Brexit Challenge By 97 Year Old WW2 Veteran

[P.K.]

10 hours ago, woolley said:

It's a frivolous case anyway, but a whopping banana skin for the ECJ if it chooses to stand on it.

Just teasing.

[P.K.]

20 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Day to day politics is one thing. There should be no time limit on decisions such as Brexit if you live and work in Europe and hold a British passport...no matter for how long you've lived there IMO.

@Albert Tatlock As National Sovereignty is a given for an EU country it's possible that he already has voting rights in Italy due to naturalisation. Which as yet hasn't had a mention that I am aware of.

But I'm sure your reasoning is the basis behind the claim.

[pongo]

56 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

"There is a 15-year time limit on British expatriates being able to register as overseas voters." Would you know if he complied with that? if not then he does not have a case

Complied?

Have you misunderstood what this means? It's not something one can apply for which then lasts for life. It's per vote.

Brexit changes the status of all British nationals whether or not they happen to be resident. Therefore all nationals should be allowed vote.

[woody2]

1 hour ago, P.K. said:

We have Woody2 for that thanks.

If only there was a "green crayon" font to complete Woody2's persona.....

she/him/it didn't mention me.....

[P.K.]

"If you are moving away from the UK, you will still be entitled to vote in elections. Provided you have been included on an electoral register within the past 15 years (reduced from a previous 20), you will still be entitled to cast your vote. If you remain away from the UK for any more than the 15 years, you will then automatically lose your right to vote in British elections. More information on this subject can be found through the Electoral Commission’s main website: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/ "

[woody2]

1 hour ago, pongo said:

Brexit changes the status of all British nationals whether or not they happen to be resident. Therefore all nationals should be allowed vote.

no it doesn't.....

[Barrie Stevens]

On ‎7‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 7:44 PM, La Colombe said:

He has got a point really, hard to see why he shouldn't have got a say in it all. Be funny if the referendum was ruled as being illegal as a result! 

 

On ‎7‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 7:44 PM, La Colombe said:

He has got a point really, hard to see why he shouldn't have got a say in it all. Be funny if the referendum was ruled as being illegal as a result! 

Just a few thoughts!

This “free movement” thing I believe came about in reality as a result of the serious starting up of the Single Market although the intention was stated way back in the treaty establishing the “European Community” principle. However free movement as intended has been a long time coming and is still not perfected.

Italy I believe did not sign up to the carrying out or effecting of the principle of Free Movement between all European Economic Area (EEA) members until 1986. There is a chart on line showing when the others members did, when, what etc. 

The free movement principle has never been black and white and even now is fraught with vagaries.

The applicant says he went to settle in Italy in 1982 therefore it is possible he would have had to go through a more traditional official immigration procedure presumably using his Italian  wife as a qualifying factor rather than claim automatic free movement as a “walk in.” I am not sure it is that easy even now under “free movement”.

I assume his wife is Italian.

He claims that he and others were deprived of their right to vote “merely because they exercised their freedom of movement within the EU”. Thus attempting to link freedom of movement, an EU and therefore ECJ matter, to the UK’s right to set its own voting qualifications outside of both EU and ECJ jurisdiction.

The EU did not exist until the 1993 Maastricht Treaty which was signed in 1992 (And by the Isle of Man also) and any free movement he claims was exercised in 1982 before Italy effected the concept in 1986. I would say that he has not exercised free movement rights within the EU and that his UK  voting rights have long gone following his established emigration to Italy.

If the applicant had any right to freedom of movement it presumably existed if at all from 1986 by which time he had been effectively four years a landed immigrant in Italy. In other words, he has long since burned his boats and any vote that went with it.

The applicant claims that the EU has allowed the Brexit withdrawal procedure to begin illegally on the basis of the referendum vote from which he and others, they being EU citizens, were excluded. Therefore Brexit might possibly be stopped as it would be illegal for the EU to negotiate.

Article 50 for leaving the EU says that it can be called in accordance with the member states constitutional requirements...Which in this instance was the UK’s choice of a referendum subject to national voting rights themselves solely the gift of the UK sovereign parliament. Contrary to urban myth we did not give up sovereignty to the EU as otherwise we would not have been able to call Article 50 on our own terms and decide to leave.

The ECJ has jurisdiction over EU law and relations between member states and I do not see how the ECJ has jurisdiction over UK voting rights and/or the referendum as these are our own constitutional requirements. The UK could presumably have called Article 50 without a referendum?

The applicant makes an oblique reference to European citizenship which does exist in a nebulous fashion but as an adjunct to one’s substantive nationality. 

The applicant’s case smacks of sophistry.

 

 

 

 

 

[mojomonkey]

4 hours ago, Neil Down said:

"There is a 15-year time limit on British expatriates being able to register as overseas voters." Would you know if he complied with that? if not then he does not have a case

Isn't his case that he believes the 15 year limit to legally flawed, that's what he wants to challenge.

[woody2]

you could try the short answer sir bazza......

 

4 hours ago, woody2 said:

the eu wasn't about in 1982 when he left the uk.......

 

1 hour ago, Barrie Stevens said:

 

Just a few thoughts!

This “free movement” thing I believe came about in reality as a result of the serious starting up of the Single Market although the intention was stated way back in the treaty establishing the “European Community” principle. However free movement as intended has been a long time coming and is still not perfected.

Italy I believe did not sign up to the carrying out or effecting of the principle of Free Movement between all European Economic Area (EEA) members until 1986. There is a chart on line showing when the others members did, when, what etc. 

The free movement principle has never been black and white and even now is fraught with vagaries.

The applicant says he went to settle in Italy in 1982 therefore it is possible he would have had to go through a more traditional official immigration procedure presumably using his Italian  wife as a qualifying factor rather than claim automatic free movement as a “walk in.” I am not sure it is that easy even now under “free movement”.

I assume his wife is Italian.

He claims that he and others were deprived of their right to vote “merely because they exercised their freedom of movement within the EU”. Thus attempting to link freedom of movement, an EU and therefore ECJ matter, to the UK’s right to set its own voting qualifications outside of both EU and ECJ jurisdiction.

The EU did not exist until the 1993 Maastricht Treaty which was signed in 1992 (And by the Isle of Man also) and any free movement he claims was exercised in 1982 before Italy effected the concept in 1986. I would say that he has not exercised free movement rights within the EU and that his UK  voting rights have long gone following his established emigration to Italy.

If the applicant had any right to freedom of movement it presumably existed if at all from 1986 by which time he had been effectively four years a landed immigrant in Italy. In other words, he has long since burned his boats and any vote that went with it.

The applicant claims that the EU has allowed the Brexit withdrawal procedure to begin illegally on the basis of the referendum vote from which he and others, they being EU citizens, were excluded. Therefore Brexit might possibly be stopped as it would be illegal for the EU to negotiate.

Article 50 for leaving the EU says that it can be called in accordance with the member states constitutional requirements...Which in this instance was the UK’s choice of a referendum subject to national voting rights themselves solely the gift of the UK sovereign parliament. Contrary to urban myth we did not give up sovereignty to the EU as otherwise we would not have been able to call Article 50 on our own terms and decide to leave.

The ECJ has jurisdiction over EU law and relations between member states and I do not see how the ECJ has jurisdiction over UK voting rights and/or the referendum as these are our own constitutional requirements. The UK could presumably have called Article 50 without a referendum?

The applicant makes an oblique reference to European citizenship which does exist in a nebulous fashion but as an adjunct to one’s substantive nationality. 

The applicant’s case smacks of sophistry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pongo]

4 hours ago, woody2 said:

no it doesn't.....

Of course it does.

When Britain leaves the EU all British nationals (whether or not they are UK resident) cease to be nationals of an EU member state and lose their status as EU citizens as defined by the terms of the Maastricht Treaty (which Britain was instrumental in drafting).

Of course all British nationals should be given the opportunity to vote on whether their status is changed.

[woody2]

46 minutes ago, pongo said:

Of course it does.

When Britain leaves the EU all British nationals (whether or not they are UK resident) cease to be nationals of an EU member state and lose their status as EU citizens as defined by the terms of the Maastricht Treaty (which Britain was instrumental in drafting).

Of course all British nationals should be given the opportunity to vote on whether their status is changed.

they already have in a legally binding referendum.....

[mojomonkey]

16 minutes ago, woody2 said:

they already have in a legally binding referendum.....

When? Referendums are not legally binding, the EU referendum wasn't legally binding. Don't you remember all the fuss about MPs having to vote for it after the result of the referendum?

[woody2]

3 minutes ago, mojomonkey said:

When? Referendums are not legally binding, the EU referendum wasn't legally binding. Don't you remember all the fuss about MPs having to vote for it after the result of the referendum?

and what happened....

go on have a guess.......

[pongo]

21 minutes ago, woody2 said:

they already have in a legally binding referendum.....

Nonsense. Many non resident British nationals were excluded from voting - though it directly affected their status.

As you well know.

All those entitled to a British passport should have the right to participate.

[mojomonkey]

2 minutes ago, woody2 said:

and what happened....

go on have a guess.......

They followed the will of the people and voted for it (as I think they should have), but none of that answers the question I asked you. The actual EU referendum was not legally binding, are you claiming otherwise?