.

      • Timaction
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

        Irish, Portuguese, Cyprus, Greek bailouts not allowed under EU rules, there are many more! bailouts not allowed under EU rules as well!!

  4. Mark B
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 6:52 am | Permalink

    Good morning-again

    Personally I consider our membership of the EU to be illegal as no government has the right to surrender our sovereignty, especially when our membership of the then EEC was clearly based on lies.

    • Shirley
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 8:51 am | Permalink

      That is my opinion too. Sovereignty is loaned temporarily to our elected politicians. It is not theirs to give away to a third party. How do the Remainer MP’s reconcile their claims that UK sovereignty was not given away, but is ‘impossible’ to take back?

      Monnet’s famous quote always springs to mind when Remainer MP’s say Brexit isn’t possible.

      • Woody
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

        Lets remind all, especially the blind bigoted remoaners, what his words were “Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening.” Supported by many including Clarke, apparently Stewart and other anti democrats and definitely by May and her civil serpents who quietly tried to entangle us even deeper into the eu web of control.

    • margaret howard
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

      Mark B

      “Personally I consider our membership of the EU to be illegal”

      In the 1975 Referendum the people voted overwhelmingly to join the EU. And before you repeat that old chestnut beloved by Brexiteers that it was just a common market here is a copy of the original Referendum pamphlet:

      “The aims of the Common Market are:

      Bring together the peoples of Europe

      Raise living standards and improve working conditions

      Promote growth and boost world trade

      Help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world

      Help maintain peace and freedom
      ==

      That’s exactly what we got.

      • Anonymous
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

        “Help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world”

        Beg to differ.

      • Edward2
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

        In other EU news tractor production is up again this year.

      • D Reynolds
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

        Margaret Howard, we joined the European Economic Community – the ‘Common Market’, in January 1973 WITHOUT any vote from the people. In 1975 a referendum was held to either remain in the EEC, or leave. That referendum was preceded with a concerted campaign by government and through the media to remain. It was a time when the UK was going through economic troubles – inflation was high, and many thought leaving would exacerbate the problems. The people were lied to.

        During the following forty odd years, the now European Union, has been prominent in causing more trouble than it’s worth in interfering in the Ukraine. Any peace and – what you call ‘freedom’ – has been by dint of NATO – not the EU.

        What we are getting, is control of our laws; trade; borders; army and judiciary – from a foreign government, in a foreign country. Were the Withdrawal Agreement ever to be ratified, this country would be finished and become a vassal state of the EU. That is not freedom, that is servitude. Expect corpus juris to replace habeas corpus; no more trial by jury of your peers; no recourse to voice or vote in the EU Comissions law making, and the Euro replacing the pound by 2025.

        • Edward2
          Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

          Very well said Reynolds.

        • Posted June 15, 2019 at 9:20 am | Permalink

          Absolutely. I remember the lie in 1975 that turned the opposition to agreement being that the UK could always leave the EEC . This seems to have been the clincher for a yes vote in the referendum. I voted against then and nothing has happened since to change my mind.

      • allyvghn
        Posted June 15, 2019 at 5:44 am | Permalink

        Can you tell me where the ‘pamphlet’ mentions:

        “We intend to rule your country by controlling all laws and having direct control of your borders and immigration policy, as well as your armed services, and eventually your fiscal policy, until eventually you are totally subservient to us” ???

        The Common Market has metamorphosised into the EU because of the member states’ failure to arrest its obsession with ruling the continent.. too many countries suffering in silence for too long.. or sleeping in ignorance whilst the monster grows.. but once awoken to the dangers of its greed.. there is only one solution.. and the beast must be slayed !!!

        • We've Already Left
          Posted June 16, 2019 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

          Marvelous comment!

      • Jagman84
        Posted June 15, 2019 at 10:40 am | Permalink

        Joining the EEC in 1972 (via the European communities act) was a Government-only decision. The 1975 referendum was a vote to either continue or end that membership. The same as 2016. The 1975 result was respected by both sides. Not so, the 2016 version.

      • Rob Pearce
        Posted June 15, 2019 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

        No!! Heath took us into the EEC on a HoC vote. We were NEVER asked to JOIN. Please get your historical fact right.
        That HoC vote, by the way was by a majority of EIGHT MPs.

      • Posted June 16, 2019 at 11:59 am | Permalink

        And (unwritten) ”to make sure you do what we say – we shall have ways.”

        ”There is a name for appealing over the head of the Crown to an authority outside the realm, and that name is treason.”

        Or don’t you think that the role of the judiciary is actually important enough to be included in that rather Orwellian list?

    • We've Already Left
      Posted June 16, 2019 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

      Heath gave our precious sovereignty away in 1972 and lied about it and every British Government since covered that up until May’s poisonous Withdrawal Agreement told the tale. 47 years of lawlessness in what we were led to believe was a lawful nation is quite simply enraging. In Tudor days heads would have rolled across Tower green and stuck on pikes on Tower Bridge for such treason.

    • Diane
      Posted June 20, 2019 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

      If what I have read elsewhere to date is correct, what I would like to hear more of from our politicians too, is info on what has already been committed to in terms of the European Defence Union – the “deep and special Partnership” – the proposed takeover of states’ military budgets. This does not seem to come up in parliament. What would be the situation in the event of a “No Deal” exit etc., I hope the final two leadership hopefuls will enlighten us, the voters, in the coming weeks.

  5. matthu
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 6:54 am | Permalink

    There is a COMMONS BRIEFING PAPER Number 8415, 3 June 2019 titled “Brexit questions in national and EU courts” which devotes section 2.3 to these cases.

    Search for CBP-8415.pdf

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 8:47 am | Permalink

      Thanks for that.

