Image by Ted Eyton from Washington DC USA (CC-BY-SA-2.0)

The UK Foreign Secretary has called on Brussels to change its approach to Brexit saying that the risk of a no-deal exit is increasing.


Speaking in Helsinki at the start of a three day tour of the EU, Jeremy Hunt said that the risk of a no deal Brexit has recently increased, but that it was not what anyone wanted and he said he hoped that a way could be found to avoid it.

"We do need to see a change in approach by the European commission." He said.

The trouble is that every day that passes a no-deal exit from the EU becomes more probable.

The UK and EU should now stop talking about deals recognising that the EU is incapable of offering one, or what agencies the UK can be a junior partner in after Brexit and work on exactly how the borders will work – and this is exactly what should have happened from the day after the vote to leave.

A judicial review has been lodged in the High Court against the UK prime minister, Theresa May, by the campaign group UK in EU Challenge.

Their basis for doing so in the case of Susan Wilson and others vs The Prime Minister is, the claimants say, because:

"Recent revelations show beyond reasonable doubt that the Leave campaign cheated in Brexit referendum."

and that:

"The Prime Minister's decision to trigger Article 50 wasn't in line with the UK's "constitutional requirements" as fair elections are at the heart of our constitution. The decision is therefore null and void."

And it wants an order that the decision to notify the EU of the triggering of Article 50 be quashed.

Number Ten has responded, says the group, by saying:

"In the circumstances the Prime Minister will not be taking any of the steps demanded in your letter."

But what they fail to mention is that it was not the referendum that allowed Theresa May to trigger Article 50, it was a full passage of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 through both houses of parliament that gave the government the authority to trigger Article 50. The referendum was the instruction to parliament to act.

Anyway, as I understand it there are strict time limits to submitting claims for Judicial Review – unless you have really extenuating circumstances of course. Normally it would have to be submitted before three months had elapsed from the date that the decision itself was made, which in this case would probably be sometime in March 2017.

But as this is such a big issue and that the case hinges on recent, but still disputed, claims that elements of the Leave campaign cheated, I suspect it may well progress.

In fact, the Guardian reports that their legal team, who acted successfully for the claimants in the Supreme Court Article 50 cases:

"…. maintain the legal claim is not out of time because the Electoral Commission only recently, in July, found that BeLeave spent £675,000, which should have been declared."

And finally, according to an article in Business Cloud, Bitcoin could stabilise the UK post-Brexit.

Danial Daychopan, the chief executive of Fin-Tech start up Plutus, says that:

"…currencies like the Pound and the Euro are interdependent and struggle in the face of global instability" – while cryptocurrencies are decentralised and "present a viable and stable alternative for businesses and consumers". Says the Business Cloud report.

He also points out that national fiat currencies rely on faith in the government behind them as well as the global financial system, whereas cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin:

"...are based on secure, reliable technology, and are decentralised, which makes them an excellent tool to weather a financial storm."

Many would argue though, that Cryptocurrencies are just another currency, where their value at any one time has more to do with the positive and negative sentiments that their competing fiat currencies are subject to.

But at least with hard cash, gold and silver you can carry them around and use them without needing a working electronic payment system.

Comment Here!