UK POLITICS

Readers Opinion-We HAVE left the EU but Tilbrook is WRONG!

2 July, 2019
UNN Opinions
Dear Readers,
We received the below piece from one of our readers and in it they make an interesting conclusion that agrees with Stanley Brodie QC in that the EU is in fact responsible for the error and not the UK Government. This means that in their opinion the Judge in the Tilbrook case was correct in their assessment.
This case and legal argument would have to go before the European Courts of Justice. As ever please share and comment on social media to spread the word.
Hi, 
I have been following this case and your coverage and thought you may be interested in the following.
‘Daddy Dragon’ talks about this case and the dismissal from the courts here := https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4XZ29lM3DY 
Now, I am not solicitor nor a legal expert but the dismissal appears to be valid to me. The case being brought (from my understanding) is based upon the following legislation,
“European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017
1Power to notify withdrawal from the EU
This section has no associated Explanatory Notes
 
(1)The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.
(2)This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.”
With particular emphasis on the words “or any other enactment”. But this is the notice of withdrawal and then guidance needs to be taken from “Article 50 TEU: Withdrawal of a Member State from the EU” that lays out the terms of the withdrawal as follows, 
“1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own
constitutional requirements. 
 
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its
intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall
negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its
withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That
agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the
Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
 
3. 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.
 
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the
Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of
the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union.
 
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to
the procedure referred to in Article 49. ”
What the judge has done is focus on the relevant legislation that was brought into effect in the UK surrounding the wording of “exit day” and not actually advised the claimant (which they are not allowed to do) to look a bit closer at the EU treaty and what it says as EU law supersedes UK law in matters relating to the EU. 
If the wording of the treaty is looked at then the UK did leave on the 29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m, but not for the reasons that Robin Tilbrook and Daddy Dragon infer to. I point you to the following short 8 pages PDF submitted by ‘Stanley Brodie QC’ from lawyers for Britain which makes a lot more sense in law.
In closing, as stated I am not an expert in legal matters but I do know my way around legislation and I can’t personally fathom why the judges response is not being considered as valid when to me it seems pretty obvious if all character assassinations/conspiracies are put aside.
Further Related Links,

-->