      I am a staunch and unwavering supporter of our sovereign national Parliament as our central political institution, but at the same time I utterly despise many of those who have been wangled into the two chambers and who have been so careless with some of the laws they have passed that it ends up with judges having to settle matters.

      Regarding Brexit that started with the Miller case where the application for judicial review went in more or less on the first working day after the EU referendum result had been declared, and all because when still in opposition the Tory party drafted a referendum Bill which did not say what should ensue from a vote to leave and that obvious deficiency was carried through to the final legislation.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 11:07 am | Permalink

        Here is John Major, an example of the kind of disloyal and dishonest people who should never be allowed into Parliament, let alone into Downing Street, accusing others of “gold-plated hypocrisy” because they are insisting that MPs should not be allowed to go back on their word and are prepared to briefly suspend Parliament to deny eurofederalist anti-democrats like him any further opportunity to frustrate the will of the people as expressed in the referendum:

        https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/news/104573/john-major-plan-shut-down-parliament-force

        The gall of the man is staggering.

      • Andy
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

        I don’t quite agree with you on this. The Referendum Act provided for the referendum but it could in Law do nothing further. International Treaties (Foreign Affairs) are the preserve of the Crown so what the Act did was basically request that the Crown set in motion our leaving the EU which everyone thought was by Prerogative until the Miller case. What has been actually quite shocking has been the very blatant attempts by far too many members of the Commons to totally and utterly disregard the Referendum result. It was a matter of honesty, integrity and Honour that the result be respected and implemented.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted June 15, 2019 at 5:24 am | Permalink

          The Act could have laid down a course of action to be followed by a minister, for example that a notice of withdrawal under Article 50 TEU must be served within so many days. There would have been nothing out of the usual way in the Act doing that, indeed it is quite commonplace for Acts of Parliament to set out what a minister can or must do or must not do under various circumstances, including with respect to foreign relations and treaties, and in this case there would then have been no doubt about the Prime Minister having the right to exercise the Royal Prerogative and put in the notice.

        • Fred H
          Posted June 15, 2019 at 7:52 am | Permalink

          Andy…. It was a matter of honesty, integrity and Honour that the result be respected and implemented.

          And there you have the problem. Constituencies need to look long and hard at the activities, views, and voting behaviour of their elected MP. Hopefully at the next GE, many will be voted out, but we need to remove them one way or the other.

    • NickC
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

      Matthu and Denis Cooper, Thank you.

  6. matthu
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 6:59 am | Permalink

    Rt Hon Sir Richard Aikens, a former member of the Court of Appeal, and former Vice-President of the Consultative Council of European Judges, has written a briefing paper titled “The postponement of Brexit: is it legal?” which is available on the briefings for Brexit web site.

    Search for briefingsforbrexit.com/the-postponement-of-brexit-is-it-legal/

    • Graham Wood
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 8:31 am | Permalink

      Indeed, and in my view an excellent analysis of the merits of this legal
      challenge which incidentally is also backed by several other legal opinions
      as constituting a strong case.
      As for publicity as far as I’m aware only the Unity News Network has regularly
      featured Mr Tilbrook’s case with at least two live screened discussions with
      RT with opportunities for public comment on UUN’s website.

      • eleanor justice
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 11:31 am | Permalink

        Mr Tilbrooks party has the word English in its name a bad word among the left and it seems the same among a good part of this Government. An English Parliament is next after Brexit now that would get the traitors upset.

        • Steve
          Posted June 14, 2019 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

          eleanor

          “An English Parliament is next after Brexit now that would get the traitors upset.”

          ……yep, a reckoning is on the way. Bring it on !

    • gyges
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 8:57 am | Permalink

      @matthu thanks for this link and the other one you supply. I didn’t know all this was going on even though I’ve come to the same conclusion. I explain how I arrived at that conclusion in a separate post to this thread.

      • matthu
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 9:39 am | Permalink

        Stanley Brodie QC has written yet another opinion piece that first appeared on Lawyers for Britain and essentially reaches the same conclusion as Robin Tilbrook i.e. that we left the EU without a deal on the 29th of March.

        (I am hoping that Sir John will allow my message below at 7:09 to pass through moderation.)

  7. JimS
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 7:06 am | Permalink

    You may be right that the sponsors aren’t writing and talking about the cases and that is why they aren’t being reported.

    Perhaps this is part of a wider truth that just about everything that is reported is in the news because a sponsor delivered the story to the media as a press release or promotion? The media then puts out these stories as if by their own hard work they unearthed them for themselves. The unsuspecting public wonder then why the media has not been able to find out anything about these EU leave cases.

    The dry, boring ‘it is just legal stuff’ argument doesn’t work when we note that Gina Miller was never off the front pages and even now still gets treated as some sort of authority.

    • oldwulf
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:00 am | Permalink

      I suspect that the sponsors might want to make some money from their stories. This would explain why they don’t want to release any information too soon ….for free ?

  8. Ian wragg
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    You can bet that the establishment will rule that we are still in the EU.
    They make the rules up as they go along.

    • bigneil
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 9:54 am | Permalink

      With Albania and N. Macedonia soon to be needing £billions in EU handouts, the cash has to come from somewhere – where on earth could it possibly be found?

      • Mitchel
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 11:19 am | Permalink

        Quite!Empire building for the sake of empire building costs.How clever of the Russians to relinquish the parts of their erstwhile empire containing all those hungry mouths and few resources whilst keeping the bigger bits with all the resources and few inhabitants.Hence why Europe-and the west generally-is drowning in debt whilst Russia has very little sovereign debt and is increasing it’s reserves month on month.

        • Posted June 14, 2019 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

          Total tax in Russia is 13%. So individuals are working their way up in the world and in addition they obtain real interest returns on their capital. Honest Money! We need to bring honesty back as the default in the U.K. e.g. when a Judge says ‘ I’m jailing you for life’ that is what it should mean – not 5 years!

