SECRET BREXIT

DOCUMENTS
EXPOSE THE DUP
The Electoral Commission must investigate the CRC, the secretive group
behind the £435,000 donation to the DUP.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/2414.html

DUBLIN CASE
The Good Law Project sought to establish, via the High Court of Ireland,
whether our Parliament can, if it wants, reverse our decision to leave the EU.
The case sought a referral to the Court of Justice of the EU of the question
whether Article 50, once triggered, can unilaterally be revoked by the British
government. Do we or don’t we need the consent of all other 27 EU member
states.

If the CJEU were to rule that Article 50 is revocable, it would give the UK
power to reject the outcome of Article 50 negotiations and remain in the EU
should the Brexit negotiations yield a deal that was not acceptable to
our Parliament or voters.

https://goodlawproject.org/dublin-case/
Government has commissioned studies into what Brexit
means for the country but is refusing to release those studies
to the public.
Solicitors acting for the Good Law Project and Molly Scott Cato, MEP have
written [1] to the Department for Exiting the European Union and HM Treasury
asking for their release. Unless the studies are provided within 14 days the
Good Law Project and Ms Scott Cato will issue judicial review proceedings to
attempt to force the Government to publish them.

Two classes of document are being sought.

First, those mentioned by David Davis MP to the Commons Committee on

Exiting the EU on 14 December last year: “our 57 studies cover 85% of the
economy—everything except sectors that are not affected by international
trade” [2]. DExEU has repeatedly promised to publish a list of studies “shortly”
but has not yet done so [3]. And, second, a report prepared by HM Treasury
comparing the predicted economic detriment of Brexit with the predicted
economic benefits of alternative free trade agreements.
Good Law Project founder, Jo Maugham QC said:

“This is our Government, it must act in our interests, and we must be able to see that
it is. Scrutiny lies at the heart of our democracy and these studies inform decisions
having a profound impact on our futures.

“There is a clear and compelling public interest in their production. It is not right that
they be hidden from public view. We must be able to see what Brexit means.”

Molly Scott Cato MEP said:

“The European referendum was all about taking back control but how can we know if
our democratic representatives are making decisions in our interests when the
government is withholding vital information? It has been clear for some time that the
attempt to keep the Brexit impact studies secret is more to cover the government’s
blushes than to enable efficient law-making. The rule of law requires that MPs know
what Brexit really means before they formally vote on whether we withdraw.”

The Good Law Project [4] and Molly Scott Cato are being advised by Tim Pitt-
Payne QC and Robin Hopkins each a leader in the field of information law.
They are instructed by Constantine Partasides of Three Crowns LLP.

The Good Law Project is also launching a crowdfunding campaign to fund the
costs of the judicial review proceedings. [5]

Notes:

1. The letter can be seen

here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/fy3ladlqey5def8/LettertoDExEU.pdf?d
l=0.
2.
See http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/e
videncedocument/exiting-the-european-union-committee/the-uks-
negotiating-objectives-for-its-withdrawal-from-the-eu/oral/44457.pdf.
3. http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-
answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2017-07-10/3781/
4. The Good Law Project is a not for profit founded by Jo Maugham QC
and uses the law to deliver a better society.
5. The crowdfunding page can be seen
here https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/secretbrexitstudies.
contingency planning programme “Operation Yellowhammer”
Brexit Contingency Action Plan
Publication of Brexit Contingency Action Plan Update, 9 July 2019

The Government today announced further steps in its ongoing Brexit

contingency and preparedness work, recognising that there is now a
significant risk of a no deal Brexit on 31 October. The Brexit Contingency
Action Plan Update published today reflects the extensive whole-of-
Government and EU level work which has already taken place, as well as
the additional work that will happen between now and 31 October.

The consequences of a no deal Brexit will be profound, including

macroeconomic, trade and sectoral challenges. It will also have
implications for trade on the island of Ireland, North and South cooperation
and will pose risks for the Good Friday Agreement and political stability. It
could have lasting societal impacts for Northern Ireland.

While the Government’s extensive preparedness and contingency efforts

will help mitigate the negative effects of Brexit, a no deal Brexit will be
highly disruptive. In such a scenario, it will be impossible for the UK to
maintain the current seamless arrangements with the EU across the full
range of sectors and this will have knock-on consequences for Ireland.

For the time between now and 31 October, the Action Plan emphasises the
need for stepped up preparedness measures, by exposed businesses in
particular. Citizens and businesses cannot assume that because a no deal
Brexit was averted in March and April that the same will happen in October
– the need for prudent preparations is more pressing than ever. Key areas
for continued work will include preparing for Budget 2020, additional
infrastructure for ports and airports, and a new phase of the Government’s
Brexit communications including an intensified engagement programme by
Revenue, focussed on individual businesses and including targeted letters
and follow-up phone calls.

