The first legal action against Brexit — Britain exiting European Union (EU) — by a private citizen has been scheduled for July 19 on behalf of a hairdresser.
Lawyers representing Deir Dos Santos, a British citizen, have lodged a judicial review challenge. It would argue that triggering Article 50, formally setting off the process of Britain’s withdrawal from the EU, can only be done with Parliament’s approval and not just by the prime minister, The Independent reported on Saturday.
The majority of MPs in Parliament voted to remain in the EU and the lawsuit seeks to delay leaving the organization.
If the petition goes through then the referendum could be stonewalled by Parliament. There might also be a groundswell of support for David Cameron to stay on prime minister. He got a tennis pat on the back from Andy Murray minutes after winning Wimbledon who, in his speech graciously acknowledged that being PM was tougher than playing the finals.
There was appreciative applause and if it echoes across Britain David may be packing his bags prematurely.
Meanwhile focus has shifted onto the Samson with the long hair, so to speak. Hairdresser Dos Santos was “just an ordinary guy,” his lawyer, Dominic Chambers QC, told the media, adding “If his rights are going to be taken away, he wants it done in a proper and lawful manner.”
Thing is, would enough of his countrymen say, Hair, Hair?
“The purpose of a judicial review is to correct the executive when they have gone wrong. We say the executive will be abusing their powers if they give an Article 50 notification without the approval of Parliament,” Chambers was quoted in the media.
According to the legal interpretation in the Guardian, “The result of the referendum is not legally binding in the sense that it is advisory only and there is no obligation (on the government) to give effect to the referendum decision.”
However the prime minister has stated on numerous occasions that it is his intention to give effect to the referendum decision and organize Britain’s withdrawal from the EU. “The extract from the prime minister’s resignation speech … makes it clear that (the government) is of the view that the prime minister of the day has the power under article 50(2) of the Lisbon treaty to trigger article 50 without reference to Parliament.”
But exiting the EU can only be done with the permission of the British Parliament, the claim said.
The government has acknowledged receipt of the claim but is highly likely to fight it. If it goes to court there is no clarity on when the two year departure window opens. With the EU also putting pressure and British public opinion shifting ever so slightly into an ‘uh oh’ frame of mind the snarl of moving EU’s 3 million employed and the equal if not more Brits working on the continent is a massive logistics exercise with a ripple effect which could effect millions more.
There is no precedence in British law for this sort of a public interest litigation over a national referendum and if entered what course it will take.
Could the referendum be legally shot down by a Parliamentary majority.
The jury is still out on that one.
Lawyers representing Deir Dos Santos, a British citizen, have lodged a judicial review challenge. It would argue that triggering Article 50, formally setting off the process of Britain’s withdrawal from the EU, can only be done with Parliament’s approval and not just by the prime minister, The Independent reported on Saturday.
The majority of MPs in Parliament voted to remain in the EU and the lawsuit seeks to delay leaving the organization.
If the petition goes through then the referendum could be stonewalled by Parliament. There might also be a groundswell of support for David Cameron to stay on prime minister. He got a tennis pat on the back from Andy Murray minutes after winning Wimbledon who, in his speech graciously acknowledged that being PM was tougher than playing the finals.
There was appreciative applause and if it echoes across Britain David may be packing his bags prematurely.
Meanwhile focus has shifted onto the Samson with the long hair, so to speak. Hairdresser Dos Santos was “just an ordinary guy,” his lawyer, Dominic Chambers QC, told the media, adding “If his rights are going to be taken away, he wants it done in a proper and lawful manner.”
Thing is, would enough of his countrymen say, Hair, Hair?
“The purpose of a judicial review is to correct the executive when they have gone wrong. We say the executive will be abusing their powers if they give an Article 50 notification without the approval of Parliament,” Chambers was quoted in the media.
According to the legal interpretation in the Guardian, “The result of the referendum is not legally binding in the sense that it is advisory only and there is no obligation (on the government) to give effect to the referendum decision.”
However the prime minister has stated on numerous occasions that it is his intention to give effect to the referendum decision and organize Britain’s withdrawal from the EU. “The extract from the prime minister’s resignation speech … makes it clear that (the government) is of the view that the prime minister of the day has the power under article 50(2) of the Lisbon treaty to trigger article 50 without reference to Parliament.”
But exiting the EU can only be done with the permission of the British Parliament, the claim said.
The government has acknowledged receipt of the claim but is highly likely to fight it. If it goes to court there is no clarity on when the two year departure window opens. With the EU also putting pressure and British public opinion shifting ever so slightly into an ‘uh oh’ frame of mind the snarl of moving EU’s 3 million employed and the equal if not more Brits working on the continent is a massive logistics exercise with a ripple effect which could effect millions more.
There is no precedence in British law for this sort of a public interest litigation over a national referendum and if entered what course it will take.
Could the referendum be legally shot down by a Parliamentary majority.
The jury is still out on that one.