          • Mitchel
            Posted June 15, 2019 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

            Ex oriente lux!

      • Steve
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

        from the uk, obviously.

      • margaret howard
        Posted June 15, 2019 at 11:04 am | Permalink

        bigneil

        Well if Brexit goes ahead the EU will save millions which it now invests in our regions. It will make a good start.

        • Robert mcdonald
          Posted June 15, 2019 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

          You are of course aware that the millions you say the eu will save are from our coffers given to them to fund their whims. They then deign to give us some back to spend on their whims.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:29 am | Permalink

      There would be an awful lot of legal financial and also practical stuff to disentangle if the court decided that we left on March 29th. Everybody has been carrying on since then on the basis that the UK is still in the EU, with all kinds of contracts being made, money changing hands, goods being shipped etc etc. I guess that Parliament would have to rush through some retroactive legislation to regularise it all, and even then there could be some matters which fell within the competence of the EU and other governments and so could not be rectified by the UK Parliament. It would have been much better from all angles if MPs – or Lords – had voted down the Statutory Instrument, but then the great majority of parliamentarians across both chambers still want us to remain locked into the EU forever, not just for a bit longer, notwithstanding the 2016 referendum result and all the solemn promises made by politicians both before and after the vote.

    • Steve
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

      Ian Wragg

      Indeed they do, Sir.

      Fret not….those who changed the laws to try and sell this country down the river are on the list. They will not be getting away with it.

  9. matthu
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    Stanley Brodie QC recently retired from practice at the Bar of England and Wales after over 60 years, including over 40 years as Queen’s Counsel, wrote an article on the Lawyers for Britain site arguing that the UK left the EU on the 29th March 2019 by default as there was no valid or lawful impediment to prevent it.

    He analyses the request made by outgoing Prime Minister Theresa May under Article 50 for an extension of the UK’s EU membership until 30 June 2019, and concludes that while this request was legally valid, it was rejected by the EU.

    He then further argues that the counter-proposal by the EU did not comply with the terms of the proviso to Art.50(3) TEU, and accordingly that is was not effective in law to to stop the Article 50 process running up to and including 29 March 2019 at 11.00pm.

    Search for
    lawyersforbritain.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Article-50-TEU-Part-I-and-Part-II-23.5.19-by-Stanley-Brodie-QC.pdf

    • gyges01
      Posted June 15, 2019 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

      got it, thanks, very useful.

  10. DaveK
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 8:13 am | Permalink

    Having no knowledge of legal events, may I ask if it is possible for a new PM to “drop” these cases and “admit” that the extension was unlawful. Or are they just a case of legal types having an academic exercise?

    • bigneil
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 9:57 am | Permalink

      If the extensions are illegal, then will we be getting the three years of £55m a day payments back? Somehow I have my doubts.

      • robert beltram
        Posted June 15, 2019 at 12:48 am | Permalink

        no,why 3 years ? the extension would be illegal only from march 29 2019

  11. nhgp
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 8:19 am | Permalink

    The Attorney General can refuse to fight the case.
    Then we are out.
    No need to go back to parliament for another round of anti democratic fascism where a large number of MPs do not understand that in this case they have been given the order.
    They clearly do not like it, but why do they then insist on ordering us around?
    Ironic

    • Richard
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

      I have wondered this myself: why doesn’t Boris, advised by a new AG, simply announce their analysis agrees with Tilbrook*, Stanley Brodie QC** or Legg. The UK political position would then be that we had left. Any Parliamentary VONCs or new legal cases*** would then be TO TAKE US BACK IN POLITICALLY- far harder to argue for.

      Notes (*) Tilbook’s website says: “both I and our barrister, Francis Hoar, have shown the case and arguments to many solicitors and barristers, including quite a few QCs. It is only the few that have been paid to argue against us who have suggested that our case is not a strong one in law.”
      (**) Stanley Brodie QC https://lawyersforbritain.org/article-50-of-the-treaty-on-european-union-what-it-actually-says
      (***) CBP-8415 Page21 ~ “The expedited procedure… In Wightman it will have been 11.5 weeks from the request for an expedited procedure on 21 September to the ruling on 10 December.”

  12. gyges
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    Hi All

    I’m with the view that we’ve already (31st March 2019) left the EU. It is based on the subtle point that Parliamentary sovereignty is the collective sovereignty of the people. After the referendum, within reason, they no longer had the sovereignty to keep us in the EU. Any subsequent deals other than leaving are null and void due to ultra vires. I think that what needs to happen if we want a deal is to fleeting leave under WTO rules for a fraction of a second to sign a new treaty. Anything other than that isn’t lawful. …

  13. Christine
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 8:28 am | Permalink

    Maybe this is the route Boris should take, to get us out of the EU. If the court case is successful and he doesn’t tie it up with endless government appeals it will allow him to bypassing the impasse in parliament.

  14. Posted June 14, 2019 at 8:28 am | Permalink

    If Mrs May’s use of the SI was legal then Boris can do same and change the exit date to the day after he wins the leadership. No progrogation required and Mr Stewart can go back to smoking and dreaming rather than booking the Methodist Hall!

    • rose
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

      She is using another SI to ram through her unmandated CO2 legislation. Pursuing her scorched earth policy against her successor and against her country.

      • Posted June 14, 2019 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

        I think we can safely ignore the antics of Mrs May now. She cannot bind future parliaments.

      • Steve
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

        Don’t worry Rose, that legislation will be ripped up.

      • Richard
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

        Tim Montgomerie on ConHome: “There’s also a strong case for the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill to intervene. Sir Mark plans to meet the two final candidates to be the UK’s next PM as soon as they are chosen so that the civil service can prepare to support their draft agendas for government. Both of those conversations should begin with this issue of Mrs May’s misuse of the dying days of her premiership. Both candidates should make it clear that it is not acceptable.”

