show/hide profile info
Register to take part
email

bill-cash-mp-in-stunning-confirmation-of-article-50-extension-illegality

  • 1 Replies
  • 459 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3800
  • +75/-0
' ..  the government has lost any legal legitimacy'


Hence my letter below in draft:





As we all know governments govern with the consent of the governed, but that government must be legitimate / legal to receive that consent, otherwise taxation is extortion and extortion is not of course legal..
Since we left the EU legally on the 29th March 2019, - the extension of Article 50 leaving date by the government, it is argued in the following, - was unlawful  and the government continues to act as though we haven't and continues to subsume itself and the people of the United Kingdom to EU law when it shouldn’t, then it is no longer a legal government but a government acting without mandate, a dictatorship if you will - that's clear.
Extension of Article 50 leaving date unlawful
The esteemed Sir William Cash an acknowledged House of Commons expert on the Constitution has proclaimed:
“After hours of discussions with QCs and former judges, I believe the British Government’s extension of Article 50 is unlawful.”
 
Cash’s argument goes:
 
It is a fundamental principle of UK constitutional law that the Government may not use its powers, including its powers to make international agreements, to frustrate the intention of Parliament. Parliament’s intention is to be found, and is only to be found, in the laws it makes. Resolutions of the House of Commons may sometimes be politically important, but they are of no legal effect unless an Act of Parliament expressly gives them legal effect.
The intention of Parliament is, and remains still, that the UK must leave the EU. This is clear from the legislation to trigger Article 50 (the EU Notification of Withdrawal Act 2017), in which Parliament referred to and declared “the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU”. The EU Withdrawal Act 2018 gives effect to the decision to withdraw by repeatedly referring to “exit day”. The Withdrawal Act expressly states: “The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day”. Parliament originally set that day precisely at March 29 2019, but the Government has purported to extend this by statutory instruments. These can be challenged in the courts.
 
It is essential to note that Parliament’s legal intention for the UK to leave the EU is not conditional upon a withdrawal agreement. While many MPs have said that they do not want the UK to leave without a withdrawal agreement, and the House of Commons has passed a resolution stating this, the law of the United Kingdom is not affected by their protestations. Our law is simply that the UK must leave the EU.
 
It follows that when the Prime Minister exercised her power to act for the UK at the EU Council, she was obliged under our law to refrain from doing anything that would frustrate the intention of Parliament that the UK must leave the EU with or without a withdrawal agreement.
 
These are manifest limitations on the Prime Minister’s competence. They concern rules of UK internal constitutional law of fundamental importance. In these circumstances, I believe that it would be impossible for the Prime Minister, acting lawfully under UK law, to accept an extension of the kind proposed. When I called on her to resign last week in the House of Commons, I reminded her that she had promised over 100 times not to extend exit day.
 
For the Prime Minister to agree to such an extension in these circumstances is to knowingly use her power in a way that she herself believes would risk frustrating Parliament’s intention that the UK must leave the EU. This is legally beyond the pale.
 
The Government’s use of its powers – including the so-called prerogative under which international relations are conducted – can be challenged in the UK courts, as Gina Miller successfully did in the Supreme Court. A challenge in the courts is fully justified in respect of the purported extension of time.
 
This [extension of the leaving date] is a political betrayal of the referendum vote in June 2016. That vote was expressly given by Parliament under the Referendum Act 2015 to the people and became the law of the land. It cannot be taken back by mere resolutions of the Commons nor by unlawful statutory instruments. Indeed, on Friday evening, five minutes before the deadline on the statutory instrument for the regulations to confer the extension to October 31, I tabled a block against the regulations which continues until the House returns.

Powers for local authorities to levy property taxes
 
Since the Powers for local authorities to levy property taxes is derived from the authority of the standing government, it follows that if the government by its actions puts itself beyond the rule of law, which it, like every citizen is required to obey, then the derived powers by West Oxfordshire District Council must likewise cease.
 
Whilst I have every intention of providing my lawful contribution to town, district and country finances as I have done for the past 50 years, the question of legality of the levy is now in serious doubt and it would be unlawful for me to provide monies to an unlawful body.
 
Therefore, I am withholding my payments to West Oxfordshire District Council, at least until you can reassure me that your demand is lawful and / or the legal case presently ongoing in the High Courts has ruled.

Yours sincerely
 
David Barnby


email
 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)



COMODO SECURE

Powered by EzPortal
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 
Comodo SSL