P J R M I

J O T
R R ´
G S
A
M O R G A N A To: House of Commons
B
I T ´ S A B O U T B A L A N C E London
U SW1A 0AA
T

B
A To: Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP Brexit Minister.
L
A
N
Regarding: Contingency. If there is a Brexit 'No Deal'.
C
E

Thursday 23rd August 2018.

I am a freelance macroeconomist and have been developing a legal case on Brexit, which I
previously sent to you. I have also previously written an article regarding the legality of the
Brexit process pertaining to the triggering of article 50, which may not have been performed
correctly. If there is a 'No Deal' result from Brexit negotiations you could claim article 50 was
not triggered correctly and follow the legal case I put forward instead. The enclosed article
explains the grounds, which could buy more time and push the process down the legal route.

Kind Regards.

Peter James Rhys Morgan.

Website: morganisteconomics.blogspot.co.uk
Copyright © Peter James Rhys Morgan 2018.
Is Brexit Legal? Has Article 50 Been Triggered Correctly?

By Peter Morgan.
19:47 16/11/2017.

The whole process of Brexit has become an area of debate in itself, especially in terms of the
legality of the transition of independence from the EU. The Anti-Brexit supporters have
claimed the legal grounds put forward for separation of the UK from the EU may not be
viable and that the corresponding undertakings to enable de-unification, may not have been
performed correctly. The debate seems to surround Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty signed on
13th December 2007, which sets certain criteria that has to be followed throughout Brexit.

This leads to various questions. The first question is whether there was legal justification to
trigger Article 50 in the first place. The second question is whether the EU referendum that
demonstrated the will of the UK population to leave the EU is of high enough authority or
just an advisory vote. The third question is whether the criteria set out in Article 50 has been
processed correctly in regards to the communication with the EC on leaving the EU. If even
one of these questions is proven to be non compliant it could be argued that Brexit is illegal.

Has Article 50 been triggered justifiably? According to the criteria not only does the
European Council have to be notified of any member state leaving the EU, but it has to have
legal grounds due to a constitutional requirement. Apparently the letter put forward by the
British Government's legal team did not provide an appropriate constitutional requirement
and was only a notification of the decision to leave the EU. In short only Article 50 part 2
was compliant with the legal grounds deemed necessary by the EC for the Brexit process.

Is the referendum outcome to leave the EU of high enough authority to trigger Brexit?
Actually it may not be. Due to a Supreme Court ruling for 'Miller' that determined leaving the
EU takes away rights in UK law, which only parliament could allow under statutory
authorisation. Also the referendum is only an advisory vote and not legally binding through
the government itself, unless proven there was a constitutional requirement to leave the EU.
The argument of the letter to the EC for the UK to leave the EU being non-compliant.

Was the act of triggering Article 50 processed correctly? The whole argument is on the basis
of correct or incorrect communication with the EC and the notification of the will to
withdraw from the EU. There has to be clear communication of the will and reason for
leaving the EU, along with correct correspondence with the EC throughout the process.
Apparently if this is not performed appropriately the EC could bring infringement
proceedings against the UK. The extract below demonstrates the legislation it would invoke.

Website: morganisteconomics.blogspot.co.uk
Copyright © Peter James Rhys Morgan 2018.
"In such circumstances, it cannot be excluded that the European Commission might
commence infringement proceedings against the UK under Article 258 TFEU alleging a
breach of the procedural obligation under Article 50(2) TEU; a breach of substantive
obligations under the treaty in the event of the UK passing legislation in conflict with EU law
but without actually having withdrawn from the EU; and perhaps also a breach of the
principle of ‘sincere cooperation’ under Article 4(3) TEU." (Armstrong 2017).

Perhaps it is better to put forward another legal case for leaving the EU. This way it will be
made clear that Article 50 part 1, where there needs to be a constitutional requirement to
leave the EU, has been demonstrated. Better grounds to trigger Article 50 would be the
failure of the EC to conform to its legal obligations with EU member states. There was a
failure in Economic Governance throughout the Euro Crisis. This failure was the inability to
implement the correct declaration of national debt figures and control national debt levels.

There was a legal requirement for each EU member state's National Statistical Institution
(NSI) to collect accurate national debt figures. There was also a legal requirement for the
European Statistical System (ESS) and Eurostat to control national debt levels within targets
set out in the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), to maintain currency value throughout the
Euro zone. The EC failed to implement control of national debt levels before and throughout
the Euro Crisis, failing to comply to ESA 95 rules, which it was legally bound to achieve.

There was a continual failure. In 2005 a code of best practice was set up called the European
Statistics Code of Practice, followed by the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board
(ESGAB) in 2008 and then the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP). All of which failed as
national debt continued to rise, the Euro zone bailout fund also had to be superseded. The
European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) used by the EC to help failing states make debt
repayments was replaced by the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) on 8th October 2012.

There is clear evidence the EC, ESS and Eurostat failed to comply to the regulations for
controlling national debt levels throughout the Euro zone. If Brexit is put through on new
legal grounds based on the EC's failure of Economic Governance, it would provide
appropriate constitutional requirements to conform to Article 50. As the withdrawal is based
on the EC's legal failings, it negates the need for the referendum outcome to leave the EU.
Parliamentary Authorisation is not needed due to the EC's failure being in breach of contract.

If the process of triggering Article 50 was performed incorrectly it could be submitted again
under the grounds of the EC's failure of Economic Governance, now constitutional
requirement is evident. The two year process would start again, although this may be in the
favour of the British Government who would gain more time for negotiating. It would also
put the onerous of the failings on the EC, which should provide a stronger stance for the
British Government during the negotiating period and get a better deal for de-unification.

Published at Morganist Economics.

Copyright © 2018 Peter James Rhys Morgan.

Website: morganisteconomics.blogspot.co.uk
Copyright © Peter James Rhys Morgan 2018.