    • matthu
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

      There is also a case being argued that Article 50 only allows for extending the original period of two years (and by implication does not allow extending any subsequent period).

  15. Christine
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 8:32 am | Permalink

    The lack of publicity about this case in contrast with the previous Gina Miller case highlights the bias we have in our media.

  16. Kathleen P
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 8:39 am | Permalink

    Writing in Lawyers for Britain https://lawyersforbritain.org/article-50-of-the-treaty-on-european-union-what-it-actually-says Stanley Brodie QC, recently retired from practice at the Bar of England and Wales after over 60 years, including over 40 years as  Queen’s Counsel, concludes his legal opinion thus:

    ‘Whichever way one looks at it, the Agreement [to extend] 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.’

  17. Posted June 14, 2019 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    Knowledge of the case is alive and kicking on social media. Mainstream is a different matter. Tilbrook’s case is constitutional not criminal hence we cant we debate its historical importance in the open. The government have employed Sir James Eadie QC to defend. Eadie’s ‘Grounds of Resistance’ is that Tilbrook’s case holds no legal merit. However, he also said the same of Gina Miller and other cases he has lost.

    • rose
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

      He is a genial fellow but he does seem to lose these cases.

  18. Excalibur
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    I cannot see the Remainers placidly accepting such a legal loophole were the issue in their favour. Those with the leverage and the knowhow should pursue these cases energetically. It could well turn out that Theresa May’s delays were not legal.

  19. Jack Falstaff
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 11:03 am | Permalink

    I am of the view that we should go one step further; that there must be some enquiry or commission to examine why there has been such a concerted effort to thwart Brexit generally, and who exactly is behind it (apart from the obvious candidates such as Mr Blair).
    This should investigate the legality and consitutionality of trying to stymie the result of a referendum that I believe was endorsed originally by some 7/8ths of the HoC.
    The trouble is, who can we trust to do this, given the heavy-handed, all-pervasive nature of interference either by the EU or their hirelings within our own corridors of power?

    • Rob Pearce
      Posted June 15, 2019 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

      I am constantly mystified why so many Parliamentarians’ lives will apparently end with WTO exit. Who is promoting this mindset (or mindlessness)?

      This includes May. We have senior Tories ready to quit the party, initiate No Confidence motion to bring down their own government, or any number of other tactics should her successor take that route. This is beyond extraordinary.

      I feel we have got to the point that some of them should be investigated. If it’s money, we need to know. If there is something else – they need to be charged with treason. I’m serious.

  20. ADAMS
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 11:56 am | Permalink

    Gina Miller and her legal case trying to stop Brexit were showcased non stop on the MSM . Not The English democrats one though . Why would that be John ?
    We do get told ad infinitum that Trump has changed his spokeswoman for press briefings .

    Why would such uninteresting stuff about the boring nothings of the USA be top items on UK news . Any thoughts John ?

    • BR
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

      And Miller’s case was fast-tracked. So why have these cases not been dealt with in a similarly speedy fashion?

  21. Gordon Nottingham
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    Is it me, or dose it mean we are already out of the EU ?

    I would love to hear that we are out and that the new PM can just react to this.

    The more I read the less I understand, can you Sir John put me right?

    I am feeling out of touch with reality…..HELP

    • Fed up with the bull
      Posted June 15, 2019 at 7:43 am | Permalink

      Gordon, that’s probably because parliament is out of touch with reality.

  22. Iain Moore
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    The Remainers don’t care about democracy, mandate or legality. Look at what is taking place in Conservative leadership race. To put it in context we had the referendum which the Remainers have never respected. Now in the leadership contest we have Mr Gyimah, who having failed to get support went off and voted with Corbyn to try and obstruct any route for the other Leadership candidates to take us out of the EU. Then Mr Stewart, already bad mouthing other leadership challengers , a stock in trade of EU supporters, is threatening that if he doesn’t get his way on the EU, will go off and set up another parliament, presumably located in his tent, to try to distract and damage our Parliament.

  23. M Holland
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

    Mr Robin Tilbrook’s Facebook page was removed over his case so what does that tell us??

  24. Posted June 14, 2019 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    John, are you seriously telling us that Robin Tilbrooks case has received no updates and that the Media have given it the same attention as the Remain case? Gina Millers case was wall to wall even before the paperwork went in! Every channel, there was either an MP or Lawyer, expert talking about the Miller case.

    The BBC has stated that their is a Media blockade.

    So what are you so worried about John? In the words of Admiral [Ace] Lyons “Who in the hell or what to him”

    You have my email, you could easily contact Robin Tilbrook. Two of the Lawyers for Britain Barristers have accepted the brief on this case. Yet, you say – we have not updated the case – your comments are strange John. Very strange!

    Graham Moore AKA DD

    REPLY I cannot find any documents or press statements. I would be delighted to write about it if Mr Tilbrook published some progress report

    • Paula Clark
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

      John, if you can’t find copies of documentation or press releases from Robin pertaining to this case can I politely suggest that you take a crash course and learn how to do a google search, or if you were genuinely interested in the details of the case, contact Robin directly. Lastly, although a request to have this case expedited, due to national importance, this doesn’t appear to have happened, and as such, there is very little to nothing to report AS YET.

      • Anthony Heslop
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

        Or he could just give us a court date ?

        • Paula Clark
          Posted June 15, 2019 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

          I am sure he will, just as soon as the court gives him the date.

    • elizabeth mallon
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

      it’s all over social media and I have personally sent information to a number of MP’s. I would say at least 17.4 million people are watching the updates on a very regular basis.

