Brexit Shambles: Britain Left The EU On March 29 2019

EU UK flags

Brexit Shambles: Britain Left The EU On March 29 2019

Here lies what might turn out to be the real reason for the Brexit shambles presided over by Cameron and May, who teed everything up perfectly for Boris Johnson to play the role of the English Trump and finish the job of fraudulently replacing UK law with EU law.

The 2017 Act

The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 clearly states that:

1. The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.

2. This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.

Unequivocally, this means that no Act of Parliament has any effect upon the operation of the 2017 Act.

Article 50

Furthermore, Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union itself prescribes that:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

Therefore, once notice of withdrawal was given by the UK government on March the 28th 2017 that the UK was leaving the EU, Exit Day automatically fell on the 29th of March 2019 [without a deal], by operation of the 2017 Act.

No Statutory Authority To Postpone Exit Day

Since there are no other provisions in the 2017 Act, there was no statutory authority for the UK government and the EU to postpone Exit Day under section 3 of Article 50.

Which means the UK left the EU on the 29th of March, irrespective of the controlled media circus pretending otherwise.

Furthermore, because the 2017 Act prescribes that it has legal effect which supersedes the European Communities Act 1972 and all other subsequent enactments, it implicitly repealed all EU-related legislation on March the 29th, without providing Parliament a get-out clause.

That being the case, the treasonous European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which seeks to replace UK law with EU law on an entirely fictitious future Exit Day, is null and void at law.

The Treasonous 2018 Act

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

2 Saving for EU-derived domestic legislation

(1) EU-derived domestic legislation, as it has effect in domestic law immediately before exit day, continues to have effect in domestic law on and after exit day.

3 Incorporation of direct EU legislation

(1) Direct EU legislation, so far as operative immediately before exit day, forms part of domestic law on and after exit day.

5 Exceptions to savings and incorporation

(1) The principle of the supremacy of EU law does not apply to any enactment or rule of law passed or made on or after exit day.

(2) Accordingly, the principle of the supremacy of EU law continues to apply on or after exit day so far as relevant to the interpretation, disapplication or quashing of any enactment or rule of law passed or made before exit day.

(3 ) Subsection (1) does not prevent the principle of the supremacy of EU law from applying to a modification made on or after exit day of any enactment or rule of law passed or made before exit day if the application of the principle is consistent with the intention of the modification.

(4 ) The Charter of Fundamental Rights is not part of domestic law on or after exit day.

Covert & Nefarious Intention

This covert and nefarious purpose of the 2018 Act explains the series of tiresome political fiascoes which have made most people in this country wish the referendum never happened, regardless of which way they voted.

As well as the many attempts by Parliament to draft a bill which postpones Exit Day, on the basis that the 2017 Act has created a legal impasse, which they have no lawful means of averting.

Nevertheless,  on the basis that section 2 of the 2017 Act prescribes that it has effect despite the provisions of the 1972 Act or any other enactment, the 2018 Act is incapable of taking legal effect, since it seeks to go around the binding notice of withdrawal.

In other words, the UK government did not have the legal right to agree to an extension to the period of the notice of withdrawal with the EU, whether under section 3 of Article 50 or any other enactment.

Conspiracy To Mislead The British People

In the event all of the above is accepted as established fact, it is clear that Parliament, the EU and the unelected civil servants who briefed MP’s on the matter have conspired to mislead the British people into believing that Exit Day didn’t happen on the 29th of March.

Their motivation for doing so is to make sure that our Common Law Jury System is replaced with Napoleonic EU code, on whichever day they falsely claim to be Exit Day.

Whichever way you stand on the Brexit issue, one thing is certain: nobody voted to leave whilst retaining EU law and nobody voted to remain under EU law without the protections of EU membership.

Senior QC Agrees

A senior QC called Stanley Brodie had the following to say on the subject, in June this year:

“Whichever way one looks at it, the Agreement was either unlawful or made for an unlawful purpose or ultra vires. That means that the UK left the EU on the 29th March 2019 by default as there was no valid or lawful impediment to prevent it.”

Brexit High Court Case

However, when a recent application to proceed with a claim of Judicial Review was made by solicitor, Robin Tillbrook, seeking a declaration that Britain left the EU on March the 29th, it was dismissed by a High Court judge as “totally without merit”.

Those of you who have seen The Great British Mortgage Swindle will already know that dismissing claims as TWM is the means by which the judiciary shuts down any case which comprises a threat to the establishment’s private vested interests.

In this instance, the vested interest in question is enforcing the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, in order to establish the supremacy of EU law over UK law.

A Very British Coup

Given that Boris Johnson is the new unelected Prime Minister, the fact that he has now hung his hat on a ‘No Deal Brexit’ this October and prorogued Parliament, might well be an elaborate political charade.

The reality of the situation is that Britain left the EU on March the 29th by operation of the 2017 Act, as every MP who passed it into law it has no excuse for not knowing.

However, if the 2018 Act is unlawfully enforced, those who wanted to stay in the EU won’t get what they voted for and neither will those who voted to leave.

Moreover, those who wanted to bring the unaccountable power authorized by EU legislation into UK Law, will succeed in a very British coup and this country will be at the mercy of authoritarian rule.

The Fly In The Establishment’s Ointment

Despite all of that, Boris Johnson, who is most certainly not the buffoon he is made out to be, has an opportunity to become the most popular British Prime Minister in living memory, in the event he elects to do the following things:

1. Order the Ministry of Justice to list a hearing of the TGBMS Claim that all UK mortgages are illegal in the Supreme Court.

2. Take Brexit over the finish line by championing a new bill which declares that Britain left the EU on the 29th of March 2019, by operation of law.

Those two actions alone would facilitate swift and decisive ends to institutionalised mortgage fraud and the treasonous attempt by Parliament to replace UK law with EU law.

Potential Saving Grace

Whatever your opinion of Boris Johnson, the cancellation of every fraudulent mortgage would cause an unprecedented boom in the real economy.

Whilst the preservation of Common Law would protect the people from the unaccountable tyranny, which EU Law empowers.

In which case, Johnson would be judged much more kindly by the history books than his arch-rival, David Cameron.

Even if the rest of his stay at Number 10 is tarnished by the number of times he is caught with his trousers round his ankles and his foot in his mouth.

Read More in Critical Thinking


Posted in Critical Thinking and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , .