Scribd Letter To The Prime Minister Boris Johnson Regarding Brexit Legal Options.

P J R M I
J O T
R R ´
G S
A
M O R G A N A To: 10 Downing Street
B
I T ´ S A B O U T B A L A N C E London
U SW1A 2AA
T
B
A To: The Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP.
L
A
N
Regarding: Brexit New Legal Options.
C
E
Tuesday, 23rd July 2019.
I have enclosed some of my recent correspondence with the European Research Group
regarding an alternative method of processing Brexit through legal discourse. Part 2 on pages
4 to 7 of the document held together with the bulldog clip may be the best option to get a
quick Brexit deal, it may also be the best option to reduce the risk of compensation claims.
I have also enclosed a booklet I wrote called, 'Euro Crisis', explaining the legal obligations of
the European Commission (EC) to attain economic targets set in the various European Union
treaties. The failure of the EC to achieve these targets led to the Euro Crisis and may have
ultimately caused the United Kingdom to apply for the withdrawal of membership of the EU.
I strongly recommend pursuing the determination of the withdrawal agreement from the EU
through legal process and believe this is the best option for both parties. The booklet, 'Euro
Crisis', gives a clear explanation of the failings of the EC that can be used to support the
United Kingdom's position in a legal case to exit the EU, which is a viable alternative option.
I would be grateful if you would look into the legal case I have enclosed, as I believe it will
be fruitful for your agenda. I would also be grateful if you would promote my book, 'Euro
Crisis', which is available at Amazon and other leading bookshops. I believe that promoting
the book will help to generate support for the British government during the Brexit process.
Kind Regards.
Peter James Rhys Morgan.
Website: morganisteconomics.blogspot.co.uk
Copyright © 2019 Peter James Rhys Morgan.
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
U SW1A 0AA
T
B
A To: Jacob Rees-Mogg MP.
L
A
N
Regarding: Brexit Brief.
C
E Tuesday, 11 June 2019.
Prior to the United Kingdom's referendum to withdraw from the European Union there was a
failure by the European Commission to disclose the correct national debt figures across the
European Union, which led to the Euro Crisis. This would provide a legal avenue to pursue
suing the European Council and to withdraw from the European Union, it may also provide a
threat of legal action to strengthen the United Kingdom's position in Brexit negotiations.
The threat of suing the European Council is only one of the options available. If early or
quick withdrawal is required but the terms or agreements are not approved there is another
opportunity. There is no specification of how to negotiate the withdrawal agreement, a
request to the president of the European Council to pursue a legally determined agreement
based on existing legislation through the European Court of Justice might be a viable option.
Legal process would follow the statutory framework the European Commission set and will
avoid the risk of compensation claims arising from clashing with existing laws. If the
negotiations are not put through legal discourse the rights of many citizens of both parties
may be infringed. Legal process will be favourable for the United Kingdom and the European
Union as the current withdrawal agreement is likely to impede upon existing legal provisions.
Economic targets set by the European Commission and the European Central Bank in
particular will be difficult to attain with the offered trade deal, this may be illegal under the
European Commission's own law and could damage its own economy. This is the area the
European Commission failed in previously, which led to the Euro Crisis. If the same failure
occurs again it could cause another economic crisis or extend the ongoing Euro Crisis further.
Legal determination of a new withdrawal agreement would be better for both parties. The
threat of suing the European Commission for its failure in economic governance could push
the European Council into a position of having to go through legal process to get a better,
'Cleaner', deal for the United Kingdom. It would also be better for the European Commission
through being a legally compliant process reducing other legal disputes and payout costs.
Kind Regards.
P J R M I
J O T
R R ´
G S
A
B
U SW1A 2AA
T
B
A To: The Prime Minister the Rt Hon Theresa May MP.
L
A
N
Regarding: Brexit, The Euro Crisis and Legal Infringements! Does the EC want
C another Euro Crisis?
E
Wednesday, 20 February 2019.
There is a clear failure by the European Commission to uphold the requirements to maintain
unity of the European Union by its inability to enable the functioning of its own set rules. The
Lisbon Treaty was originally known as the 'Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
(2007)' (TFEU). The Treaty was amended to become the Lisbon Treaty, it set requirements
on a macroeconomic level to maintain unity between the European Union member states.
The Stability and Growth Pact and elements of the ECB's economic targets are legally bound
to be attained to reach the requirements set to sustain unity between European Union member
states. During the 'Euro Crisis' these 'legally binding' targets were infringed making it legally
none compliant to the TFEU and legal to leave the EU on the grounds of 'failure in economic
governance', the UK have a legal right to withdraw from the EU under its own legislation.
Debt figures in the former Eastern Bloc and PIIGS member states were hidden or at least not
fully disclosed, making them non compliant to ESA95 and ESA2010 rules on European fiscal
harmony. In any event when the macroeconomic targets set were not met the 'Euro Crisis'
ensued. If the EC continue to give the UK such a poor trade deal it will inhibit its ability to
hit its own economic targets, which could lead to another large scale economic catastrophe.
I STONGLY urge you to point out and pursue this legal avenue with the EC on the grounds
of a failure in economic governance and sustained failure in stewardship during the Brexit
negotiations, which could impact their unified economy, to secure a better trade deal for the
UK and EU citizens. If the economic targets the EC and ECB set are missed in the future, as
they were in the past, it could lead to another economic crisis similar to the Euro Crisis.
Kind Regards.
P J R M I
J O T
R R ´
G S
A
M O R G A N A To: Telegraph Media Group
B
I T ´ S A B O U T B A L A N C E 111 Buckingham Palace Road
U London
T
SW1W 0DT
B
A
L
A
N To: The Political or Economic Editor of the Telegraph Newspaper.
C
E
Regarding: Brexit Legal Case and Supporting Booklet.
Sunday, 10 February 2019.
I am a freelance macroeconomist who develops new economic tools and policies. I developed
a statistical technique to evaluate public sector debt, which I used to analyse the deteriorating
situation in the Eurozone during the Euro Crisis. I wrote a booklet that uses the technique to
put forward the findings of my research, which accurately predicted various members of the
EU falling into recession and the UK withdrawing from the EU. The booklet also explains the
legally required financial and economic targets the EC sets to maintain the continued union.
The booklet details the infringements of the legally binding targets, which were set in various
EU treaties, prior to and throughout the Euro Crisis, which led to extreme financial
consequences being placed on EU member states. The information in the booklet and
accompanying published articles, which predicted the UK would leave the EU due to the
financial burden and political pressure it brought with it, are used to put forward a legal case
claiming the EC forced the UK to leave the EU due to a failure in Economic Governance.
This failure to appreciate the impact of the infringements of the EC's own legally binding
targets on the macro economy of the Euro Zone and wider EU led to the Euro Crisis. If the
currently proposed UK withdrawal agreement was to be passed it would compromise the
legal standing of the EC, as it would again infringe the legally binding economic targets of
the EC. I question if the stance of the EC to provide the UK with such a poor Brexit deal is
illegal to its own citizens, due to its inability in attaining its economic targets with a bad deal?
I have enclosed the booklet, which is available for purchase from leading online book stores
in paperback and ebook format (at Amazon), along with the documentation for the legal case
I submitted to the Government. I would be grateful if you would review the booklet in your
newspaper informing readers of its availability to purchase on the internet. I would also
appreciate you reviewing the legal case to support my position of the UK having a stronger
position in the Brexit discussions, as a result of the EC's failure in economic stewardship.
Kind Regards.