      • robert beltram
        Posted June 15, 2019 at 12:54 am | Permalink

        exactly,its even in the parliament library,its not acceptable as i believe all the MPs know there is a courtcase the cabinet does as they had to respond by april 17th and for theresa may and others to talk about october 31st knowing this may not be the case at all because of the high court challenge is an insult to the citizens of this country

    • D Reynolds
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

      Further to Graham Moore’s comment, the House of Commons Library will furnish Mr Redwood with the necessary information. Has he looked?

    • KJ
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

      The Robin Tilbrook democratic court case that we left the EU on the 29th March is mentioned in this briefing paper, from page 11 👍
      House of Commons Library briefing paper, number 8415, 12th May 2019 – Brexit questions in national and EU courts.

    • Michele Marck
      Posted June 15, 2019 at 6:58 am | Permalink

      Graham I am following you with this case as I have more faith in you and Robin than our corrupted Government and I am doing what I can to bring awareness on social media until they close me down. Most of us know the Govt is corrupt and acting against the electorate. Justice will prevail I hope otherwise this country is finished! Albert sad.

    • Charlie BS
      Posted June 15, 2019 at 9:25 am | Permalink

      Nearly 24 hours later and our friend Mr Redwood still hasn’t moderated your additional comments which provide links to Mr Tilbrook’s blog with his previously published updates on the case. Strange as the cental plank of this blog post was that if such updates were provided, he would be happy to opine on them in a subsequent blog post. Let’s see…

      Re[ply I do not have time to check out lots of out of date links to Mr Tilbrooks site. I think it best to wait for Mr Tilbrook to brief the conventional media and publish an up date soon. I opposed the delay in the Commons and am no fan of it. I do not have enough knowledge of what is happening in court to be able to write a convincing piece on it.

    • Raymond Woods
      Posted June 15, 2019 at 10:36 am | Permalink

      I think you will find, if the proceedings were compared to the game of volley ball, the hot potato is currently being bounced round in the Government and Judiciary side of the net in panic! They don’t know what to do, apart from prevaricate and hope the other side run out of money. This is why there is a nearly perfect media blackout on the issue, to further muddy the waters.

      It will come as a great shock to the public when this case succeeds and they find their politicians have been lying to them.

    • David Frazer-Lewis
      Posted June 15, 2019 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

      If You FInd Yourself Pressed For Time the easiest way to get updates is to visit,Daddy Dragon,youtube channel.

  25. BR
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    Can someone please (publicly) make the point re the £39bn that it not ‘legally due’ to the EU?

    It was part of a political agreement which was never ratified by either side. If the agreement as a whole is not ratified then the entire thing is null and void.

    We have legal advice from more than one reputable source that says that we owe nothing. We would of course, be willing to take the case to independent arbitration (i.e. not the EU courts).

  26. BR
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    I quite understand that you cannot give an update on the proceedings if those bringing the cases don’t do so, but it would be interesting to hear your opinion of what’s been said on these matters.

    • Anthony Heslop
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

      There’s nothing to report until court gives date and of course you won’t here anything off the media because government has put a D notice on it

  27. mark telfer
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

    John, Stop spreading FAKE NEWS

  28. Jim
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    John

    I’d like to know what you think because it seems a very logical case based on the president of
    of Gina Millar.
    there is a real buzz about this on he internet- covered by some big channels like SGT report in the US

  29. Alex Parker
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

    John, I believe Robin Tillbrook and Graham Moore are making regular updates on social media, as indeed is one of the appointed barristers from Lawyers for Britain, Francis Hoar. I believe you could easily find information to report on if you really wanted to …… so this begs the question, why don’t you or any of your parliamentary colleagues or mainstream media want to touch this story? I presume it’s because you wish to pretend it’s not happening – but the law of the land must be upheld.

    I believe your government has employed Sir James Eadie QC, at vast expense using taxpayer’s money, to defend this case and are using the same tactics as were employed with the Gina Miller case, namely to try to run them out of money – but it won’t work. There are 17.4M of us, probably more now, that will rise up and defend the sovereignty of this great country of ours, even if the MPs we voted in won’t. Just you wait until the next General Election, I’m sure we the people will kick most of you to the curb for your abject failure to honour your commitment to respect the decision of the referendum. Shame on the lot of you!

    Reply I am it trying to suppress it.There is no info on Mr Tilrooks blog

    • Alex Parker
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

      I am a lifelong conservative voter. There are only 2 occasions when I have voted for an alternative party, UKIP prior to the 2016 referendum and The Brexit Party in the recent EU elections due to my complete disillusionment with the party following the fiasco of Theresa May’s Brexit betrayal – and it appears from the crushing results of the EU elections, I am not alone in my views!

      I used to have a lot of respect for you. I thought you were a Brexiteer and committed to respecting the referendum result …. but if you truly want to write about this case, I am sure you can very easily contact Robin Tillbrook, Graham Moore or Francis Hoar QC, and I am sure any or all of them will be pleased to enlighten you …… it’s very easy to take a quick look at a website and conclude, nothing to see here!

      So the ball is now firmly in your court – you could very easily help the cause for Brexit by speaking with Robin and his colleagues and then speaking publicly about this to help raise awareness ……. so why don’t you?

      We are watching your actions, not listening to your words!

    • matthu
      Posted June 15, 2019 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

      Sir John,

      Can I direct you to have a look at Roger Tilbrooks twitter account instead?
      twitter.com/RobinTilbrook

      There are updates amongst others relating to the Government’s Defence, the counter to the UK Government’s Defence and the House of Commons library briefing.

  30. KJ
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

    The Robin Tilbrook democratic court case that we left the EU on the 29th March is mentioned in this briefing paper, from page 11 👍
    House of Commons Library briefing paper, number 8415, 12th May 2019 – Brexit questions in national and EU courts.