Read the Contingency Action Plan July 2019 Update

Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (Consequential

Provisions) Bill 2019

Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union

(Consequential Provisions) Bill 2019

Explanatory Memorandum: Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the

European Union (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2019 Explanatory Memo

General Scheme of the Miscellaneous Provisions Bill

While the focus remains on securing an orderly and agreed Brexit, the
Government’s Contingency Action Plan recognises that a no deal Brexit
would pose unique and unprecedented challenges for the UK, as well as for
the EU, including Ireland. Brexit of any kind will mean change and
managing a no deal Brexit would particularly be an exercise in damage
limitation. It would be impossible in a no deal scenario to maintain the
current seamless arrangements between the EU and UK across a full range
of sectors, which is currently facilitated by our common EU membership.

As part of the overall no deal preparations, The Tánaiste and Minister for
Foreign Affairs and Trade has obtained Government’s approval to the
preparation of the Miscellaneous Provisions (Withdrawal of the United
Kingdom from the European Union on 29 March 2019) Bill 2019. This single
omnibus Bill is made up of 17 parts prepared by 9 Ministers. Each part will
be commenced by the individual Minister at the appropriate time.

Read the full text of the General Scheme of the Miscellaneous Provisions
(Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on 29
March 2019) Bill 2019

Contingency Action Plan

The Government has published a Contingency Action Plan, setting out its
approach to dealing with a no deal Brexit. This is the culmination of many
months of work. This work continues both at a national and EU level and
further information on no deal preparedness will follow in January and
February.

The Government and the EU remain committed to securing a negotiated

outcome. However, that has not yet been achieved and we are now less
than 100 days away from the UK withdrawal from the EU.

Contingency preparations for a “no deal” outcome must therefore be

intensified as the risk of a disorderly Brexit increases, posing unique and
unprecedented challenges.

On December 19, the European Commission published a Communication

on Implementing its Contingency Action Plan, setting out measures,
including legislative proposals, which it considers necessary to mitigate the
most severe consequences of a “no deal” Brexit at EU level.

It is against this backdrop that the Government is presenting its assessment

of the challenges and the measures considered essential to limit the
damage of a “no deal” exit and to put in place measures to manage that
exit as best as possible.

The Government’s overall objectives have been consistent from the start –
seeking to minimise the impact on trade and the economy, protecting the
peace process including avoiding a hard border, maintaining the Common
Travel Area and reinforcing commitment to and participation in the EU.
They continue to guide our approach, regardless of the type of Brexit we
end up with.

The Government’s approach combines full participation in the overall EU

framework for managing a no deal outcome with further specific
challenges and responses at national level.

The detailed documentation published today sets out the Government’s

analysis of a “no deal” Brexit under a number of important headings.

Economic and fiscal impact:

• Security;
• Northern Ireland and North-South relations;
• Relations with Great Britain;
• Sectoral analyses.
Specific actions identified in the Government’s analysis include:

Procurement of additional space and facilities at ports and airports to

accommodate the significant increase in checks and procedures that will be
required;

• Acceleration of recruitment and redeployment of customs and

agriculture officers to be in place as needed to carry out these
checks and procedures;
• Confirmation of 45 legislative changes that may be required and
arrangements for urgent drafting;
• Preparation for accelerated or emergency procedures in the
Oireachtas to ensure timely enactment of necessary legislation;
• Identification of a range of areas where further engagement with the
European Commission and other Member States will be required, as
part of the evolving response at EU level;
• Continued participation in all relevant EU fora and preparatory
processes, which has thus far led to publication of 78 separate
stakeholder notices to assist businesses and citizens;
• Further assessment of possible emergency measures that may be
required in critical areas of medicines and food supply;
• Ensuring full continued application of the Common Travel Area,
including the associated freedom of movement and access to public
services for citizens;
• Continuation of the Government’s extensive programme of
stakeholder engagement;
• Continuation of the Government’s national and regional
communications campaign “Getting Brexit Ready” with a greater
focus on a “no deal” Brexit.

https://www.dfa.ie/brexit/getting-ireland-brexit-
ready/governmentcontingencyactionplan/

Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (Consequential

Provisions) Bill 2019

Omnibus-Bill Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union

(Consequential Provisions) Bill 2019

https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/eu/brexit/keydocuments/Omnibus-Bill.pdf

Contingency-Action-Preparing for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom

from the European Union Contingency Action Plan Update July 2019
https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/eu/brexit/keydocuments/Contingency-
Action-Plan-Update.-July-2019.pdf

Omnibus-Bill-Memo Explanatory Memorandum- Withdrawal of the United

Kingdom from the European Union (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2019
Explanatory Memo

https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/eu/brexit/keydocuments/Omnibus-Bill-
Memo.pdf