P J R M I
J O T
R R ´
G S
A
B
U SW1A 2AA
T
B
A To: The Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Theresa May MP.
L
A
N
Regarding: Brexit New Legal Options.
C
E
Wednesday, 30th January 2019.
I have enclosed some of my recent correspondence with the ERG and the Brexit Secretaries
regarding an alternative method of processing Brexit through legal discourse. There are three
parts, with possible alternatives to either renegotiate or extend the process of EU withdrawal.
Could you ask for an extension to the negotiation period as a result of a failure of stewardship
by the EC? There has been a clear infringement of the criteria set by the EC to maintain the
union of nations, the failure was in an inability to control economic targets (See enclosed 1).
Could you ask for the restarting of negotiations as a result of changing the negotiating
methodology, due to inadequate resolution using the existing 'debated' negotiating
methodology? This would reduce the chance of financial compensation claims. (See 2).
Could you re-trigger article 50 under grounds of a different constitutional requirement or

failure of stewardship by the EC? There was a clear infringement of the legal criteria set to
maintain economic union within the EU during the Euro Crisis, this may be better (See 3).
I hope you can see how great an infringement the Euro Crisis was on EC legislation and how
this led to the UK having to leave the EU. I will post the enclosed along with this letter on my
blog, for greater access, enabling you to forward an electronic copy to any of your supporters.
Kind Regards.
P J R M I
J O T
R R ´
I T ´
G
A
M O R G A N
S
S
A
B
A B O U T B A L A N C E
1 To: House of Commons
London
U SW1A 0AA
T
B
L
A
N
Regarding: Brexit Trade Deal is Illegal - Failure in Stewardship.
C
E
Thursday, 3rd January 2019
The currently proposed Brexit agreement may be outside of the expected stewardship
requirements of the governing bodies of the EU. There are legally binding economic targets
which are supposed to be achieved in regards to economic growth, unemployment and
governmental debt. The trade deal negotiated will likely prevent the EU from attaining these
targets, which would conflict with the rights of the populations of both the UK and EU.
For the best chance of reaching the legally required targets of economic prosperity the EC
would have to accept the best, most open, trade deal they can with the UK or it would conflict
with the expectations of effective stewardship set in its own legal framework. The EC, ECB
and Eurostat have to comply to economic governance targets set in the European Treaties,
which necessitate a certain level of competence in governance and economic achievement.
By not offering to accept, or even prohibiting, a stronger more open trade deal with the UK
the EC is obstructing the correct legal protections of effective economic governance of the
EU and in turn impacting the best interests of the remaining EU citizens. There is a clear
failure in stewardship on the part of the European Council, to meet its own agenda, in the
Brexit negotiations, which infringe upon the rights of the remaining population of the EU.
Kind Regards.
Why has the EC acted illegally?
Question.
It is silly to talk about a country itself "breaking" its own laws! This is international law, it's a
different thing to internal civil law.
Answer Part One.
I am assuming by this you mean that because the EC set the laws it can break them? If this is
the case then it is incorrect in its concept. The laws which the EC has broken are legally
binding requirements for nations to enter and be part of the EU and for the successful
governance of its collective economy. The laws were originally set enable the union to exist.
By breaking the laws it would mean the nations within the union are none compliant to the
regulations that are necessary to maintain a successful economic union. By not adhering to
these laws the nation is, not simply breaking the law but, not falling within the economic
achievement requirements needed to make the Euro and EU economy operate effectively.
Breaking these laws and targets .i.e. the Stability and Growth Pact or ECB targets could
impact the Euro value or put financial strain on other EU member states. The same is true for
the EC itself if it does not maintain its objectives for economic governance the outcome is the
same, the Euro value is effected or there is financial strain on other EU member states.
This is why the infringements on EU law are so important when it comes to a nation
maintaining its membership within the EU, there are financial and economic effects of not
attaining the targets set by the EC. Prior to the Euro Crisis the legally binding targets set by
the EC were not met with financial consequences, the trade deal could be a similar example.
Answer Part Two.
The EC failed to attain the required level of economic governance to hold the EU together
and member states are legally entitled to leave, under their own treaties, when this happens.
This is the case and why there is a strong legal case for the UK to withdraw from the EU.
Further infringements of the requirements needed to hold the EU together are imminent with
the proposed agreement's trade deal, which will likely strain the EU economy and the Euro.
P J R M I
J O T
R R ´
I T ´
G
A
M O R G A N
S
S
A
B
A B O U T B A L A N C E
London
U SW1A 0AA
T
B
L
A
N
Regarding: A way to follow legal process for Brexit.
C
E
Sunday, 16th December 2018.
I think I may have found a way around the debate aspect of the negotiations for Brexit. It
should not be an argued process, it should follow a legal precedence which I believe this
letter will enable you to pursue. The issue is more one of who the negotiator is and how they
can negotiate, there is no reason why it can't be a legal representative instead of a bureaucrat.
Article 50 states negotiation is required, however it does not stipulate who the negotiator
should be or how to negotiate. I would recommend requesting the appointment of a senior
Judge of the European Court of Justice, the highest court in the EU, to 'negotiate' the
withdrawal agreements strictly following the legal framework of the European Union.
Legal discourse will reduce the risk of clashing with existing statutory provisions within the
EC's own legal framework, the senior court ruling can prevent contention. The 'Appointed'
ECJ Judge must follow the EC's legal framework not just the framework of Article 50 of the
Lisbon Treaty and Article 218 (3) of the Treaty of the functioning of the European Union.
By following this legal methodology the EC and UK protect against encroaching on existing
legislation protecting both parties citizens and avoiding compensation cases. The new
appointment of a legal authority turns the process of the UK withdrawing from the European
Union into a Court evaluated and determined endeavour, rather than a debated negotiation.
Precedence is set through existing legislation and legally binding regulations, following the
legal guidelines of the European Court system. The 'Appointed' Judge must make rulings
following these guidelines strictly to not show bias on either side of the legal action. Both
parties may approach the Judge through written communication putting forward their case.
Article 50 states Article 218 (3) must be followed (cited in below pages), it states nominating
a Union negotiator or the head of the Union's negotiating team. There is no statement of who
the negotiator should be or how to negotiate. I request a new nomination of a senior ECJ
Judge and to follow legal process to protect the interests of both parties and their citizens.
Kind Regards.

The highlighted does not state who the negotiator is or how to negotiate.
Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own
constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its
intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall
negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its
withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That
agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the
Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European
Parliament.
3. 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.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the
Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of
the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on
the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to
the procedure referred to in Article 49.
Article 50 states to follow Article 218 (3), which states nominating a Union negotiator or
the head of the Union's negotiating team. There is no statement of who the negotiator
should be or how to negotiate. I request the nomination of a senior ECJ Judge and to
follow legal process to protect the interests of both parties and their citizens.
Article 218 of the Treaty of the functioning of the European Union.
1. Without prejudice to the specific provisions laid down in Article 207, agreements between
the Union and third countries or international organisations shall be negotiated and concluded
in accordance with the following procedure.
2. The Council shall authorise the opening of negotiations, adopt negotiating directives,
authorise the signing of agreements and conclude them.
3. The Commission, or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security
Policy where the agreement envisaged relates exclusively or principally to the common
foreign and security policy, shall submit recommendations to the Council, which shall adopt
a decision authorising the opening of negotiations and, depending on the subject of the
agreement envisaged, nominating the Union negotiator or the head of the Union's negotiating
team.
4. The Council may address directives to the negotiator and designate a special committee in
consultation with which the negotiations must be conducted.
5. The Council, on a proposal by the negotiator, shall adopt a decision authorising the signing
of the agreement and, if necessary, its provisional application before entry into force.
6. The Council, on a proposal by the negotiator, shall adopt a decision concluding the
agreement.
Except where agreements relate exclusively to the common foreign and security policy, the
Council shall adopt the decision concluding the agreement:
(a) after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament in the following cases:
(i) association agreements;
(ii) agreement on Union accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
(iii) agreements establishing a specific institutional framework by organising cooperation

procedures;
(iv) agreements with important budgetary implications for the Union;
(v) agreements covering fields to which either the ordinary legislative procedure applies, or
the special legislative procedure where consent by the European Parliament is required.
The European Parliament and the Council may, in an urgent situation, agree upon a time-limit
for consent.
(b) after consulting the European Parliament in other cases. The European Parliament shall
deliver its opinion within a time-limit which the Council may set depending on the urgency
of the matter. In the absence of an opinion within that time-limit, the Council may act.
7. When concluding an agreement, the Council may, by way of derogation from paragraphs
5, 6 and 9, authorise the negotiator to approve on the Union's behalf modifications to the
agreement where it provides for them to be adopted by a simplified procedure or by a body
set up by the agreement. The Council may attach specific conditions to such authorisation.
8. The Council shall act by a qualified majority throughout the procedure.
However, it shall act unanimously when the agreement covers a field for which unanimity is
required for the adoption of a Union act as well as for association agreements and the
agreements referred to in Article 212 with the States which are candidates for accession. The
Council shall also act unanimously for the agreement on accession of the Union to the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; the
decision concluding this agreement shall enter into force after it has been approved by the
Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
9. The Council, on a proposal from the Commission or the High Representative of the Union
for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall adopt a decision suspending application of an
agreement and establishing the positions to be adopted on the Union's behalf in a body set up
by an agreement, when that body is called upon to adopt acts having legal effects, with the
exception of acts supplementing or amending the institutional framework of the agreement.
10. The European Parliament shall be immediately and fully informed at all stages of the
procedure.
11. A Member State, the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission may obtain
the opinion of the Court of Justice as to whether an agreement envisaged is compatible with
the Treaties. Where the opinion of the Court is adverse, the agreement envisaged may not
enter into force unless it is amended or the Treaties are revised.
P J R M I
J O T
R R ´
G S
I T ´
A
M O R G A N
S
A
B
A B O U T
U
B A L A N C E
London
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.
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.
"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.
P J R M I
J O T
R R ´
G S
A
B
U SW1A 0AA
T
B
A To: The Rt Hon Michael Gove MP.
L
A
N
Regarding: Concerns Over The Proposed Brexit Agreement.
C
E
Sunday, 25 November 2018.
I am concerned the currently proposed Brexit agreement is not a good financial deal for the
UK, it may also be legally contentious and could bring about compensation payments. By
negotiating a Brexit deal rather than following legal precedent the British Government has
failed to show the remissness of the European Commission, which ultimately led to Brexit.
As the onerous of the failings which led to the UK's departure from the European Union falls
on the European Commission, the terms of the Prime Ministers proposed Brexit agreement
seems unfair. I have further concerns the negotiation process impedes on legal protections,
which could result in the British Government being sued, by encroaching on existing laws.
The Government, with the Prime Minister in particular, have a history of introducing policy
or making decisions, which infringe upon legislation leading to compensation payments. The
currently proposed Brexit agreement is extremely vulnerable to this risk, by following legal
process it eliminates, or at least reduces, the likelihood of large compensation payments.
I have therefore enclosed an alternative legal option to the existing negotiated agreement
along with a supporting book I wrote called, 'Euro Crisis Aggregate Demand Control is
European Single Currency Weakness'. I urge you to consider this option to minimise the risk
of future law suits, it may also be worth seeking a smaller financial settlement payment too.
Kind Regards.
P J R M I
J O T
R R ´
G S
A
B
U SW1A 0AA
T
B
A To: The Rt Hon Stephen Barclay MP, Brexit Secretary.
L
A
N
C
E
Friday, 23 November 2018.
I feel the British government could get a better financial settlement for Brexit, due to the
'Tremendous' failings made by the European Commission in its handling of the Euro Crisis
and the events which led up to it putting economic pressure on the UK to leave the EU.
I also have my concerns the currently proposed Brexit agreements could infringe upon
statutory rights of the British general populous. The process so far has been negotiated as
opposed to following an existing legal framework, which may negate legislative protections.
My proposal follows a legal avenue of determining the settlements. I have enclosed a legal
case with a covering letter proposing an alternative safer option to the negotiating process.
This may well be more beneficial to British interests and potentially far less contentious.
Kind Regards.
P J R M I
J O T
R R ´
G S
A
B
U SW1A 0AA
T
B
A To: The Rt Hon Stephen Barclay MP, Brexit Secretary.
L
A
N
C
E
Friday, 23 November 2018.
I am a freelance macroeconomist and have been developing a legal case on Brexit, which I
sent to both of your predecessors. There are legal precedents for many of the debates in the
Brexit discussions, any agreed outcome will have an impact on the economy, society and the
population in general. These factors are heavily protected by legal provisions in the form of,
statutes, acts, case laws and various legislative safeguards on a national and European level.
Rather than negotiation being the method of determining the outcome of the Brexit process
legal discourse should, or at least could, be the authoritative council for setting the terms and
separation settlement of the UK leaving the European Union. This process defends against
the infringement of legislative protections for both the British people and the population of
the other members of the European Union providing a safer, less contentious legal option.
By following guidelines set by the existing legal framework it will guarantee the correct and
proper conduct of the departure of the UK from the European Union. It will also negate
claims of unfair settlements, which can arise from negotiation. I have therefore enclosed a
copy of the legal case I put forward, previously sent to the government, with the Book I
wrote, 'Euro Crisis Aggregate Demand Control is European Single Currency Weakness'.
I have also enclosed a copy of a letter and attachments I sent to the former Brexit Secretary
Dominic Raab, which puts forward a possible contingency plan for a 'Brexit No Deal'. It
might be possible to start the whole process again, triggering article 50 correctly, on the
grounds of the EU's failure to maintain its legal obligations by not attaining its economic
targets, which led to the Euro Crisis, this may buy more time and give you the upper hand.
Kind Regards.
Brexit on Legal Grounds - Due to the EC's Failure in Economic Governance.
By Peter Morgan.
20:51 25/10/2017.
Regardless of the referendum vote that determined the UK leaving the EU, as a result of the
political will of the population, legal obligations were not met by the EC to implement
effective economic control of the Eurozone. This failure to maintain the regulations set out in
ESA 95 rules could be grounds to leave the EU, as the cost of the bailout for the Euro Crisis
is a liability of any EU member state not just Eurozone member states the UK would be liable
for part of the bailout, as a result of the EC's failure in Economic Governance. The liability of
the Euro bailout was generated illegally.
The financial consequence of simply being a member of the EU, brought about by the Euro
bailout, would have impacted the population of the UK in making a choice to leave the EU
during the referendum vote. Regardless of the referendum the EC acted illegally by not
effectively maintaining national debt levels leading to the Euro Crisis, any costs of which
should not be made by the UK when leaving the EU as the onerous of the failure was on the
EC's part. The British Government could argue it had no choice in leaving the EU as a result
of the financial costs the bailout created.
Although there has been a movement to reduce the financial liability of EU member states
who are not in the Eurozone, in regards to the cost of the bailout it is possible the UK could
still be liable. The consequence of default from the countries receiving the bailout funds has
been minimised by this movement, however it has not completely taken away the risk of any
future financial burdens of a non Eurozone member state if the Euro Crisis continues. If the
economic downturn continues and further bailouts are required the EC can draw directly from
the EU budget, which the UK is liable for.
I have put together a legal case in which I make this argument to reduce or negate the
financial cost of Brexit, as I believe the fault to be on the part of the EC, ESS and Eurostat. I
have sent the paper 'Brexit on Legal Grounds' and a copy of the book 'Euro Crisis Aggregate
Demand Control is European Single Currency Weakness' to the following people. The Prime
Minister, the Rt Hon David Davis MP, the Rt Hon Keir Starmer MP, the Rt Hon Dr Liam
Fox MP and the Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP. You can view the paper 'Brexit on Legal
Grounds' below. You can also get the book from the following link.
P J R M I
J O T
R R ´
G S
A
M O R G A N A
B
I T ´ S A B O U T B A L A N C E
U
T To: 10 Downing Street
London
B
A
SW1A 2AA
L To: The Prime Minister.
A
N
C Regarding: Brexit Negotiations.
E
Monday 9th October 2017.
I am a freelance macroeconomist and develop new economic tools and policies. I work cross
party and support many politicians. I have researched the Euro Crisis and have written many
articles and a book on the topic, which may interest you throughout the Brexit Process. I
believe there is justification for Brexit on legal grounds due to a failure in Economic
Governance, which occurred during the Euro Crisis. The EC, ESS and Eurostat failed to
implement ESA 95 rules on national debt management, possibly to expand the Eurozone.
I have enclosed an article putting forward my legal case, which is supported by other articles
I have written on the Euro Crisis. One article accurately predicts the UK leaving the EU due
to a failure in Economic Governance, occurring prior to and throughout the Euro Crisis. The
articles supporting my case are enclosed with a copy of my book, 'Euro Crisis Aggregate
Demand Control is European Single Currency Weakness'. The book chronicles the failure of
the EC, ESS and Eurostat on national debt management during the Euro Crisis (Page 26).
As the failure was on the part of the EU, EC, ESS and Eurostat the legal standing would
suggest they are responsible for the economic failings in the Eurozone. Economic difficulties
may have led to the subsequent referendum vote that forced the UK to leave the EU. Either
way the EC failed to hit its targets on debt management, which it was legally bound to meet
in accordance to ESA 95 rules proving them to be in breach of their contract with all EU
member states. The financial settlement of leaving the EU should be negated or minimised.
The onerous of the failings was made by the EU in its inability to provide appropriate
Economic Governance leading to the Euro Crisis. The financial consequence of any EU
member state leaving the union should be the responsibility of the EU itself, as a result.
Although the UK should pay the £18 billion membership fee until leaving in two years time,
all other costs should be reviewed. The EU's failure in governance must be taken into
consideration when doing so. Did the UK have a choice to stay in the EU with such a failure?
Kind Regards.
Brexit on legal grounds - There might be legal grounds to leave the EU that could
negate or reduce the settlement payment requested by the EC for Brexit.
These claims are based on the Euro Crisis and the lead up to the event, in which national debt
data was incorrectly collected and even hidden from EU member states. I believe there is a
credible argument to a legal failing in debt disclosure, causing a governmental requirement
for the UK to leave the EU. The financial settlement should be negated or at least minimised.
If the contract the UK signed when joining the EU was not upheld grounds would be
provided to leave the EU, regardless of whether the population voted to leave or not, which
subsequently happened. I believe the legal contract the UK signed to join the EU was broken
during the Euro Crisis, leading to the referendum vote that determined the Brexit process.
In short I argue the requirement to leave the EU was made by the EC's failure to hit its
mandate on debt and by hiding debt figures, leading to the Euro Crisis, impacting British
voters choice to leave the EU. The legal argument is the British Government had no choice
but to put in legal proceedings to leave the EU based on a failure in Economic Governance.
The failure was made by the EU and its governing bodies throughout a sustained period, in
which debt figures were not reported properly and possibly hidden to enable expansion of the
Eurozone. The British Government maintained its legal obligations throughout the process
and subsequent Euro Crisis, demonstrating a failure, of governance, on the part of the EU.
The financial settlement of the UK leaving the EU should be zero or at least reduced, as a
result of the EU's, in breach, failure to uphold their legal contracts signed by the British
Government and other EU member states. The arguments I put forward are supported by my
book, 'Euro Crisis Aggregate Demand Control is European Single Currency Weakness'.
Page 26 of the book highlights how the EC failed to implement ESA 95 rules in Greece, as
regulations were broken on eleven different counts. Subsequent EC action to address the
failure to comply with national debt controls also failed, as other nations missed debt targets
demonstrating a continual failure in Economic Governance, which was legally required.
I put forward my case in the following articles where I accurately predicted the UK would
leave the EU due to economic failings, although I did not think it would be enacted by David
Cameron. It is the result of the EC's, ESS's and Eurostat's failure to comply to legal contracts
the British Government signed on managing EU member states sovereign debt figures.
The articles are in the following pages of this document and are available online.
The EU Does Not Even Know How Much Debt It Is In!
EU Referendum - It's a Matter of Timing
Has the EU Failed its Original Agenda?
The Book 'Euro Crisis' is enclosed.