  31. Paul hughes
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

    Whats the matter Mr Redwood are you all in the conservatives getting worried about your punishments coming your way committing unlawful acts ? You are not above the law

  32. Peter Geany
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

    John, I always thought you were a true conservative. But alas I am disappointed that you pretend you know nothing about this case. Given the government has broken the Law it is very instructive to the rest of us who dismisses this case and who bothers to find out what is happening. There is a world-wide movement in the West, and especially the English-speaking West, to oust the radical left who are trying to impose communism on us dressed up as progressive socialism. Given that even Politian’s with just half a brain can see what’s happening, those who try to dismiss the movement we automatically know are on the other side. You are looking dangerously like controlled opposition.

    It’s very easy to find out about Robin Tilbrook’s case and I believe you have been sent many links. Constitutionally we have left the EU. There is no going back, even those who dream that parliament could continuously vote down leaving with or without a deal leaving us in the EU by default are seriously wrong. We are out.

    For an MP who’s “raison d’etre” is reasoned argument, which we all prefer, you are letting your guard down with this slip-up. Please do not slip into the trap of thinking that the great unwashed public are ignorant of what’s going on. We are not. But I will give to you that the complacent class of well-paid office workers, mostly in London, but not exclusively so, are woefully ignorant. I am one of them, but an exception to the rule as I am a free thinker, part of the territory of being an engineer. It’s appalling to listen to the tripe most complacent class speak and the fact that they are clueless as to how anything is made and what it is made of. It’s the working people of this country that are in tune with what’s going on.

    In 40 years of being able to vote I have only ever Voted Conservative. I didn’t vote for Teresa, the first time ever I haven’t voted in a General Election. I will vote in the next General Election, but as it looks today It won’t be Conservative, despite the fact we are out of the EU. It’s all the other communist baggage like all the “Green Crap” that now must go before we will ever trust the conservatives again. Time to stop telling us what you think and time to start listening to real people, that is if your masters will allow.

    Reply I opposed delay in exit and will be delighted if the courts Decide we have left. How likely is that do you think if you know all about the case?

  33. David Morrison
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

    Dear Mr Redwood, if you are struggling to locate the updates on the Robin Tillbrook’s case, I can send you the links?

  34. Steve Bennett
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

    Very surprised John, and disappointed I have to say – I heard so many passionate speeches from yourself re LEAVE – EU. Not just w/ misleading article header but also so-called Conservatives as a whole having to do with Brexit. Seems Tories have become Lib-Dem remainers? Please clarify, ‘cos if we do not LEAVE the EU under WTO the Conservative Party, as I see it.. are finished!

    Please, take time to study the Withdrawal Agreement Bill 2017; Then I would also be extremely appreciative of your time to look into (w/detail) the Robin Tilbrook’s (Case No. CO/1322/2019) which abides by result of the Gina Miller Case, which she won!

    ALL UPDATES on this case are there, just feel ashamed that ‘you’ guys are complicit to suppress, along with mainstream media. Hmm?

  35. Flor Thompson
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:07 pm | Permalink

    So disappointed with your input of Mr Robin Tilbrook, I first learned about the Court Case through a leaflet posted through my letterbox. I read with concerned that this has not been taken by the Parliament and that the establishment is using my taxes to pay for a high pay lawyer using our hared earn money (taxes), while Mr Tilbrook relies directly from the British Public (us). After I researched what the leaflet says, my believe in you has diminished and I wonder where you stand. Why has it been a blackout on the case, why is been tried to get it shut down, why has Mr Tilbrook facebook account disabled, is it because this is a strong case where it looks to me that the establishment is breaking our laws and make in their own as they go along. Mr Redwood, get my confidence back and look at the case, it has been mentioned in the TV a few times and I know that Parliament has been told of the case. If you are a true brexiteer you will bring this into the open and help Mr Tilbrook and the people of this country to get out of the undemocratic eu.

  36. garry barr
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

    hello john

    I cannot fathom your comments in my brain , I am not a politician, a legal expert, a buisnessman, I am a working class person in fact I drive a reach-truck, and even I can find copious amounts of material on this case, you could probably try looking as a start in the commons library, then possibly try that thing, oh whats it`s called the searchy thing, tip of my tongue….GOOGLE!! and have a look on youtube and the videos will give you some links and stuff.
    I`ve always like you John, your calm and collected speaking etc and had hope for you, but please don`t bale on us now.

    Reply I did not find on Mr Tilbrook’s site any recent updates. It would help if people supplied such an update instead of criticising me. I have been sent huge amounts of material complaining of censorship but no update!

  37. Sooth Sayer
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:54 pm | Permalink

    John how can it be possible that you don’t know more about Robin Tilbrook case.
    It sounds like you are being dishonest with the people.
    We are the people.
    Whereas your lot are just the muppets.

  38. John
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

    You sir are disingenuous! I’m in the USA and even I can find the information that you, conveniently are having a hard time finding.

  39. Jeff Houghton
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 11:56 pm | Permalink

    Fake news and the uprising is beginning, the draining of the swamp is happening and you lot are absolutely petrified, you have even gone as far as breaking the law with this statement, and with the extension.

  40. DukesFarmGedd
    Posted June 15, 2019 at 1:07 am | Permalink

    I’m surprised that you have not seen all the papers on the Tilbrook Case that are in the HoC library. Being such a True Conservative that so clearly supports Brexit I would have expected you to have been doing all you can to advertise the fact that we have already left the EU on 29th March 2019.

    The Article 50 Withdrawal Act became Law with Royal Assent that we will leave the EU on 29/3/2019 with or without a deal it and can only be overruled with a new law. What precisely is that new overriding Law, which has been given Royal Assent?

  41. Ron Patterson
    Posted June 15, 2019 at 1:15 am | Permalink

    Why are you and the vast majority of the Parliamentary MP’s completely avoiding the Brexit Court case Like the Plague. You say there are no updates, I spent 30 seconds doing a search and came up with dozens. The fact you are trying to downplay this Case would suggest you and most of your colleagues are truly not interested in getting Britain out of the EU as per the referendum result. Also, why is the Government wasting vast sums of Tax payer money to hire the most expensive QC in the country to defend against a court case which would deliver the peoples mandate???

  42. Alan Carter
    Posted June 15, 2019 at 2:34 am | Permalink

    When are you going to publish updates to the Robin Tilbrook case? We have already left the EU. You should be remonstrating this facts. There seems to be a media blackout. Tell me that you are not part of this wall of silence!? Please respond.

  43. Nina
    Posted June 15, 2019 at 3:17 am | Permalink

    John, why haven’t we brexited yet? Are you cowboys working for us or the EU??? You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

  44. Nicki Morley
    Posted June 15, 2019 at 7:47 am | Permalink

    In fairness, all you who have blogged for Graham Moore, you are killing the goose here. Mr Redwood HAS mentioned the case, overtly, on a newsletter that is sent all over. He HAS acknowledged the case, so why give him a hard time for mentioning it and asking for more information? He’s doing what no other MP has done. So why not in a civil way, give him that information and he will give your case the publicity deserved. I am a great follower of the case and have on numerous occasions been blocked on fb for posting Robins Case. So many people ask me what is the case? I am not certain all MPs know the progress of Robins case. Let’s inform without offence please

    • rose
      Posted June 15, 2019 at 10:08 am | Permalink

      I understand Robin Tilbrook has had his FB account shut.

      • matthu
        Posted June 15, 2019 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

        If this concerns you, you can write to Nick Clegg c/o FB.
        (Good luck!)

    • allyvghn
      Posted June 15, 2019 at 11:08 am | Permalink

      I totally agree with your sentiment Nicki.. I believe people should give Mr Redwood the respect he deserves when compiling their blogs.. I’ve often wondered where Uk Plc would be today if he had been successful in the leadership race back in 1997.. in a lot better place than it is today for sure.. being a self-admitted Euroskeptic we may even have seen an EU referendum a long long time ago and Brexit may could have been a distant memory already.. he’s a true Conservative and some of the younger bunch of wannabee PM’s should take a few leaves out of his book if they want to last as long as he has in politics.. but on the other hand he should also understand that there is a growing frustration among the electorate.. which has festered grotesquely whilst the government and Westminster as a whole continue to play positioning games.. content to kick the proverbial Brexit can down the road at every single opportunity.. since nobody actually wants to be decisive and take responsibility just in case the outcome is disastrous and they lose their job as a result.. but the electorate are not as stupid as some of these politicians seem to think.. and will retaliate come the next General Election.. in the meantime those frustrations will sometimes be vented in less than polite remarks.. which are not so much aimed at Mr Redwood but at the party he represents.. hopefully fellow Brexiteers reading this will bear that in mind and go a little easier on him.. especially since it’s his birthday today 🥳

    • Peter Geany
      Posted June 15, 2019 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

      Nicki, if you are not following what is going on in the US then perhaps you won’t see what is happening here in the UK. In the US many Politian’s and others have been exposed and caught out pretending to be conservative but backing the progressive left and globalist agenda. It’s called controlled opposition. In this way just when you think you are winning these people let you down.

      I think it important that “conservative stalwarts” like John are challenged about their true allegiances otherwise we will get another Teresa May, and another and another as we keep getting taken in. Conservatives in the US have found in Donald Trump, a President who is working for them. He may be brash and direct, and grate on some in this country but he is a breath of fresh air.

      We need to judge our Politian’s on what they say and do, and Teresa blew it and exposed herself as a fraud the moment she did her social justice worrier bit and replied to a Donald Trump tweet. It was a deliberate troll to show people what she was really like and she took the bait. There is more going on in this world than you can ever imagine.

      Reply I did not vote for or advocate Mrs May to become leader. This time I have chosen one of the candidates who argues for an early Brexit and for tax cuts.

  45. Gilda Howe
    Posted June 15, 2019 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    John you know there is a court case going on it is in the parliament library for you all to see. Can you answer me this, why are the government paying using the tax payers money to fight the case, why do the tax payers have to crowdfund our case, why cannot we use the tax payers money. Since Ted Heath everyone of you people in government no mater what side you are on, have committed treason, even the queen has broken her oath., yet not one of you are prepared to stand up for the constitution of this country. When we win our court case we are going to come out fighting, we will demand everyone be sacked and we will start again, let’s get back to a government that does not get paid, as they do the job for the love of the country, not like you and the rest of the government for your pocket and what you can get out of it. We demand a English government, not British, unless you cannot go back three generations of being born in the uk, you cannot stand, or be a judge, policeman anything in higher jobs. You have had it good to long., I would like to see everyone of you in court one day. THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SOLUTION, never leave the rule of the law. THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED.

    Reply I do not support the government on this matter and do not deny there is a court case. I opposed the delay!

  46. anon
    Posted June 15, 2019 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    So it does appear we have left, unless EU laws can be changed retrospectively, post the event to ensure “ever closer union” in direct conflict with article 50.

    Where does that leave the office of prime minister, the civil service, MP’s and parliament versus the EU law or more pointedly UK law.

    If the treaties cease to apply, then why have they not ceased.

    Can we discuss the consequences?

  47. Cliff Cornwell
    Posted June 15, 2019 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    The truth WILL all come out. Each and every MP, including the Speaker, who has changed their stance from leaving to staying in the EU since 23 June 2016, will be shown to have been paid (or promise of future employment) by the EU, to persuade them that staying is a more profitable direction. They will all face prosecution in the end. This, along with all those who kept quiet about Robin Tillbrook’s case will be unelectable or unemployable. £100M wasted on the EU election is just for starters. That’s without the vast sums of money paid to the EU in ‘subs’ since 29th March 2019 when we actually left. John, I think the sooner this gets sorted the less damaging it will be for the Conservatives as well as the Country. For God’s sake get your head out of the sand!

  48. Jiminyjim
    Posted June 15, 2019 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    Sir John, I am not a believer in conspiracies, but I find the stories behind the Tilbrook case very concerning, having just watched the Youtube video of a long interview with him on UNN (which I’d never heard of).
    You show us every day that you care about honesty and democracy. Can I suggest that you should be exposing the MSM’s blockade of news on this subject? Surely it should be of interest to us all if Theresa May was acting ultra vires when she agreed the two extensions to the original date for Brexit without the approval of either her Cabinet or the House of Commons (which Robin Tilbrook claims in the interview). Please confirm our faith in you by addressing this issue soon on this site. Thank you

    • Carolyn
      Posted June 17, 2019 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

      As John seems to be unable to find such information himself (!) maybe you could post here a link to the youtube film you mentioned?

  49. matthu
    Posted June 15, 2019 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

    Interesting point made by Francis Hoar QC in his own twitter feed:

    Replying to someone who said “Given the SI that parliament passed albeit afterwards conforms by the date I would I thought this a difficult case to win”

    Hoar makes the point:

    An SI may only be made once the date on which the Treaties cease to apply has already been changed. Its validity is dependent upon the condition precedent allowing it to be made.

  50. Mike Sheldon
    Posted June 15, 2019 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    John

    You are talking a load of rubbish, you think us electorate are stupid obviously. We all can find loads about this case on social media despite the fact that the BBC have blocked any mention of it as Laura Kuenssberg openly admitted to Robin Tilbrook when he asked her about it. The Fleet Street papers are openly NOT talking about this as they have made a black-out of any mention of the case. When this finally appears in the court the fake media will have to openly report the case when the shit finally hits the fan, then what do you think the electorate will think of you load of charlatans of so called politicians who represent nobody. Firstly there will need to be an inquiry into the so called impartiality of the BBC in reporting this sort of thing, then the swamp will need to be drained of all you shower of sh*t politicians that don’t represent anyone and be given your P45’s at the next general election.

  51. mancunius
    Posted June 15, 2019 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

    While Parliament had voted for an extension until the end of June, May then agreed unilaterally to an EU-imposed extension until the end of October, which she was not authorised to do by Parliament. Under the Gina Miller judgement, May cannot claim the right of Crown privilege for her formal treaty assent.
    Art. 50 of the Lisbon Treaty does allow an extension to be requested and agreed: but in international law that does not mean a series of successive extensions, and above all, it must be specifically requested and agreed by the country leaving the EU, not unilaterally imposed by the EU.
    Parliament did not vote for an extension until 31st October, and the PM did not request it. Her agreement to it was ultra vires.
    Nor were any of the 27 countries allowed to put that Art. 50 extension to their legislatures, nor were they allowed by Juncker to dissent from the EU’s ‘decision’. Macron’s explicit and principled objection was swept aside, and yet Art. 50 specifically states that extension must be ‘unanimously agreed’ by every single remaining EU state, so the veto of the French Head of State should have quashed any such extension.

  52. TooleyStu
    Posted June 16, 2019 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    I think the fact we left on 29 March may have some merit…

    A friend went to Alicante in Spain to obtain their Residencia, and was moved from the EU que to the International que, as according to the Spanish authorities.. we left on 29th March.

    So even if we think we are still in.. our partners think we have left.

    TooleyStu

  53. Martin
    Posted June 16, 2019 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    When will you repoort on the Robin Tilbrook court case the people vs the government ? Why are you keeping it quiet ? does it have anything to do with your link to the Rothschild ?

    Reply I have no link with Rothschilds so why do you mention them

  54. Posted June 17, 2019 at 4:40 am | Permalink

    Why aren’t you standing for the leadership, John? I would vote for you …

  55. Angel9
    Posted June 20, 2019 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    Agree that there is plenty of info online regarding Robins case l will email Robin and ask him to send to you all the relevant info
    Our country deserves to be treated with respect by this government but they are yet again trying to hoodwink us into remaining in the EU
    It is blatantly obvious that they are doing everything within their power to suppress reporting of this case and in doing so covering up their dirty dealing
    John please help this case and the people of the country who voted out get out without anymore underhand dealings and save the taxpayers more wasted money
    Mrs May has acted unlawfully and we are all well aware of this fact

  56. Posted June 20, 2019 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    There is no Barry Legg case at all. They have not submitted a case to the High Court. That is fake news John. Whereas Robin Tilbrook has and has instructed Barristers, Robin Tilbrook is a Solicitor. This is exactly why people don’t trust Conservatives any more! Lies. Fake News and conning the Public. What you frightened of John, the HAMR?

    For your ref the case number CO/1322/2019 1st Respondent Prime Minister of the UK 2nd Respondent Brexit Secretary.

    Please show me Barry Leggs case number, JR grounds, Governments Grounds of resistance? YOU can’t… fake news and fake conservatives ! Law Makers breaking their own laws! Not a good look for a conservative! Graham Moore

    Reply I do not do fake news. I asked for information about both cases and never said the Legg case had started.

  57. Linda Barnett
    Posted June 23, 2019 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    Sir, as the most staunch brexiteer in the HOC I am pleased you have acknowledged the Robin Tillbrook court case, unlike many who will not even reply to messages about it. After reading the comments and replies i can see many are frustrated. Can i suggest an article explaining what the case is about in simple terms and your thoughts, rather than an update about the case. Best wishes, Linda

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, He graduated from Magdalen College Oxford, has a DPhil and is a fellow of All Souls College. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.

    Promoted by David Edmonds on behalf of John Redwood both of 30 Rose Street Wokingham RG40 1XU

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page