The Courts must reject the Government’s illegal Article 50 Notification





In spite of what the Government claims, the Article 50 notification given on 29 March 2017 is invalid, and we are seeking to challenge its legality in the courts. If we are successful, the notification will be nullified, Brexit will be halted, and the decision to leave or remain will be back in the hands of Parliament where it belongs.

The Government maintains that the 2016 EU Referendum was a decision to leave the EU – a decision “by the people”.

This is untrue. The Referendum was advisory only, and the Supreme Court has ruled that neither the Government nor the people are legally entitled to make such a decision. Only Parliament may do so, and then only by an Act of Parliament.

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) requires a withdrawal decision to be made before notice can be served. The Government has misled Parliament, the public and the European Council. To date, no decision has been made by Parliament and therefore there is no constitutionally valid decision to leave. The purported Article 50 notification is therefore illegal and invalid – a sham.

Have you been misled? Follow this link for some background information about the Referendum, Article 50, and the circumstances leading to The Article 50 Challenge.





The Legal Position





Think of Article 50 as the exit clause in a contract, with one condition to be met: Has a constitutionally valid withdrawal decision been made? Yes or No. If yes, notification of intention to leave is obligatory.

Had the European Union Referendum Act 2015 made the vote binding and the result of the vote was to leave, the Government would have been obliged to give Article 50 notification. There would be no Article 50 Challenge because, in passing such an Act, Parliament would have delegated the decision to the people and the people’s decision would by law need to be carried out.

But that is not the Act that was passed by Parliament. The Act only made provision for an advisory (or consultative) referendum – effectively an opinion poll – to gauge the country’s interest in leaving or remaining in the EU. Parliament did not delegate the decision to the people.

Nevertheless, following the passage of the EU Referendum Act, then Prime Minister David Cameron made claims that the matter was for the British people to decide, and this message gained momentum and was echoed by other politicians and in the Government pamphlet on the Referendum. But the claims were not backed by legislation and repeating them did not make them law, as the Government later found when they lost the case brought by Gina Miller in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Referendum had not delivered a constitutionally valid withdrawal decision. While the ruling in the Miller case had made it clear that the Referendum result could not stand as the withdrawal decision, the Government responded to the ruling with smoke and mirrors.

“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” - L. Frank Baum, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

Within days of the Supreme Court ruling, David Davis introduced The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2017 (EU NoW Bill) to the House of Commons saying it was: "not a Bill about whether the UK should leave the European Union or, indeed, about how it should do so; it is simply about Parliament empowering the Government to implement a decision already made—a point of no return already passed.”

The Bill focused exclusively on the mechanics of notification and ignored the single condition, still unmet, required to “trigger” Article 50: a constitutionally valid withdrawal decision. Notably, in relying on a non-existent “decision already made,” the Government successfully sidestepped any Parliamentary debate of the Referendum result.

Davis’s words of introduction confirm beyond doubt that the EU NoW Act was not intended to make the withdrawal decision; a claim that is 100% consistent with the wording of the Act itself. Anyone can confirm this for themselves in just a few minutes by looking at the legislation’s explanatory notes here.

With no constitutionally valid withdrawal decision in law, we are calling on the UK Courts to rule that the Article 50 notification is invalid.





This Action





We are a group of private individuals – lawyers, professionals, and academics, including Professor A.C. Grayling – who are alarmed at the disorderly way in which the UK is approaching the critical issue of Brexit as exemplified by the facts of this case.

If successful, the UK’s Article 50 notification would be nullified along with any withdrawal agreements (if made), and the process would have to be started afresh, if and when a constitutionally valid withdrawal decision is made.

“The only way to resolve the question, for the benefit of Leavers and Remainers alike, is for a court to decide whether or not a valid decision was taken before the Article 50 notification of 29 March 2017. That is why we are taking this action and seeking funding to support it." - Professor A. C. Grayling, Master

Hugh Mercer QC of Essex Court Chambers and Gwion Lewis of Landmark Chambers are instructed on this matter with a leading regional firm of solicitors.

The UK courts will be asked to address the question that only they can answer, namely whether the United Kingdom decided to withdraw from the EU in line with its constitutional requirements .





What you can do





If you care about the United Kingdom, its nations, its businesses and its people, whether you are a Remainer who does not want Brexit or a Leaver who wants Brexit done with due process, we invite you to support our campaign with your pledge and spread the word as widely as possible on Facebook, Twitter, other social media and elsewhere, using the hashtags #A50Challenge and #A50Invalidity.

“Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you." - Pericles

Please pledge what you can. Small amounts add up.