General Scheme of the Miscellaneous Provisions Bill

https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/eu/brexit/brexitnegotations/General-
Scheme-of-Bill-Updated.pdf

Update to the Contingency Action Plan - 30 January 2019

Brexit- contingency planning and powers march 2019

http://statewatch.org/news/2019/mar/uk-hoc-briefing-brexit-contingencies-powers-3-19.pdf

(Preparing for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on 30 March
2019: Implementing the Commission’s Contingency Action Plan
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX%3A52018DC0890

The Withdrawal Agreement establishes the terms of the UK’s departure

from the EU. It ensures that the withdrawal will happen in an orderly
manner and offers legal certainty once the Treaties and EU law cease to
apply to the UK. The Withdrawal Agreement covers all elements of the UK’s
withdrawal from the EU including citizens’ rights, the financial settlement,
a transition period, Protocols on Gibraltar and Cyprus, as well as a range of
other separation issues.

The Withdrawal Agreement includes a Protocol on Ireland and Northern

Ireland and a legally operational backstop to ensure that there will be no
hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. It also contains UK
commitments not to diminish rights set out in the Good Friday Agreement
1998 and recognises that people in Northern Ireland will continue to enjoy
EU citizenship rights, and to protect North South cooperation. It provides
for the maintenance of the Common Travel Area arrangements between
Ireland and the UK, and preserves the Single Electricity Market on the
island of Ireland.

The European Commission has published fact sheets on both

the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol on Ireland and Northern
Ireland.

You can watch and read the Taoiseach’s statement of 14 November 2018
on the Withdrawal Agreement.

What will happen next?

Now that the Withdrawal Agreement has been endorsed by the European
Council (Article 50), and before it can enter into force, it needs to be
ratified by the EU and the UK. For the EU, the Council of the European
Union must authorise the signature of the Withdrawal Agreement, before
sending it to the European Parliament for its consent, upon which the
Council of the European Union can formally conclude the Withdrawal
Agreement. The United Kingdom must ratify the Agreement according to
its own constitutional arrangements.

Timeline of Negotiations

On 29 March 2017, the United Kingdom notified the European Council of

its intention to leave the European Union, in accordance with Article 50 of
the Treaty on European Union. This triggered the start of a two year
negotiation, also known as the Article 50 process.

The negotiations have been taking place on a phased basis. The first phase
of negotiations primarily addressed three main baskets of withdrawal
issues:

1. guaranteeing citizens’ rights (EU citizens currently living in the UK

and UK citizens currently living in the EU);
2. settling the UK’s financial commitments;
3. Ireland and Northern Ireland specific issues.

In December 2017, the European Council determined that enough progress

had been made in phase one on the withdrawal issues to move to phase
two, where the framework for the future relationship between the EU and
the UK after the UK’s departure was discussed alongside the remaining
withdrawal issues.
A draft Withdrawal Agreement was published in February 2018. In March
2018, certain elements of the draft Withdrawal Agreement were agreed in
principle between the two negotiating teams, including conditional
agreement on a transitional arrangement. Also in March 2018, Prime
Minister May reiterated in a letter to President Tusk her commitment to
have a legally operative backstop solution in the Withdrawal Agreement to
avoid a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

On 19 June 2018, a Joint Statement was published, outlining further

progress in the negotiations on the Withdrawal Agreement.

On 14 November 2018, the European Commission and UK negotiators

reached an agreement on the entirety of the Withdrawal Agreement and
on an outline of the Political Declaration on the future EU-UK relationship.

On 25 November 2018, the European Council endorsed the Withdrawal

Agreement and approved the Political Declaration setting out the
framework for the future relationship.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/37095/draft_withdrawal_agreement_incl_art132.pdf

Political Declaration setting out the Framework for the Future Relationship
between the EU and the UK

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/37059/20181121-cover-political-declaration.pdf

EU and the UK agreed an extension to 31 October 2019 with the aim of

ensuring an orderly withdrawal of the UK from the EU April 2019

https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/XT-20013-2019-INIT/en/pdf

THE BALANCE OF PAYMENTS IN

IRELAND: TWO DECADES IN EMU
AUGUST 2019
https://assets.gov.ie/27044/76703b33310041eaa98fa0c6052f3d1f.pdf

Minister Ring publishes ambitious five year strategy to support the community and voluntary
sector Published: 29 August 2019

https://assets.gov.ie/26890/ff380490589a4f9ab9cd9bb3f53b5493.pdf
Sustainable, Inclusive and Empowered Communities- A Five-Year Strategy to
Support the Community and Voluntary Sector in Ireland 2019-2024

https://assets.gov.ie/26890/ff380490589a4f9ab9cd9bb3f53b5493.pdf

SECRET BREXIT
DOCUMENTS
RESPONDING TO EMERGENCIES THE UK CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
RESPONSE CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS CONOPs_24_Apr-13

