EU-GB Referendum legal Complaint
Official Complaint Submitted to the European Commission Against the GB-EU Referendum And British Prime Minister.
Name of EU country and national, regional or local authority or authorities that you believe to have breached Union law (mandatory)
The name of the EU country in breech of Union law is “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” (UK). The authority in breech of Union law is the nation government and in particular the office of the Prime Minister.
Specific national measure(s) (national law or other regulatory or administrative measures) that you believe to infringe Union law, and why they breach Union law (mandatory)
The specific measures in violation of Union law are the 2016 referendum on Union membership and based on such the imminent intentions to apply “Royal prerogative" powers, that government lawyers have advised the Prime Minister they may use, without a Parliamentary vote to trigger Article 50 of the TEU, that denied European Union citizens the right to vote while non-EU citizens from 53 commonwealth nations were permitted to participate and negatively influence the rights, liberties and security of Union citizens. The only Union citizens that were permitted to vote were from the Union states of Malta and Cyprus as these are also Commonwealth nations. Thus this referendum conducted with intention of it’s result being the sole basis for the parliament or Prime Minister to invoke Article 50 of the TEU treaty, is in absolute breech of multiple Union laws on the fundamentals of non-discrimination, and competition with relation to the oligopolistic mass media environment underpinning the creation of the referendum and it’s unjustly great influence in the resultant outcome.
Union laws (e.g. Treaties, regulations, directives, decisions) or principles underpinning Union law that you believe to have been breached by the authorities of the EU country concerned
The British referendum on Union, now marks an important chapter in our Union history and stands as a test for the very legal principals on which our Union was created. Our Court of Justice states the European Union is "a new legal order of international law”. Union law was conceived for a need for peace across the Union post World War II, and in these unique and strange times of mass media influence and shadow public relation agendas, it is most crucial that core Union law and order is maintained. Otherwise we set a dangerous precedent of compliancy, in this brave new age of mass media domination where a few individual’s primitive and separatist agendas, threaten the very core heightened spirit and values of our Union, developed over centuries of the enlightenment struggle. We must take the strongest possible judicial stance to protect TEU, our values from these dangerous and manipulating predators, who seek to create false belief and consensus to manipulate both debate, and result in our most enshrined democratic organs.
For the first time a Union state’s head of government the Prime Minister of the UK, has pledged to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The PM of the UK intends to do so regardless of any further considerations, bypassing a Parliamentary vote by solely relying on a referendum that was both discriminatory, and in gross violation of the core principals of Union laws and the enshrined rights of Union citizens. The very first article of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) states our Union is “founded on the values of respect, for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.” Thus the referendum that discriminated against minorities can not be permissible basis, for invoking Article 50, as our Union citizens were illegally barred from voting on their own future while residing in a Union state. This despite that Commonwealth citizens, from over 50 other nations could influence that loss of status of our Union citizens. This is clearly illegal, as the sentiment amongst persons of the Commonwealth were that if Union citizens were deprived their legally enshrined treaty rights of freedom of movement, Commonwealth citizens would benefit instead in migrating to the UK.
A referendum on Union membership with such design, thus cannot be accepted by Union bodies as basis for triggering Article 50. If the British PM condones such a manipulative process to do so, the Union Court of Justice must take action, to bring the PM into line with Union law immediately.
More specifically the referendum was in violation of Article 20 of the TEU, that states “every citizen of the Union residing in a Member State of which he is not a national shall have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections in the Member State in which he resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that State.” If such a referendum had no binding legal premise and is directly related to applying articles of Union treaty, barring Union citizens residing in a Union state from voting, is thus a clear and most gross illegal act that has skewed the actual majority sentiment in the State of Britain. Any further proceedings by the PM must be put to a halt, to limit any further illegal damage already done to the psychology and peace of Union citizens.
Such vile and hateful discrimination, against our Union citizens is also violation Article 18 that states “any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.” The referendum with it’s anti-Union design should have been prohibited in the first place, but now certainly this dangerous and flawed exercise, must not let an unelected PM of Britain proceed in such gross violation of Union laws. One sincerely questions the reasoning behind violation of union laws in this instance, when a previous referendum conducted by the United Kingdom government in 2014, on the sovereignty of Scotland, not only permitted all United Kingdom citizens resident in Scotland including English and Welsh nationals to vote, but also all European Union citizens along with 16 and 17 year olds to vote. Why was it then that the 2016 referendum, on the European Union was constructed with such an undemocratic different way from past precedent?
Egalitarian principles of Union law, in reference to Article 2 of TEU state that rights and freedoms of “persons belonging to minorities,” must be respected. How could the UK government find that two years prior 16 and 17 years olds, in the UK were able to judge on the question of the Sovereignty of Scotland but not that of remaining a part of the Union? A telling demographic in this most unlawful referendum on Union is that the 18-24 year olds voted overwhelmingly 75% to remain as part of the Union, this fact coupled with denial of the voting process of 16 and 17 year olds, indicates that the 1% majority claimed by the Government and PM as basis of triggering Article 50 is most fraudulent. As it is the minority of youth today, who this outcome will negatively effect the longest in the future.
It’s important to note the mechanics of the electoral process, to confirm that this was indeed an act of discrimination by Union standards. Union citizens along with 16 and 17 year olds all are listed on the same electoral register as British nationals, and Commonwealth nationals. Thus it is not that any further efforts must be needed to include them in the due democratic process. Instead it is that they were excluded from the process, which is a clear and blatant violation of Article 3 that states the Union “shall combat social exclusion and discrimination.”
