Bayith Home | Political Cultural and Social Issues | UK EU Referendum: Main Page | Brexit: Main Page
"I have heard their groaning, and am come down to deliver them"
Extending Exit Day: Is It Lawful?
Articles and Videos
Legal Challenges to Extending Exit Day From 29th March 2019 | Is the Extension Legal? | The Morning After Non-Leave...
Putting the Pope in Charge of the Reformation | The Battle is Fierce | Liberty: The Battle for the Very Soul of Britain
Norman and Saxon | The Tower of Babel: EU / UN / NWO | Some Questions for Remainers
History of the EU and Historical Documents | Brexit: Main Page | Brexit: YouTubes and Videos (July 2018)
We Have Left the EU: Brexit Judicial Review
"A Judicial review to confirm that the UK left the European Union as of 29th March 2019
and that the Government is acting illegally in extending this period.
If successful this Judicial review will mean that Brexit has occurred
and that we left the EU without the Government realising"
David Cameron: "Your Decision. Not Politicians. Not Parliament. Just You"
"If we vote to leave, we will leave. There'll not be another renegotiation or another referendum"
"This case is raising funds for its stretch target ... Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats acting on behalf of the people of the UK, holding the Government to account to act lawfully to affirm we have left the EU ... A Judicial review to confirm that the UK left the European Union as of 29th March 2019 and that the Government is acting illegally in extending this period. If successful this Judicial review will mean that Brexit has occurred and that we left the EU without the Government realising. The UK Government have cited in their defense the possible lack of funds to fight this case up to the Supreme Court as grounds for dismissal so please donate if you want to see the vote to leave the EU enacted. The grounds for this judicial review draw on the precedent set by Gina Miller's court victory which confirmed that the government had to pass an act of parliament to trigger Article 50 in the first place and that any further changes required Parliamentary authority and a further Act. This has not been done and this means the Government has acted illegally and that the UK left the EU on 29th March 2019. Francis Hoar is acting as barrister. He has a strong track record in successfully challenging dubious political acts and is confident of a successful outcome. the case is being brought by Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats."
Opponents Are Attempting to Undermine the Brexit Case (14 May 2019)
"Initially some opponents tried to suggest that the case was simply hopeless ... Since I have published the legal arguments, both on our side and on the Government's side., it has become very difficult for opponents to argue that this is a case without substance ... It is only the few [solicitors, barristers, and QCs] that have been paid to argue against us who have suggested that our case is not a strong one in law ... The mainstream media have played their part by refusing to give us any coverage. In contrast to the Gina Miller case which by this stage in her case she was receiving almost daily wall to wall coverage..."
May in the Dock: Court Case Challenges Brexit Extension (09 May 2019)
"I am sure that no Brexiteer can forget Gina Miller and how she took the government to court in a bid to force the Government to put triggering Article 50, and therefore beginning the Brexit process, to a parliamentary vote. Miller successfully argued her case ... Now the proverbial boot is (kind of) on the other foot as Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats, is challenging the legality of [the] seemingly interminable extension of Article 50 ... this is not, strictly speaking, about the politics of Leave v Remain as the claim submitted to the High Court explains:..."
Our Counter to the UK Government's Defence (04 May 2019)
"Here is our barrister's response to the Government's efforts to undermine our case:..."
UK Government's Lawyers Argue Against Our Claim (04 May 2019)
"Here is the Government's defence to our claim that the UK is Out of the EU. It is drafted by their top man, Sir James Eadie QC. Sir James was also the same barrister who went so far over the top as to claim, in his Grounds of Resistance in the Gina Miller case, that it would be unconstitutional for the Court to even consider her claim. Needless to say that approach failed at every hearing of that case. Here is his effort to attack our claim:..."
English Democrats - v - Theresa May (29 April 2019)
"Robin Tilbrook, leader of the English Democrats Party, has updated [us] on his court case in which he is trying to prove that the UK left the EU on 29th March 2019, and which has now gone to the Supreme Court. He said..."
What the Media Blackout Tells Us About the Mainstream Media (15 April 2019)
"I and numerous others whom I know of have tried very hard to get the mainstream media to report about the case, but with very little success. This is of course also in stark contrast to the massive and persistent reporting of the much less important constitutional case brought by Gina Miller to require the Government to get an Act of Parliament to permit it to serve the Article 50 Notice. That case as I am sure anybody who listened to any of the 'news' output of the mainstream media, received literally massive coverage because the Remainers in the Media thought it might derail Brexit ... Given the significance of this case I think we can draw some important conclusions from this treatment..."