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_dat
a/file/192425/CONOPs_incl_revised_chapter_24_Apr-13.pdf

Preparation and Conduct of the Negotiations with the United Kingdom under
Article 50 TEU PRIVACY STATEMENT EMAIL ALERTS FROM TASK
FORCE ARTICLE 50

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/privacy-statement-tf50-email-
alerts_en.pdf

THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK State of play of preparations of

contingency measures for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the
European Union

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:40eadc58-8dc8-11e9-9369-
01aa75ed71a1.0016.02/DOC_1&format=PDF

EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK State of play of preparations of

contingency measures for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the
European Union

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:40eadc58-8dc8-11e9-9369-
01aa75ed71a1.0016.02/DOC_2&format=PDF

UK Government C3 Concept of Operations Concept for Op yellowhammer

Letter to David Davis DUP UK

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fy3ladlqey5def8/LettertoDExEU.pdf?dl=0


Ireland EU countries have decided to implement the common agricultural policy
(CAP) for the period 2014 to 2020, notably through their direct payments model
and their rural development programmes in our country on agriculture and meat
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-
fisheries/by_country/documents/cap-in-your-country-ie_en.pdf

Letter Michel Barnier, Chief Negotiator, to Steve Barclay, Secretary of State for
Exiting the European Union, on citizens’ rights

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-
political/files/reply_from_michel_barnier_to_steve_barclay_-_citizens_rights.pdf

Exchange of letters between the EU and the UK setting out the limited technical changes to the
Withdrawal Agreement to reflect the extension of the Article 50 period, 11 April 2019

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/letter_mr_barnier_-_mr_barclay.pdf

Exiting the European Union

Oral evidence: The UK's negotiating objectives for its withdrawal

from EU, HC 815

Wednesday 14 December 2016

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/
exiting-the-european-union-committee/the-uks-negotiating-objectives-for-its-
withdrawal-from-the-eu/oral/44457.pdf

Revised Agreement on the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great

Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European
Atomic Energy Community

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/com_2019_194_withdrawal_agreement.pdf

letter_to_barnier Response from Steve Barclay, Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union, to Michel Barnier, Commission’s Chief Negotiator, 11 April
2019 11 April 2019
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-
political/files/sos_dexeu_letter_to_barnier.pdf
Commission Communication on the endorsement by the Commission of the
results of the discussions with the United Kingdom on Interpretative
Declarations related to the Agreement on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU
and Euratom
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-
political/files/commission_communication.pdf



Government of Ireland - static.rasset.ie
central case scenario remains a valid basis for future planning and action to deal with Brexit.
At its Derrynane meeting, the Government also decided to step up contingency planning for
a no deal Brexit.
https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/2018/12/no-deal-brexit-contingency-
plan.pdf

Letter from the President of the European Commission to the President of the
European Council, 11 March 2019
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-
political/files/letter_president_juncker_to_president_tusk.pdf
philip-rycroft-brexit-workstreams- letter in April 2018 to Meg Hillier MP (the
chair of the Public Accounts Committee), Philip Rycroft (the Permanent
Secretary at the Department for Exiting the European Union)
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/public-
accounts/Correspondence/2017-19/philip-rycroft-brexit-workstreams-
300418.pdf
CIVIL CONTINGENCIES The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (Contingency Planning)
Regulations 2005
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2042/made/data.pdf
Sir Mark Sedwill (Cabinet Secretary and National Security Adviser) took a
different line in evidence to the Joint Select Committee on the National Security
Strategy.
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedo
cument/national-security-strategy-committee/work-of-the-national-security-
adviser/oral/95669.pdf#page=14
Yellowhammer is the name by which some elements of departments’
contingency planning (coordinated by the Civil Contingencies Secretariat) are
known. In March 2019 EU-with-no-deal
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Contingency-
preparations-for-exiting-the-EU-with-no-deal.pdf
House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts Department for Transport
Out-of-court settlement with Eurotunnel

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Out-of-court-
settlement-with-Eurotunnel.pdf

UK border: preparedness for EU exit

This report assesses how prepared government departments are for the
changes required at the border after EU exit.
Background to the report
On 29 March 2019, the United Kingdom (UK) is set to leave the European Union (EU)

