OPINIONS

The TRUTH about potential EU exit in August

16 August, 2019
David Clews

Dear Readers,

As Lead Correspondent at UNN I thought it only necessary to clear up some facts surrounding the article we published yesterday in relation to the quotes made by Tom Tugenhadt the senior Tory MP.

Tom Tugendhat, who chairs the Commons foreign affairs committee, has floated the idea that Boris Johnson could unilaterally withdraw the UK from the European Union in the next 10 days to try to avoid attempts by parliament to block a no-deal Brexit.

However a Downing Street Spokesperson poured cold water on the idea and source said the idea was not under consideration, and one expert in EU law said the withdrawal date could only be changed with the consent of Brussels.

The plan, if carried out, would be hugely controversial, and would take companies and the financial markets by surprise before no-deal preparations had been completed.

In response to tweeted questions about the repeated objections by the Democratic Unionist party to any regulatory provision that applied only to Northern Ireland, Tugendhat argued that a Johnson government could ignore this if it won a majority in the subsequent election, and that a referendum would give the idea credibility.

Tom Tugendhat

✔@TomTugendhat

What odds would you give on:
1 UK exits EU by 24 Aug – in time for G7 or before Parliament returns. Art 50 passed so nothing to stop unilateral withdrawal.
2 General Election straight after to get majority.
3 Answer Irish border Q with NI only referendum on NI only backstop?

180

Twitter Ads information and privacy

Senior advisers to the Prime Minister are very concerned that the Commons could find a way to block Johnson’s much-promised departure by 31 October if it involved leaving the EU without a deal, whether through taking control of the parliamentary order paper or means such as a no-confidence vote in the government.

Steve Peers, a professor of EU law at the University of Essex, said he did not think such a plan was feasible. While changing the date of withdrawal could be done via so-called secondary legislation, not voted on by MPs, he tweeted, the EU Withdrawal Act states it must happen “in accordance with article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union”, which sets out the EU’s constitutional basis.

Section 50(3) of the treaty says an extension to the standard two-year wait for departure under article 50 can only take place if “the European council, in agreement with the member state concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period”. This indicated any change of date would need agreement, he said.

Peers wrote: “So the EU would have to agree to change the date. ‘Unilateral’ change of date is therefore illegal.”

There is also the option that the Government could stop challenging the Tilbrook Legal Case and agree with its findings resulting in a retrospective unilateral exit from the EU.

 

As you can see at the bottom we stated: “There is also the option that the Government could stop challenging the Tilbrook Legal Case and agree with its findings resulting in a retrospective unilateral exit from the EU.”

The rumour has now been going around that a senior Tory MP actually said this when in fact no Tory MP at a senior level has done so that we can find. UNN was arguing that this is a possible course of action in relation to the Tilbrook Case. One QC responded to the below in relation to the suggestion the UK Government would grant a ‘consent order’ to the Tilbrook case:

I would just like to stress again that I am not a lawyer and no matter how many books I was to read I would still be unable to pass judgement. UNN is however a responsible news outlet and we want to try and present facts as best we can.

UNN fully agrees that the manner in which the Article 50 extension was carried out on March the 29th was full of legal holes and that Mr Tilbrook was right to take this case to court. There are however a number of issues around this case that we will explore fully once Brexit has happened but in no way would we comment in anyway to jeopardise this case as it stands.

At the moment the initial verdict of the Judges in relation to the Tilbrook Case is that it was ‘totally without merit’. To the best of our knowledge an appeal has been submitted and it is now awaiting a verdict on this appeal.

Tom Tugenhadt MP is a Remainer who on the whole cannot be trusted but did float the idea that the UK might pull a masterstroke and early exit from the EU. It was UNN’s suggestion that this could be done through the Tilbrook case, not a senior Tory from what we see. We err on the side that it will not happen but you cannot rule it out entirely.

It is my assessment that HM Government is looking towards a full WTO withdrawal on the 31st of October in order to be fully prepared for it. It is still our hope that the Tilbrook case will be seen in Court as the Government must be challenged over the way in which they have acted with impunity on the Article 50 extension.

 

David Clews

Lead UNN Correspondent

 

Never miss an update, DOWNLOAD the FREE UNN App and if you want more content and to support our work you can SUBSCRIBEg.

CLICK HERE NOW TO DOWNLOAD

-->