OPINIONS

Yet ANOTHER claim that we have left the EU by DEFAULT

7 July, 2019
David Clews
The extremely well respected conservative leaning publisher The Spectator has just published another incredible claim that the Article 50 extension has been done illegally by the EU. Written by Charles Day the question is asked: Does this EU small print mean Brexit has already happened?

 

David Clews, UNN Lead Correspondent, looks into this article below in detail:

The heady drama when Britain and the EU agreed on a series of Brexit extensions earlier this year is hard to forget. But amidst the chaos, it’s worth asking: did Britain accidentally leave the EU on 1 June? A badly-drafted EU law – which also challenges the idea of EU competence – seems to suggest so. So how did this apparent blunder happen? And why has no one noticed?


When Article 50 timed out on 29 March 2019, the UK and the EU agreed to extend to 12 April. When an extension is made it has to be done in both EU law and UK law. On that occasion, it was: both sides managed to pass proper laws. The EU one is here.
 
As we know, another extension was then sought, and that’s where the trouble begins. The UK again drafted our extension properly. It did so by simply moving the deadline in the Act that says we leave to 31 October. But that’s not what the EU did.
 
It is important to note that this legal argument is entirely different from the Tilbrook Case in that it is questioning the veracity of the manner in which the EU has extended Article 50. This claim is similar to the Stanley Brodie QC analysis of the extensions which again saw illegality.
 
Instead, the EU passed this. The ‘Articles’ are the bit which are actually law. The 14 paragraphs under “whereas” are just explanation. So note Article 2 on the third and final page of the document.
 
“This decision shall cease to apply on 31 May 2019 in the event that the United Kingdom has not held elections to the European Parliament in accordance with applicable Union law and has not ratified the Withdrawal Agreement by 22 May 2019.”
 
The vital words are in bold here. Have we ratified the Withdrawal Agreement? Nope. That means that this second extension of time ceased to apply, as it says, on the 31 May. So according to EU law, we’ve gone. We’ve been outside the EU, without a WA or an Free Trade Agreement, for a whole month and we’re still not all dead yet. Remarkable.
 
Surely it cannot be so easy that as the Withdrawal agreement hasn’t been ratified we have left?
What that means is that, despite the threats over hard Brexit, the EU has chosen to ignore them this time. The Mayor of Calais has not been blocking ships. The VAT, designation of origin and currency border in Ireland has not been made less porous. This is despite EU law – which is sovereign in the EU27 – telling them they should do these things and maintain the EU’s border; indeed they must do, it’s their law. It’s almost as though no one actually reads the laws the EU makes.
 
What are the counter arguments to this? I’ve tried to consider every possible interpretation of the quote above – but law means what it says. EU law is published in other languages, but its English version still has to be, and is, legally binding. In any event, the French text says the same – and “et” means “et”. Under EU law, we left on June 1.
 
It is fair to the EU to point out that pre-amble paragraph 11, under “whereas”, tells a completely different story. But that is only a declaration of intention and fine intentions mean nothing. The EU legally-binding text means what it says – not what they hoped it said.
 
The EU makes bad law all of the time. This isn’t new, it’s just not something we seem to admit in the UK. And before any damage is done, the so-called European Court of Justice will, presumably, fix it for the EU. (On a side note, I look forward to the ECJ telling us that ‘and has not’ in fact means ‘or’ in a sanctimonious way. It doesn’t, but that won’t matter).
 
Is the author trying to get across that a No Deal Brexit wouldn’t be as bad as a great deal of the commentariat are making out? The main issue with this case is that it would have to go before the European Courts of Justice (ECJ) if we are unable to get justice in the UK what chance do we have of getting this from the EU?
It’s worth reiterating, by the way, that the UK did do things properly. So if the EU27 want to have competent, well-drafted law after Brexit, then perhaps we should offer to write it for them. If they ask nicely in the negotiation perhaps? But in the meantime, let’s stop pretending that the EU is amazing and we’re rubbish – that’s just not true. And this bungled Brexit law shows it.
Unfortunately for the Tilbrook case this does not make good reading. As I stated before it is my personal opinion that having been hit by a ‘without merit’ strike the case is going to be extremely hard to win even though Mr Tilbrook is launching an appeal. Will someone try and take this case before the ECJ? The chances of it winning would be extremely slim and as usual the only real winners would be the lawyers!

UNN is live tonight at 19:00 taking an unbiased and honest look at the Tommy Robinson verdict it is set to be a MASSIVE show.

Click Here & SUBSCRIBE and remember to hit the reminder/notification bell.

-->