In a skeleton argument for next month’s High Court battle against the government, Helen Mountfield QC has listed the human rights we will forfeit in a Brexit without parliamentary approval.
The crowd-funded People’s Challenge to the Government on Article 50 argues that the moment Theresa May declares an intention to leave the European Union under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty she will rob every UK citizen of at least nine human rights.
The government claims the prime-minister has executive power under the royal prerogative to declare Article 50 and bypass parliament, where at least 450 of the 650 MPs are opposed to leaving the EU.
Lord Reid described the royal prerogative in a 1965 judgment as ‘a relic of a past age.’
The rights at risk are listed on page 21 of the 26-page skeleton argument prepared by Mountfield, of Matrix Chambers, Gerry Facenna QC, of Monckton Chambers, Tim Johnston, Jack R. Williams and the solicitor John Halford of Bindmans LLP.
All 65 million EU citizens in the UK and all the 1.2 million British people now living in the other member states of the European Union would be denied:
The right to move and reside freely, with family, within the territory of the member states without a visa.
The right to seek employment, work, exercise the right of establishment or provide services in any member state.
The right to vote or stand as a candidate in local and European elections in the host state.
The right to diplomatic and consular protection from the authorities of any Member State in third countries.
The right to non-discrimination.
The right to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the European Ombudsman, and to address the institutions and advisory bodies of the Union in any of the Treaty languages and to obtain a reply in the same language.
The right to equal pay.
The right to receive healthcare that is free at the point of use, paid for by the NHS, using the European Health Insurance Card.
Other human rights under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, including the ‘right to be forgotten’.
The argument, citing both the 1689 Bill of Rights and the 1706 Union with Scotland Act, warns:
There is a real risk that notification of a decision to leave under Article 50 will inevitably trigger the automatic withdrawal of the UK from the EU or, at best, put the matter beyond the control of the UK’s own constitutional actors and subject to the unanimous consent of 27 other states.
In the circumstances, the Court should proceed on the assumption that the UK’s exit from the EU is in practice irreversible once Article 50 has been triggered.
Where rights have been conferred under statute, and would be removed or diminished by a decision to leave the EU [which, pursuant to Article 50, is self-executing], the principle of legality prevents those rights from being restricted or removed. What it requires is that any such restriction or removal of statutory rights must be done by Parliament “squarely confronting what it is doing” by the use of express words, and accepting “the political cost“.
It cannot be done by the executive, purporting to exercise its untrammelled executive power.
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got ’til its gone.
The Guardian September 28: UK government must disclose legal arguments on article 50 procedure
Judge’s decision is preliminary victory for group challenging PM’s power to trigger Brexit without consulting parliament