Declaration That the UK Left the EU on 29th March (12 April 2019)
"On 2nd April the English Democrats, the English nationalist political party, issued a judicial review claiming the PM could not lawfully agree to an extension to the period before the UK could leave the EU under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. The Court is asked to declare that, because she had no such power, the UK automatically left the EU on 29th March - the original 'exit day', two years after notification was made..."
"(79) The attempt by the PM to exercise a prerogative power to extend EU membership [?] was an attempt to continue, by executive fiat, the curtailment of Parliamentary sovereignty and the power of the EU to legislate, make criminal offences and raise funds. No such power exists, being contrary to fundamental principles of the common law, and her agreement to the extension was, accordingly, void. (80) Alertnatively, the exercise of such a power would have frustrated the 2017 and 2018 Act and was void. (81) In consequence, the UK's membership of the EU ended on 29.3.2019, since when the Treaties have ceased to apply to domestic law."
"A former appeal judge's claim that a Brexit delay is 'illegal' is now 'up and running' in the High Court, as Theresa May battles to get her withdrawal agreement through Parliament ... Robin Tilbrook claimed the new exit date should have been passed by the HoC and the HoL before it was approved ... Last week, four Tory MPs also wrote to Mrs May to suggest her delay to Brexit was illegal..."
English Democrats Update [see article below] (04 April 2019)
"This week, [English Democrats] Chairman Robin Tilbrook personally served papers upon Government Solicitors in regards to a case we are holding in the High Court. This case is to show that the UK has indeed already left the EU on the original deadline of precisely 11am, 29th March 2019 ... When Gina Miller started her case, the media was reporting it with enthusiasm as it was seen as a way to stop the UK fulfilling the referendum result. Now her case is being used against the government, to show that the UK has indeed left the EU, and that Theresa May had no legal authority to extend Article 50..."
"A former appeal judge has said the legality of Theresa May's delay to Brexit should be tested in a court. Sir Richard Aikens, who sat in the Court of Appeal from 2008 until 2015, spoke after the leader of the English Democrats political party launched a legal battle claiming that the UK has already left the EU..."
YOUTUBE: Brexit Article 50 Court Case (31 March 2019)
"Legal papers are being served against the government to bring the case that, under the law the UK did leave the EU at 11pm on Friday 29th March 2019. The case is being brought by solicitor Robin Tilbrook, who is also the chairman of the English Democrats ... In his case, which is based on the judicial review process, he claims that, due to the Miller case that forced the government to use statute law to trigger Article 50 in the first place, the government had no powers to request the extension in the manner it did..."
Mr Average Takes On the Government: Send Him A Tenner (31 March 2019)
"Robin Tilbrook is the man who's suing the government and threatening to sue The Secretary of State for exiting the EU - Dominic Raab ... [Mr Tilbrook] has the heart of a lion. The cost of suing the government will be high. Yet he's the only person in Britain prepared to get off his backside and sue the government for attempting to renegotiate Brexit when the Withdrawal Act 2017 says we have already left..."
"The PM's request for an extension is illegal. Also any agreement for an extension which might have been agreed by the European Council is also without any Statutory authority..."
"GROUNDS OF THE APPLICATION: It is submitted that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has left the European Union as of the 29th March 2019 after the expiry of its two year Notice to Leave dated 29th march 2017..."
"After hours of discussions with QCs and former judges, I believe the British Government's extension of Article 50 is unlawful. 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 by 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 UK'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 WA 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 HoC has passed a resolution stating this, the law of the UK is not affected by their protestations. Our law is simply that the UK must leave the EU. It follows that when the PM 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 WA. These are manifest limitations on the PM'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 PM, acting lawfully under UK law, to accept an extension of the kind proposed. ...
"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. ... [The Referendum in June 2016] 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 SI for the regulations to confer the extension to October 31, I tabled a block against the regulations which continues until the House returns."
"The illegality of the Government's attempt to squash the Withdrawal Act 2018 is a story which has yet to come to the attention of the majority of the British people. Yet it is not going away. The Statute was clearly not complied with, as a Resolution to change the date of Withdrawal is required from both Houses. The Government omitted to obtain this. The government will claim to instead be using Prerogative Powers, Yet these were already stated to be unusable in these circumstances in a recent former case, providing a further legal constraint on the government which the government ignored. The effect of all this is that Brexit is here..."
Britain Left Last Night But Who Will Enforce the Law? (30 March 2019)
"Britain left the EU at 11pm on 29th March 2019. The WA of 2018 says as much. It was passed with three readings in the Commons, three readings in the Lords and signed into Law by the Queen. The Queen in Parliament is the sovereign body of the UK, and its Acts are the basis of all our laws..."
The Postponement of Brexit: Is It Legal? (25 March 2019)
"The government has agreed to extend 'exit day' to 12 April or, if the WA is passed, to 22 May 2019. In trying to force Parliament to agree to this unilateral act, taken without prior parliamentary approval, it may be that the government has acted illegally..."
Reader's comment as quoted here.
"We're out! An agreement by the UK with the EU can only be valid in international law if constitutional due process has been followed.
"The Gina Miller case established that if the British Government wishes to agree an extension of the Article 50 period beyond 29th March 2019 with the EU, it must do so with the authority of an Act of Parliament passed for that purpose.
"No such Act of Parliament existed when, on 22nd March 2019, Sir Tim Barrow, UK Representative to the EU, wrote a letter to the EU requesting an extension of the Article 50 period from 29th March to either 12th April or 22nd May 2019.
"On 27th March 2019, Parliament passed a Statutory Instrument amending the exit date in the EU Withdrawal Act 2018 from 29th March to either 12th April or 22nd May. The 'agreement' with the EU of 22nd March was made contingent on parliamentary approval for the WA being given before 29th March. This contingent condition also indicated that the exit date did not change under international law on 22nd March. Under international law, the exit date continued to be 29th March, regardless of any public statements by the EU or the British Government.
"The power by the British Government to amend the exit date in the EU Withdrawal Act under Section 20 (4) of the Act applies only where the day and time specified in the definition of exit day differ from that when the treaties will cease to apply. Since the exit date had not in fact changed in international law, the power to amend the exit date in the EU Withdrawal Act did not exist when the SI was passed on 27th March. The validity of the SI is therefore questionable. This also indicates why a separate Act of Parliament would be required to authorise a request to the EU to change the exit date in international law.
"Even if the SI were valid, constitutional due process has not been followed, because no request was made by the British Government to the EU to change the exit date on the basis of the SI between 27th March (when the SI was passed by Parliament) and 29th March, which continued to be the exit date in international law, given that due process was not followed.
"This means that in international law, the UK left the EU at 11pm GMT on 29th March 2019.
"If, in international law, the UK has now left the EU, this must have legal consequences if both the British Government and the EU continue to behave as if it has not done so.
"If the British Government continues to pay money to the EU as if the UK were still a member state after 29th March, the legality of any such payments can be challenged in the courts, and the recipients of any such money (the EU, member states, organisations or individuals) may be liable to repay it. (A related point is that the expenditure of money by the British Government, particularly major expenditure, normally requires primary legislation, and using a SI for this purpose may be open to legal challenge.
"There will also be legal consequences in a wide range of other situations. For example, businesses may incur costs from continuing to apply EU regulations, and may be eligible to sue the British Government and the EU for recovery of those costs."
Please see Here.
My first thought, when Theresa May was made Prime Minister just after the referendum in June 2016, was that putting a Remainer in charge of Brexit would be like putting the Pope in charge of the Protestant Reformation: It ain't gonna happen...
"To the best of my knowledge no democratic country has ever voluntarily agreed to a treaty in which it agrees that a foreign power may, if it so wishes, overrule that country's laws forever. In a week following the centenary remembrance of the WWI armistice, the UK government has agreed a deal arguable worse for the UK than the Treaty of Versailles was a hundred years ago for Germany ... It was always naive to hope that somebody who campaigned against democracy could be trusted to respect the referendum result. Thanks to Theresa May a strong hand has been deliberately misplayed, taxpayers' money wantonly thrown away, divisions deepened and a precious two and three quarter years to prepare for the future squandered. No doubt the pain and trauma of no deal will be the greater as a result of her Brexit betrayal. There will be more drama ahead in what May has made into an all or nothing game of chicken. True democrats of any party however now have no choice. We must all prepare to crash out of the EU gaol come what may" [source].
"Time wouldn't be running short if we hadn't wasted two years on Oliver Twist-like supplicancy, begging our European masters to be kind, whereas all they want is to punish us, discourage others and, ideally, torpedo Brexit. A PM committed to Brexit, rather than to the warped ruling elite, could have invoked the Royal Prerogative, left immediately after Parliament activated Article 50 - and only then started negotiating 'deals'." [source].
Battle is Fierce, Friends
The following is an extended extract from Battle for the Very Soul of Britain
"Nine hundred and fifty years ago, between two hillocks at Hastings, an Anglo-Saxon king took an arrow in his eye and England surrendered her independence. That was our last - should I say most recent? - defeat on home soil. King Harold's forces fought valiantly but they had been exhausted by two earlier battles ... A shrewd and ruthless Frenchman, Guillaume of Normandy, seized power and London's Witan parliament was never heard of again. ...
"I have been contemplating poor King Harold a fair amount recently. ... As a schoolboy I visited the northern French town of Bayeux to see [the] tapestry and remember a sting of sorrow as I saw the needlework images of vanquished Anglo-Saxons. It was always the same when I read history yarns about British chieftain Caractacus fighting the Romans on his hilltop and later being paraded in Rome as a chained captive; or gallant ... Boadicea, Queen of the Iceni tribe, charging towards the Roman lines in her chariot ... In such accounts, I always rooted for the Brits. ... I always wanted the dwellers of our dank and foggy, sea-set isle to seize the day. Was it a nascent sketchwriter's innate bias or inherited love of country from my fiercely patriotic parents? Was that love wrong? Is that love wrong? I still feel that way.
"The likes of Mr Cameron and his fellow Europhiles ... presumably feel something different when they look at the Bayeux tapestry. I suppose they experience a glow of quiet satisfaction that William and his forces of European integration over came the locals. ... A deep-rooted part of me rebels against that. ... I grieve for the freedoms that were squashed. And I feel just the same when I look at an castle built by English lords to crush dissent in Scottish and Welsh territory. My sympathies lie with the invaded. ...
"Hereward the Wake [a] Lincolnshire freeman ... had his lands taken by the Normans and decided to do something about it. For a few years after 1066, Hereward and his small army operated out of the Cambridgeshire town of Ely, then an island. They were beaten only after a treacherous monk showed the Normans one of the secret paths to Ely through the Fenland marshes. ... Almost a millennium after the event, I feel a lively indignation on Hereward's behalf. What a cur that monk was to betray him. What if Hereward had continued to oppose William? Could he have combined with the still unconquered Celts and Northumbrians to drive out the 'ingengas'? Or was Norman rule as inevitable as supporters of the EU now say their governing body is inevitable? As for that treacherous monk, was he a sort of Roland Rudd of his day ... the City PR smoothie pulling strings for the Remain camp? ...
"My support for Hereward may reflect a surfeit of foolish romanticism. But it may also echo enduring truths about the importance of self-determination and of remaining true to one's ancestral heritage. For what are we if we deny the past? What is the point of being British if we are not able to say who governs us? And let there be no doubt: if we vote to stay ion the EU, we will not be able to dislodge the elite that runs Brussels. They will be impervious to our democratic disapproval. They will be as safe as William and his shaven-headed Normans were in their mighty castle keeps. ...
"The Leave campaign ... has urged voters to quit the EU for a range of reasons ... Hereward the Wake ... would have heard Vote Leave talk of how we must 'take control' and would surely have thought 'I don't really want control - I want liberty.' ...
"It would obviously be good for us to retrieve national control of trade decisions, tax matters, ... immigration policy ... But where is the optimism in Leave's campaign? Where is the appeal to something more positive, more human, more ardent? The hearts of Hereeward the Wake and his 'green men' would have burned for something greater; something more essential. You could call it self-determination or independence but it is basically the right to plant your feet on the clifftops of Kent, raise your eyes to the cloud-scudding sky, and relish your ancient liberty as a free-born Briton. ...
"I think of my grandfathers. One was wounded three times on the Western Front in World War I. The other landed in Normandy - Normandy! - just before D-Day to clear the beaches of mines. They fought for king and country, yes, but they fought most of all for an idea: freedom. The days of ancestral sword and scramasax may have passed but that powerful notion of liberty, the spirit of British dissent which flared so wonderfully in the East Anglian fens 950 years ago, must never be allowed to die. Without it, we would be an island without pride, an island shorn of soul"
[End of Extract]
"'My son,' said the
Norman Baron, 'I am dying, and you will be heir to all the broad
acres in England that William gave me for my share
"The Saxon is not like
us Normans. His manners are not so polite. But he never means
anything serious till he talks about justice and right.
"You can horsewhip your
Gascony archers, or torture your Picardy spears; But don't try that
game on the Saxon; you'll have the whole brood round your ears.
"But first you must
master their language, their dialect, proverbs and songs. Don't
trust any clerk to interpret when they come with the tale of their
"They'll drink every
hour of the daylight and poach every hour of the dark. It's the
sport not the rabbits they're after (we've plenty of game in the
"Appear with your wife
and the children at their weddings and funeral and feasts. Be polite
but not friendly to Bishops; be good to all poor parish priests.
[Poem by Rudyard Kipling]
"These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood. And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth" (Genesis 10:32-11:9).
"The Queen's Majesty hath the chief
power in this realm of England and other her dominions, unto whom
the chief government of all estates in this realm,
"And I do declare that no
Foreign Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any
"Parliament voted to put the decision about our membership of the EU in the hands
of the British people.