The EU Does Not Even Know How Much Debt It Is In!
Published at the Huffington Post on 06/02/2013 15:48 | Updated 08 April 2013
By Peter Morgan.
You may think the title of this article is ridiculous, but sadly it is not. One of the problems
seen so frequently in the EU and Eurozone in particular is the difficulty of collecting correct
or even reasonably accurate data. The body that regulates national debt data across the
Eurozone is the European Statistical System (ESS), which comprises of Eurostat and
National Statistical Institutions (NSI’s).
Eurostat has no direct involvement in the compilation of data collected by EU member states.
It is down to each EU member state’s NSI to collect and submit the data to Eurostat, which
uses the information to help the European Commission (EC) make decisions. The lack of
involvement in the collection of data from the European administrative system led to huge
disparities in the reported debt figures and reality of the deficit.
In an attempt to resolve the problems with inaccurate reporting of national debt figures across
the Eurozone a code of best practice was set up in 2005 called the, ‘European Statistics Code
of Practice’ (EC, n.d.). However as the true depth of the problems came to light in a 2004
report (Evans-Pritchard, 2010), when it was discovered Greece had failed to comply with
ESS set regulations and had continued to hide enormous debt, the EC decided it had to act. In
2008 the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board (ESGAB) was set up to regulate
the NSI’s (EC, n.d.).
Although a code of best practice had been set up and a new board of regulation was put in
place the Eurozone continued to become more indebted indicating the actions of the ESS
failed. Further action was applied with the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP), which was an
attempt to get heavily indebted Eurozone member states within debt boundaries set by the
Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). As the level of debt seen across the Eurozone continues to
rise, it would indicate the EDP has also been unsuccessful.
The fact that member states had failed to hit the SGP targets in the first place is evidence the
ESS has little if any control over fiscal policy set by each member state. The SGP was an
attempt to harmonise fiscal policy throughout the Eurozone in an effort to influence stability
for the Euro currency (EC, n.d.). As this has been near to impossible the role of the European
Central Bank (ECB) has increased significantly in recent years in an attempt to maintain
economic stability in the region.
The efforts made by the EC to stabilise the sovereign debt crisis throughout the Eurozone
started with the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF), which sold bonds and other debt
instruments on the capital markets generating funds to be lent to the failing states. On 8th
October 2012 the EFSF was superseded by the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), as the
permanent tool to be used to resolve sovereign debt issues in the Eurozone, although the
EFSF is still used in Greece, Portugal and Ireland, the ESM has replaced its operations in
Spain (Europa, n.d.).
Even though there is now a mechanism in place to provide failing states with funds, it begs
the question as to whether the EC is even aware of how much funding is required to resolve
the issues in the Eurozone. If the debt figures have been hidden and continue to be
misreported by many member states it makes the new mechanism a bottomless pit for further
loans. The only member states where the true extent of sovereign debt is known for certain
are the PIIGS, which have either been investigated or controlled directly by Brussels in some
shape or form.
The EC cannot hide the simple fact that to this day it does not have strong enough control of
the reporting or regulation of national debt levels across the Eurozone, which makes any
mechanism imposed at best ineffective and at worse a blank cheque. The EC cannot even
claim to know how much sovereign debt exists in the Eurozone due to the poor reporting of
the NSI’s. It therefore raises the question as to how the EC expects to make plans for a
resolution to the debt problems across the Eurozone when it does not even know the full
extent of the debt that exists in the first place.
If you found this article interesting you can find out more information on the limitations of
the EC to regulate the debt figures across the Eurozone and the Euro Crisis in general in a
book written by the author. The book is available here.
Bibliography
EC, n.d. Europa. [Online]

Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/quality/code_of_practice
[Accessed 03 February 2013].
EC, n.d. Europa.Eu. [Online]

Available at:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/employment_and_social_policy/situation_in_europe/e
m0002_en.htm
EC, n.d. Europa.Eu. [Online]

Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/sgp/index_en.htm
Europa, n.d. EFSF. [Online]

Available at: http://www.efsf.europa.eu/about/links/index.htm
Evans-Pritchard, A., 2010. The Telegraph. [Online]

Available at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/7140233/Greece-
rattled-by-hidden-debt-controversy.html
EU Referendum - It’s a Matter of Timing
Published at the Huffington Post on 15/01/2013 09:33 | Updated 15 March 2013
By Peter Morgan.
There has been a lot of talk in the media over the last week about the EU and the possibility
of a referendum on the existing agreement the UK has with the European Union. I think the
discussion started because of prime minister David Cameron’s recent comments, in which he
suggested a renegotiation of the existing relationship, although some euro sceptic groups
have pushed for an ‘all in’ - ‘all out’ referendum instead. Either way the topic of Britain and
the EU has been brought to the frontline of Westminster’s political debate again.
Ed Miliband has subsequently stated he would not support a referendum on Europe and
claimed David Cameron was, “sleepwalking us towards the exit door.” Personally, I don’t
think David Cameron has any intention of putting forward any kind of referendum. I think
that the recent increase in support for the United Kingdom Independence Party has led him to
project a more anti European stance to slow the trend away from his party. I believe all of the
media attention is merely an effort to maintain his political position, which is starting to slide.
If the prime minister was planning to push for a referendum on the EU in any shape or form it
would be more likely to succeed, even if it was only a suggestion for his is own political
agenda in the short term, if he put it forward later. Due to the weakening economic situation
in the eurozone the strength of any argument away from the EU will be greatly increased as
time passes. As a macroeconomist I foresee a continuation of the economic downturn and
perhaps even destruction of the eurozone over the coming years.
Most of the attention on the eurozone economic crisis has been put on the PIIGS members
states. However the research I have performed suggests the eurozone is in greater trouble
than merely the ‘known’ sovereign crisis countries. There are a large number of former
Soviet eastern bloc nations with staggering public sector debts, which will likely enter
sovereign debt crisis in the next few years. Even the economically successful states such as
Germany and France are likely to encounter economic difficulties due to weakening domestic
output and a greater dependency on state support, partly caused by the aging demographic.
This indicates that not only is the sovereign debt crisis region likely to grow in the near
future, but the ability of the wealthier nations in the monetary union to support the weaker
members will decrease. As this deterioration takes place the political standing of the UK in
any kind of referendum on the EU will become more tenable. In fact, if Ed Miliband was
genuinely aiming for a continuation of the UK’s relationship with the EU it would be
advisable for him to support a referendum of some kind in the near future, rather than later, as
it would be more favourable towards his agenda.
If you are interested in reading the data and analysis which led me to these conclusions on the
future of the eurozone, you can purchase a copy of my book on the euro crisis here. In
addition to the analysis I put forward a critique of the current economic model and
infrastructure with some possible solutions in the latter part of the book.
Has the EU Failed its Original Agenda?
Published at the Huffington Post on 26/08/2012 14:34 | Updated 24 October 2012
By Peter Morgan.
The EU was supposedly set up to create a closer political union between the countries in
Europe after the Second World War, in an attempt to avoid a similar scenario happening
again in the future. The economic union was seen as a necessity to further fortify the peaceful
relationship between the countries in Europe, so the introduction of a single European
currency was a vision for many years before its implementation.
The first stage of the economic union came in the form of the Exchange Rate Mechanism
(ERM), which required each participating EU member state to control their individual
exchange rates within 2.25% of set parameters. Unfortunately many of the countries in the
ERM could not maintain the rates within the guidelines set by the European Commission
(EC), so either had to leave the ERM or faced economic hardship.