In contrast all citizens from the 53 nations of the Commonwealth, were able to vote on the fate of Union citizen and their Treaty enshrined rights. It would appear that despite such clear foul play, the Prime Minister draws on confidence to continue with the illegal course based on mass media coverage of the referendum. This is a most disconcerting phenomenon where the mass media message is taken as gospel by so many, including the leaders of other Union states, many of whom have expressed without considering the full judicial context, that they wish the UK to exit the Union as soon as possible now.
Despite the government setting a budget cap of £35 million for each campaign, the mass media’s bias and agenda remained unregulated. This perhaps negates the purpose of budget caps at all, as if fair and even media resources are not on offer in a poll that encompasses such a large area and electorate, then the democratic process has been certainly corrupted.
A 2016 YouGov poll, found people to believe that the media in the UK had the most right wing bias. This in relation to the referendum could be seen clearly by the comparison of circulation figures between two of the main tabloid print newspapers in the UK. There was no secret to the stance that both the the Mirror (pro-Union) and the Sun (anti-Union) took. However it is quite telling that while in 2015, the Sun had a circulation of 1,978,702, the Mirror was less than half that 922,235 according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. Further the Daily Mail (anti-Union) had a circulation of 1,780,565. This is a most unjust means of disseminating a message in a Union democracy, especially considering the close links between politicians and media owners. In this instance there were also blatant lies and hate, that were preached by the overwhelmingly bias of the mass anti-Union media in the UK.
Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2007, TFEU explicitly states that “prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market,” “shall be prohibited.” In this instance this spirit of competition, that our Union espouses by treaty, has been shattered to the determent of the consumer in the industry that is most crucial for the progress of our democratic values. However, in this instance it has been so blatantly and vocally violated by News UK media owner, Mr. Rupert Murdoch, who is once again not a Union citizen, and blatantly stated in relation to his anti-Union stance that, “when I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.” Mr. Murdoch also owns several other media outlets including The Times and Sky TV and has most close relationship with the Conservative party that currently form the government.
Mr. Murdoch’s media executives had 26 meetings in just 15 months with the previous PM, in his first year in power. While his chief executive Rebekah Brooks was invited twice to Chequers, a pleasure not even the most senior cabinet ministers enjoyed. If media owners can wield such individual power over our political leaders, we must act fast to ensure that there is competition as per our Union values in this most crucial sector, or else we are presently living in a shell of a democracy, that may allow for our Union and our hard fought values to be lost unjustly by prejudice and hate.
Leaving these most undemocratic attacks and clearly illegal activities on Union laws and values unchecked is a gross failure, that is not merely academic but has grave consequences both immediately and in the longterm.
There was a 57 per cent nationwide increase in hate crimes, reported by the UK National Police Chiefs’ Council post the referendum. The hate crimes were targeted at migrants from our Union. Further Jo Cox, a fine member of the British Parliament, was shot dead by a man who appears to be of weak mind. Her assassin referred to himself as “death to traitors, and freedom to Britain.” Of course this man was also influenced by the illegal, hateful, false and separatist message promoted by the owners of a mass media, that now act as if they are above the law.
We must act now and bring into full force the rule of law, to demolish these false and illegal activities, that have remained unchecked for far too long already, and have endangered the rights, liberties and physical safety or our Union citizens. This is the danger we are faced with, as these illegally planted primitive sentiments can grow like a virus across our beloved Union. This very danger is why we forged together our Union in the first place. As the dangers of extreme nationalism are what drove us to two disastrous world wars of immense suffering.
Our Union laws were made for a reason, in memory of our ancestors and the blood they spilt fighting a false veil of monopolistic nationalist propaganda. The core reason for our Union and it’s laws is for peace and democracy. Allowing for these unlawful acts to go unchecked, would be completely against the very fabric of what we stand for. This is our Union and we must defend it from such unlawful media manipulations, and Government acts of discrimination. We must learn from our history now. For this is no trivial matter. This is about the integrity, dignity and survival of our Union. This is indeed about war and peace. If we remain complacent in abiding by our Treaties now, we may indeed lose the peace we have worked so hard for decades to create and preserve.
The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights applies only to the implementation of Union law by EU governments. This means a complaint is valid only if it relates to a breach of fundamental rights that occurs when an EU government is implementing Union law.
If the national government is acting on the basis of national law only, the Commission cannot investigate the case or start the formal infringement procedure on the basis of the EU Charter.
The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights was grossly violated by the referendum on whether or not to apply Article 50 of the TEU. By denying Union citizens resident in the UK the right to vote, Article 21 on Non-discrimination was violated, as was Article 1 on Human dignity as Union citizens were treated with gross disregard and hate, which further compromised their security a violation of Article 6, to the extent that hate crimes were up 57% post-referendum. This violence arose from the consumers of media being mislead by an oligopolistic anti-Union media agenda, and bias held by it’s owners, who were able to apply their own personal and false prejudice on the consumers of their media. There by creating a violation of Article 38, by which that “Union policies shall ensure a high level of consumer protection.”
Please state whether your action has been settled by a court or is pending before a court. If the case is pending, when can a decision be expected?
A case is pending in the Supreme Court of Great Britain to be heard in October 2016. It is expected that the Government lawyers will argue that the Prime Minister, can use Royal Prerogative powers to individually trigger Article 50, with out the need of Parliamentary vote.
The legal firm Mishcon who have brought forth the challenge on behalf of their client Gina Miller, state that a Parliamentary vote is necessary before the Prime Minister can invoke Article 50.