DAILY EXPRESS - By SIMON OSBORNEPUBLISHED: 09:54, Wed, Apr 3, 2019 | UPDATED: 11:58, Wed, Apr 3, 2019

Brexit: Theresa May announces further Article 50 extension

Robin Tilbrook insists Britain left the bloc on March 29 as originally planned and dismissed Theresa May’s extension as nul and void because she never had the power to make such a decision in the first place. The legal challenge mirrors Gina Miller's high-profile court battle with the Government over Article 50 in 2016. Mr Tilbrook tweeted: “Our case has now fully served and issued and we are just waiting for the High Court to give us a hearing date in the near future.

Sky News host CONFRONTS Brexiteer heckler who screams 'TREASON'

Rees-Mogg STUNS host as he attacks BBC 'leftie approach' – 'OBSESSED'

What we're hoping to achieve with it is a declaration that we're already out.   Robin Tilbrook

“Now we really need as much help as possible so that we can match the well-funded Remain groups and the tax funded government lawyers!”

The judicial review application argues Mrs May did not have the power to extend the Brexit date past March 29.

Mr Tilbrook said: “What we're hoping to achieve with it is a declaration that we're already out. If you've read it, you can see that the argument's very strong.

PROMOTED STORY

“We've done it all, we started a month or so ago. We've served all the paperwork in advance and we've issued it today.

Theresa May and Robin Tilbrook

Theresa May and Robin Tilbrook (Image: GETTY/BBC)

Robin Tilbrook

Robin Tilbrook's English Democrats insist Brexit has already happened (Image: BBC)

Brexit: Corbyn says he's 'happy' to meet May to negotiate deal

“I fully expect it to be heard fairly soon. I've asked the High Court for it to be heard on an expedited basis. I think the argument's strong that we're out.

“The Government's proceeding on the basis that we're still in. We're saying that's not the case. If there's a declaration from the High Court that we're out, the Government's got a new reality to deal with.”

Legal experts have cast doubt on whether Mr Tilbrook’s case will succeed.

Thom Brooks, Professor of Law and Government at Durham University Law School, told MailOnline: “I think the idea is that Parliament voted to leave on 29 March, this date has passed without a new Act of Parliament and so we're out.

Theresa May

The English Democrats claims Theresa May had no legal rights to delay Brexit (Image: GETT)

“But Parliament did agree for the Prime Minister to have more time and both the UK and EU have agreed our 'deal' remains, or at least for now. This is through temporary extensions.

“Someone was bound to try this - but I'm not expecting a Miller-like result.”

Ms Miller launched a high-profile legal challenge in 2016, saying that Parliament had to approve the triggering of Article 50.

The High Court and later the Supreme Court both found in her favour and forced MPs to vote on the formal start of the Brexit process.

Orientation regarding the court case. Are we IN or OUT?


WHO and WHAT is behind it all ? : >


The bottom line is for the people to regain their original, moral principles, which have intentionally been watered out over the past generations by our press, TV, and other media owned by the Illuminati/Bilderberger Group, corrupting our morals by making misbehavior acceptable to our society. Only in this way shall we conquer this oncoming wave of evil.

Commentary:

Administrator
HUMAN SYNTHESIS

All articles contained in Human-Synthesis are freely available and collected from the Internet. The interpretation of the contents is left to the readers and do not necessarily represent the views of the Administrator.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). Human-Synthesis will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. Human-Synthesis grants permission to cross-post original Human-Synthesis articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Human-Synthesis articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites.

Human-Synthesis contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.