In an article on the Lawyers for Britain website, Stanley Brodie QC writes that "…the UK left the EU on the 29th March 2019 by default as there was no valid or lawful impediment to prevent it."
PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW:
Stanley Brodie is the most senior QC with Blackstone Chambers. He has an MA from Balliol College Oxford, was appointed Queen's Council in 1975 and has worked in Commercial and Finance law, Media and Entertainment, Public law, and in Domestic and International Arbitration.
So he knows a thing or two.
And as far as he is concerned the UK left the EU at 11 pm on the 29th March 2019.
In his article, to which I've left a link in the descriptions box below, he says that Theresa May's initial request for an Article 50 extension was legally valid.
But the EU had turned that down and made a counteroffer, which the author says was not legally effective as it did not properly comply with the terms of Article 50.
"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."
And he points to the specific wording of the extension part of paragraph 3 of Article 50, which says:
"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."
And his stress is on the final two words – 'this period', which he says refers specifically to the two year period.
The proviso, he says:
"…could not be used to reopen, or continue, never ending debate. Nor can it be used as a general power to extend time."
In the view of Stanley Brodie QC, that makes it a one time only use clause! No second or third extensions.
He then brings into question the legality of the first extension to Article 50.
And on the decision for that first extension, in his opinion it was unlawful and ultra vires because they did not actually agree a new date because what it offered was a choice of two dates.
In his view it was not effective in replacing the original exit date.
And he also points to a briefing note issued by the government which says:
"The Article 50 period is set at 2 years unless, as provided for in Article 50 "the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend [it]."
Note that the word 'it' in the quotation from the Article 50 text, replaces the original two words 'this period'.
Why on earth would they feel the need to shorten the proper legal text from 'this period' to 'it', unless it was to hide the true wording and meaning?
And on this the author says:
"So the version put out by the civil servants was false. The differences in meaning between the two versions were considerable."
And he goes on later to say:
"So the civil servants responsible for briefing parliament to enable an informed debate to take place, themselves were misleading it. The alteration of the text of Article 50, and of the proviso to paragraph 3, must have been deliberate."
and he added:
"This is a truly alarming state of affairs; it should be exposed sooner rather than later."
So, here we have both the EU and the UK colluding to unlawfully extend Article 50, not once but twice.
This would mean that the powers that be are more than comfortable with breaking both UK and EU law to keep the UK in the EU.
And if they are prepared to do that, they will be prepared to do anything to maintain control and power.