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/The-UK-border-
preparedness-for-EU-exit.pdf
Digital-transformation-in-government
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Digital-transformation-
in-government.pdf
UK economic regulation of the water sector Since privatisation, Ofwat and Defra
have overseen major improvements in water quality and service quality.
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/The-economic-
regulation-of-the-water-sector.pdf
HM Treasury, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, the Water
Services Regulation Authority Thames Tideway Tunnel- early review of potential
risks to value for money
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Thames-tideway-
tunnel-early-review-of-potenial-risks-to-value-for-money.pdf
The sale of Eurostar generated proceeds of £757m.
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/The-sale-of-
Eurostar.pdf
Network Rail’s sale of railway arches This report examines the value for money
of Network Rail’s sale of a major part of its commercial real estate portfolio.
Background to the report In February 2019
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Network-Rails-sale-of-
railway-arches.pdf
privatise QinetiQ was effective in safeguarding the viability of a business of national
importance and secured half a billion pounds for the taxpayer.
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/070852es.pdf

PROROGATION"
"The power to prorogue Parliament belongs to the Monarch as
part of the Royal Prerogative.[2]"
"By current practice Parliament is prorogued by Commissioners
acting in the Sovereign's name. Parliament is always prorogued to
a definite day. Parliament, while prorogued, can be recalled by
proclamation in accordance with the Meeting of Parliament Act
1797 and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.[3] The parliamentary
procedure for prorogation begins in the House of Lords, and is
followed by a procedure in the House of Commons.[4]"
"In the continuing Brexit impasse, in June 2019, Dominic Raab
MP suggested that prorogation could be used to force through a
no-deal Brexit by the 31 October exit date, by suspending the
possibility of sitting MPs being able to draw up blocking
legislation.[16][17] According to some, [who?] such a move would
be highly controversial; however, others [who?] consider
prorogation to be in keeping with the UK's unwritten constitution."
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/…/Prorogation_in_the_United_Kingdom
=== === ===
PRIME MINISTER BORIS JOHNSON, BREXIT, HUMAN RIGHTS
IRELAND, WILLIAM FINNERTY:
https://www.google.ie/search…
=== === ===

brexit_report_ Constitutional Conversations, No. 3 of 6 A New Relationship?
Brexit, Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland CoNstItutIoNs ANd these
IslANds- BeyoNd BRexIt (pARt oNe) Royal Irish Academy, 6 May 2016
https://www.ria.ie/sites/default/files/brexit_report_1.pdf


Lisbon Treaty | History, Summary, & Definition of Article 50 ...
Lisbon Treaty, international agreement that amended the
Maastricht Treaty, Treaties of Rome, and other documents to simplify
and streamline the institutions that govern the European Union (EU).
Proposed in 2007, the Lisbon Treaty was ratified by most member
states in 2008, but a referendum in Ireland—the only country that put
the Lisbon agreement to a public vote—rejected it on June 12, 2008,
thus jeopardizing the entire treaty. More than a year later, on October
2, 2009, Ireland held a second referendum, which passed. Poland’s
government also had expressed reservations, but it ratified the treaty
a week after the Irish vote, …(100 of 993 words)
https://www.britannica.com/event/Lisbon-Treaty

Lisbon Treaty 10 easy-to-read fact sheets December 2007 (Updated in December

2009 at the time of the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty)
https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/dossiers-pedagogiques/traite-
lisbonne/10fiches.pdf
LISBON TREATY AND CITIZENS' POWERS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/dossiers-pedagogiques/traite-
lisbonne/fiche4.pdf

THE LISBON TREATY AND ECONOMIC ISSUES 1) THE RECOGNITION OF
EUROGROUP BEFORE THE LISBON TREATY (WITH THE NICE TREATY – 2001
https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/dossiers-pedagogiques/traite-
lisbonne/fiche7.pdf

THE LISBON TREATY AND THE EUROPEAN UNION'S

EXTERNAL ACTION
https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/dossiers-pedagogiques/traite-
lisbonne/fiche10.pdf
LIST OF THE ARTICLES COMING UNDER QUALIFIED MAJORITY VOTING The
Treaty of Lisbon plans for the extension of the qualified majority vote to 44 new
articles
https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/dossiers-pedagogiques/traite-
lisbonne/annexe3.pdf
European integration unmistakably shows that it has progressed step by step and is indeed
an ongoing and irreversible process. One such step is the conclusion of the Lisbon Treaty,
which came into force on 1 December 2009

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-
core/content/view/82FDC0F64A91532AEDD39B6ACCC66CC7/S00690058000
10377a.pdf/entry_into_force_of_the_lisbon_treaty_the_european_union_in_retros
pect_and_prospect.pdf

Treaty of Lisbon plans for extension of the so-called "codecision" procedure,
which is now called "ordinary legislative procedure", to 40 new articles. With the
33 areas that are already governed by codecision the number of areas now to
come under the codecision procedure has risen to 73.
https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/dossiers-pedagogiques/traite-
lisbonne/annexe4.pdf

European legislature, a new political landscape
https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/doc/questions-d-europe/qe-525-en.pdf

Brexit-and-devolution-final-2 BREXIT AND THE TERRITORIAL CONSTITUTION
effects of Parliamentary Sovereignty coupled with UK and England governance
structures is a constitutional imperative in the context of Brexit which a
ministerial mantra
https://consoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Brexit-and-devolution-
final-2.pdf
Ireland's Constitution of 1937 with Amendments through 2012 generate 12th
August 2019
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ireland_2012.pdf?lang=en

Northern Ireland- Current Issues and Ongoing Challenges in the Peace Process
Updated March 8, 2019
Northern Ireland: Current Issues and Ongoing Challenges in the Peace Process.
Congressional Research Service 1. Background Between 1969 and 1999,
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS21333.pdf
EU Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union Article 6 (ex Article 6
TEU) 1. The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2bf140bf-a3f8-4ab2-b506-
fd71826e6da6.0023.02/DOC_1&format=PDF

Briefing Article 50 TEU- Withdrawal of a Member State from the EU
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/577971/EPRS_B
RI(2016)577971_EN.pdf
Maastricht ruling of the German Federal Constitutional Court of 12.10.1993,
BVerfG 89, pp. 155, 190. The Czech Constitutional Court also argued along these
lines in its ruling on the Lisbon Treaty of 3. 11. 2009.
https://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/2013/10/22/c746a974-58eb-4907-
b022-c9f486b6c3d2/publishable_en.pdf
A New World Order- The Rule of Law, or the Law of Rulers?
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2755&context=ilj
good-friday-agreement Government declare that the State has become obliged,
pursuant to the Agreement, to give effect to the amendment of this Constitution
referred to therein, then, notwithstanding Article 46 hereof, this Constitution
shall be amended
https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/alldfawebsitemedia/ourrolesandpolicies/northe
rnireland/good-friday-agreement.pdf

Executive Cannot Abrogate Fundamental Rights without

Specific Parliamentary Mandate – The Implications of
the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights for Triggering
Art 50



I promised to name the legal team you had funded and reproduce a copy of our letter to
the Government.

Our legal team (in alphabetical order) is as follows (with further names to be added).

Paul Bowen QC, Gerry Facenna QC, Ben Jaffey, John Halford, Tim Johnston, Helen Mountfield
QC and Jack Williams.
The letter reads as follows.


























IS NO DEAL UNLAWFUL?
The updated written pleadings in the case brought by over seventy Parliamentarians to prevent
Boris Johnson treating Parliament as an inconvenience he can suspend can be read here.
One of our lines of argument is that ‘No Deal’ is unlawful as a matter of domestic law and, in
extremis, a court would order Boris Johnson to revoke Article 50.

That is a rather striking contention and so I thought it might be helpful to set out, in somewhat
greater detail, how the argument runs.

1. As a matter of UK constitutional law, Miller in the UKSC (correctly) determined that

(i) EU law could be regarded as a direct source of individuals’ rights
(ii) the Crown has no inherent power to diminish or attentuate or remove the
substantive rights of individuals
(iii) if individuals’ EU law derived rights are to be removed or altered or diminished by
Crown action (or omission) this can only lawfully and constitutionally be done if the
Crown was expressly authorised/empowered by Parliament by enacting a statute
to this effect.
2. The majority in Miller proceeded on the assumption (that being the joint position of
the parties) that as a matter of EU law the act of notification by a Member State
under Article 50(2) TEU of its intention to withdraw was an irrevocable act
and therefore could be treated for the purposes of UK law as the commencement of a
process which would inevitably lead to the loss of individuals’ EU law rights. It was on
that basis that the majority concluded that a statute was necessary as a matter of UK
law to authorise notification as a matter of EU law. As it turns our, they were wrong.
Lord Carnwath in the UKSC had the better analysis on this point, namely, that there
was nothing inevitable about the diminution of rights following from notification since
there would be up to 2 years of negotiations before one actually knew what the
specific consequences of withdrawal would be for individuals’ EU law rights.
3. Wightman in the CJEU confirmed Lord Carnwath’s analysis in Miller to be the more
soundly based in its holding that there was nothing irrevocable or inevitable in the
effect on individuals’ rights about the Article 50 notification, which could be
unilaterally withdrawn at any time while the UK remained a member State.
4. Applying the CJEU Wightman analysis to the proper interpretation of the EU (Notification
of Withdrawal) Act 2017 that Act can now be seen as doing nothing more than authorising the
Crown to open negotiations for withdrawal. What it did not authorise was the Crown to
diminish or take away individuals EU law rights. No blank cheque – indeed no cheque of any
sort – was given by Parliament to the Government.
5. The Miller majority analysis remains good however in confirming that as a matter
of UK constitutional law the Crown has no power – whether by its action or inaction –
to deprive individuals of their EU law derived rights, other than with express statutory
authorisation to do so.
6. If the UK were to leave the EU without any withdrawal agreement having been
concluded this would involve a massive alteration in the EU law derived rights of
individuals. What this means is that as a matter of UK constitutional law the
Government cannot allow for a no deal Brexit without explicit statutory authorisation
to this express effect. As matters stand no such statutory authorisation exists.
7. What this means is that if Government policy is indeed one which encompasses a
No Deal Brexit, it cannot use the power of suspension of Parliament to further that
policy. It would in fact defeat it as if Parliament is prorogued the relevant and
necessary No Deal authorisation legislation will not be able to be passed in time for
Exit Day.
8. In those circumstances – were the power of suspension to be used – the only
relevant active constitutional actor would be the courts which, in order to preserve
individuals’ EU law derived rights from the inevitable substantial diminution
and/removal which would necessarily result from the Crown’s action or inaction in
failing or refusing to conclude a withdrawal agreement with the EU would have to
pronounce a mandatory order ordaining the Government to exercise the UK’s power
to revoke Article 50.
9. In a representative constitutional democracy however it is far better – far more
constitutionally appropriate, for the legislature rather than the courts to make any
such decision to keep the Government within lawful and constitutional bounds.
10. Standing back, not only is it clearly the intention of Parliament that it be sitting to
determine what options it will authorise the Government to pursue in the run up to
Exit Day, but the whole dynamics of the constitution require that the suspension
power not be used before there has been clear statutory authority given by
Parliament to Government about how to proceed in the face of Exit day – whether
that be to seek a further extension of Exit Day, revoke Article 50 altogether or
expressly allow for a No Deal exit.
No Deal’ is unlawful as a matter of domestic law and, in extremis, a court would order
Boris Johnson to revoke Article 50.

Adjusted Petition.pdf
Details
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ub0mdpz3nyxwkfz/Adjusted%20Petition.pdf?dl=
0
Suspending Parliament is the act of a dictator. We can't
allow it.
by Jo Maugham QC
Yesterday Boris Johnson decided to suspend Parliament in an attempt to
force through No Deal against what we know to be the wishes of MPs who
have three times rejected it. Whoever loses our challenge to his action –
presently scheduled to be heard on Friday week – will appeal to the Inner
House of the Court of Session and then to the Supreme Court. This is all
likely to happen at great speed.

We generally prefer not to crowdfund for appeals until would-be contributors

have seen the decision the appeal against which they are being invited to pay
to advance or resist. It is undesirable that you should be asked to fund legal
work ‘blind’, as it were. However, time is likely to be very short to raise
monies to fund what will be inevitable appeals.

We – the cross-party group of more than seventy MPs and me – are

incredibly grateful for your support, without which this vital litigation would
not be possible.
Jo Maugham QC
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/dont-suspend-parliament/
Prime Minister selected by Conservative Party activists. We believe
Parliament must decide what happens with Brexit - and we think the
courts will agree.

We have set out our legal arguments in this letter to the Advocate
General for Scotland. July 22nd 2019

https://jolyonmaugham.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/scanned-letter-to-lord-
keen-of-elie-qc-003.pdf
The Good Law Project threatens Judicial Review
of Serious Shortage Protocols

The Good Law Project has today threatened [1] to issue judicial review
proceedings on Tuesday 26 February unless Government cancels powers to
allow pharmacists to alter prescriptions for people with serious medical
conditions in the event of medicines shortages.

The powers – called “Serious Shortage Protocols” (SSPs) – give pharmacists

the right to supply a different quantity or pharmaceutical quality of medicine in
the event of the country experiencing a serious shortage of prescription-only
medicines after 29 March 2019 [2]. These new powers took force on 9
February, and have been criticised for being rushed out without proper
consultation with patient and clinical groups.

The Academy of Royal Colleges has stated it is “inexplicable and

unacceptable that an issue of this importance is not the subject of wide
consultation and that medical royal colleges as doctors’ professional bodies
were not specifically engaged in the process.”

After facing pressure from groups representing those suffering from epilepsy
and other neurological disorders, the Government accepted that replacement
drugs were unsuitable for epilepsy patients, but left it open to pharmacists to
reduce the strength or dosage of epilepsy medication. Epilepsy-focussed
charities say this will leave patients at risk. A wide range of groups, including
diabetics and those living with HIV, also have serious concerns about the use
of SSPs.

Jolyon Maugham QC, Director of the Good Law Project, said:

“Both doctors and patients have proper concerns about their safety in the
event of medicine shortages. We want the Government to withdraw the
prospect of SSPs until it has complied with its legal duties and consulted
properly on their use. If the Government does not take this step, the Good
Law Project will launch judicial review proceedings in the High Court.”

Professor Tamara Hervey, Specialist Adviser to Parliament’s Health and

Social Care Committee, said:

“In the event of a no-deal Brexit, there would be likely to be shortages of

medicines. The absence of a legal framework for imports and exports
drastically affects supply chains. Stockpiling plans cannot cope for more than
a few weeks. This is a serious issue for people needing a regular supply of a
particular type, strength and quality of medicine.”

Jane Hanna OBE, Chief Executive of SUDEP Action, who is supporting the
judicial review said

“Patients, doctors and pharmacists are used to prescriptions & the processes
surrounding them. For people with long-term conditions, like epilepsy, what is
on the prescription may represent months and years of trying out the best
medication schedule. Changes made to this delicate balance can for some,
undo this in an instant. For epilepsy this could lead to less seizure control,,
impacting on quality of life (ie: losing a driving licence, affecting home and
work) and significantly for some this can prove fatal. At present if a supply of
medication is made in error, lessons can be learnt because of the clarity of
who signed and who supplied the prescription. We are leading a coalition of
epilepsy charities who are extremely concerned however, that this new law
has been rushed in with such speed and no one knows how patient safety will
be properly protected. Whilst pharmacists are skilled professionals, they are
not specialists in long-term conditions and their associated risks, and they do
not have the full patient history. If under this law the clinical prescriber who
knows the patient is to be by-passed by a group of centralised clinicians and
individual pharmacists, we need the Government to take the time to make
sure this is safe. Lives cannot be risked because of short deadlines.”

Deborah Gold, Chief Executive of NAT (National AIDS Trust) said:

“We are deeply concerned that these changes were made without proper
consultation. Prescribing HIV medication is a complex process which must
take account of a multitude of factors. The only person qualified to safely alter
the medication prescribed to a person living with HIV is that person’s HIV
consultant.”

The Good Law Project has instructed Adam Hundt of Deighton Pierce Glynn,
and Stephen Knafler QC and Yaaser Vanderman of Landmark Chambers. It
has launched a crowdfunder [3] to raise funds for the costs of paying their
legal fees, gathering evidence from experts and affected groups of patients,
and meeting any adverse costs liability if the legal action fails. It has added
20% to cover the running costs of the Good Law Project. The Good Law
Project is looking to raise £30,000 to cover the stage up to the grant of
permission. The stretch target is for a further £40,000 to cover the costs up to
a substantive hearing.

For further information please contact info@goodlawproject.org.

NOTES:

[1] The Pre Action Protocol Letter can be seen

here https://jolyonmaugham.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/finalassent.pdf

[2] The Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2019 can be seen

here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/62/regulation/9/made

[3] Preview
at https://www.crowdjustice.com/draft/3641/r/VEzvdHXVT7mlLqHGZp1Phw/
URL from 10pm 19 February 2019 at https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/not-
ready-for-no-deal

Pre Action Protocol Letter

http://www.aomrc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2018-12-
12_Changes_to_HMR2012.pdf
High Court Decision Decision at paragraphs 94-95:
“For the reasons given, we conclude that the Electoral Commission has misinterpreted
the definition of ‘referendum expenses’ in section 111(2) of PPERA. The source of its
error is a mistaken assumption that an individual or body which makes a donation to a
permitted participant cannot thereby incur referendum expenses. As a result of this error,
the Electoral Commission has interpreted the definition in a way that is inconsistent with
both the language and the purpose of the legislation.
“The email communications which we summarised at paras 12-20 above show that Vote
Leave made each of the AIQ Payments (totallying £620,000) at the request of Mr Grimes
for the agreed purpose of paying for advertising which Mr Grimes ordered from AIQ. We
see no reason to doubt that the payments were, as they were said to be, donations
made by Vote Leave to Mr Grimes to meet referendum expenses which he incurred by
purchasing advertising services from AIQ. But it is also clear that, on the proper
interpretation of the statutory provisions as we have analysed them, Vote Leave
“incurred expenses” by making the payments, that those expenses were incurred “in
respect of” advertising (one of the matters listed in Part 1 of Schedule 13 of PPERA) and
that the expenses were incurred “for referendum purposes” wirthin the meaning of
section 111(3) of PPERA. They were therefore “referendum expenses” as defined in
section 111(2) of PPERA irrespective of whether they were also “common plan expenses”
within the meaning of para 22 of Schedule 1 of EURA, as the Electoral Commission has now
found.”
So the Electoral Commission – the body charged by Parliament with ensuring the
Referendum was properly managed – actually misunderstood what its duties were.
But what does this mean in practice?

(1) Dominic Cummings said they received “extremely surprising” advice from the
Electoral Commission that they could donate money.

Deleted tweets from Dominic Cummings: