UK GOVERNMENT LAWYERS SABOTAGE BREXIT BY OFFERING WRONG ARGUMENT AT HIGH COURT

UK GOVERNMENT LAWYERS SABOTAGE BREXIT BY OFFERING WRONG ARGUMENT AT HIGH COURT. ESSENTIAL ARGUMENT IS PARLIAMENT HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN BREXT FULFILLING NECESSARY CONDITION SET BY HIGH COURT JUSTICE

November 4, 2016

The poor arguments offered by government lawyers lost the case concerning the role of parliament in Brexit at the High Court yesterday, fuelling fears that elements inside the government are trying to sabotage the UK’s exit from the EU.

“Government lawyers argued that prerogative powers were a legitimate way to give effect “to the will of the people”, who voted by a clear majority to leave the European Union in the June referendum. But the lord chief justice declared: “The government does not have power under the crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union.” reports the Guardian.

To win the appeal, government lawyers have to argue that parliament has already been involved and given approval to a Brexit by voting to allow the referendum and to trigger a Brexit in the event of a yes vote. From this fact, it follows that parliament has been and remains sovereign in the Brexit, removing the objection of the lord chief justice yesterday.

The arguments of government lawyers were so off the point and so weak, it is reasonable to ask if these government lawyers aren’t, actually, acting in collusion with the lord chief justice to sabotage Brexit and to allow a politicized judgement, which ignores the essential fact that parliament has been involved, has voted to give the people of the UK a referedum on a Brexit and has voted to make the result binding.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/03/theresa-may-concedes-triggering-article-50-will-need-act-of-parliament

True, I did not study law. But I do understand how to apply logic and how to marshall evidence pertinent to the relevant points of law under discussion. That is why I have, on my own, with no help from any lawyer, working through translators here in Greece, been able to produce all the arguments and evidence of the corruption of crooked clergy, police (including the deputy commissioner of Larisa) and prosecutors (including the first prosecutor of Larisa court and the Supreme Court prosecutor Efstathia Spyropoulou) needed to force an investigation and clap them in jail.

If I offered, however, evidence about the wrong doing of the first prosecutor when seeking to convict the deputy police commissioner, for example, I can be sure I will never get a conviction of the first prosecutor. Evidence and arguments have to be matched up with the legal issues in the right order to win a case.

Or suppose I were wrongly accused of speeding. Suppose I could prove through the time of a bank transaction that I was not in the car at that time, and, therefore, could not have been speeding. If I ignored that strong evidence and offered the court instead a medical certificate stating that I had the flu at that time, I would lose the case. Winning in court is all about matching up the right arguments and evidence with the legal issues at stake.

The logic to win an Appeal of the High Court ruling is simple.

The necessary condition for triggering Brexit has to be the involvement of the sovereign parliament under the constitution.

Government lawyers, therefore, need to build their case on demonstrating that this necessary condition had already been met.

They should also argue that circumventing the sovereign decision of parliament will ignite a constitutional crisis as it will.

It seems government lawyers, however, focussed instead on a non nessential, peripheral argument about a royal prerogative being enough to express the will of the people, an argument which the biased lord chief justice could strike down easily citing the sovereignty of parliament.