Difficulties were seen in the earlier attempts to introduce a single European currency, which
seemed to be ignored when in January 1999 the Euro was introduced. The Euro completed
the original plan of the EU movement to provide both political and economic union across
the region. However after over a decade of use the Euro and the many problems it has
brought with it have put the European Union movement into contention.
The economic problems caused by the Euro pose the potential to undo the political union,
which seemed to work successfully for fifty years prior to the introduction of the single
currency. Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain, which are collectively known as the
PIIGS, have all entered into Sovereign Debt Crises forcing them to ask for financial help
from the rest of the EU.
It has been argued that the economic difficulties in these states and perhaps the wider
problems across the region have been created by the single European currency. I have
previously written about the benefits the wealthier member states receive at the expense of
the weaker states due to the effect the Euro has on their ability to buy and sell goods outside
of Europe. If you are interested you can read that article here.
The single currency seems to make some countries in the Union more economically viable
than other countries depending on how their economy is set up and the market which they
appeal to. This disparity in the financial benefits the EU brings, or at least is ‘supposed to
bring’, is putting great strain on the European Union movement as a whole. Some of the
countries which have been at the brunt of the economic difficulties are questioning whether
they should stay in the Euro or even leave the EU all together.
The economic difficulties seen in the failing PIIGS member states have created growing
support for anti-European Union political parties. Rather than providing greater union across
Europe the single currency may have, or could, undo the work the political union did in the
fifty years prior to the Euro’s implementation. The hardship seen by the PIIGS member
states, Greece in particular, does not meet the EU’s agenda of providing a peaceful unified
Europe.
Perhaps the European Commission should consider a back track of policy and only aim for a
softer political union similar to the post war arrangement, scrapping the idea of a single
European currency. I have recently written a book on the economic crisis in the Eurozone,
which assesses the situation across the region and provides some solutions to the difficulties
they have encountered. If you would like to purchase a copy you can do here.
In addition to the book I have a free supplementary page at my blog on the Euro Crisis, which
you can access here. http://morganisteconomics.blogspot.co.uk/

Scribd Letter To The Prime Minister Boris Johnson Regarding Brexit Legal Options.

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Scribd Letter To The Prime Minister Boris Johnson Regarding Brexit Legal Options.

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

P J R M I

Tuesday, 23rd July 2019.

Peter James Rhys Morgan.

Peter James Rhys Morgan.

Wednesday, 20 February 2019.

Peter James Rhys Morgan.

Sunday, 10 February 2019.

Peter James Rhys Morgan.

Wednesday, 30th January 2019.

Could you re-trigger article 50 under grounds of a different constitutional requirement or

Peter James Rhys Morgan.

Thursday, 3rd January 2019

Peter James Rhys Morgan.

Answer Part One.

Answer Part Two.

Sunday, 16th December 2018.

Peter James Rhys Morgan.

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

Article 218 of the Treaty of the functioning of the European Union.

(i) association agreements;

(iii) agreements establishing a specific institutional framework by organising cooperation

(iv) agreements with important budgetary implications for the Union;

8. The Council shall act by a qualified majority throughout the procedure.

Thursday 23rd August 2018.

Peter James Rhys Morgan.

Copyright © 2018 Peter James Rhys Morgan.

Sunday, 25 November 2018.

Peter James Rhys Morgan.

Friday, 23 November 2018.

Peter James Rhys Morgan.

Friday, 23 November 2018.

Peter James Rhys Morgan.

Monday 9th October 2017.

Peter James Rhys Morgan.

The EU Does Not Even Know How Much Debt It Is In!

EU Referendum - It's a Matter of Timing

Has the EU Failed its Original Agenda?

The Book 'Euro Crisis' is enclosed.

Published at the Huffington Post on 06/02/2013 15:48 | Updated 08 April 2013

EC, n.d. Europa. [Online]

EC, n.d. Europa.Eu. [Online]

EC, n.d. Europa.Eu. [Online]

Europa, n.d. EFSF. [Online]

Evans-Pritchard, A., 2010. The Telegraph. [Online]

Published at the Huffington Post on 15/01/2013 09:33 | Updated 15 March 2013

Published at the Huffington Post on 26/08/2012 14:34 | Updated 24 October 2012

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi