Injunction required to guarantee ‘No Deal’ referendum decision

By Kevan Stafford



Voters decided in the 2016 EU referendum that Britain will leave the oppressive EU.

Remainer Political commentator Rachel Shabi, on Sky News’ Press Review claimed that, as the referendum ballot paper did not specifically mention ‘no deal’, therefore the decision was not to leave with ‘no deal’, and to do so was not what the people voted for.

On the contrary, a WTO Brexit was exactly what a majority of the people did vote for, with a hope that ‘free trade’ agreements would subsequently be agreed with the EU and many other countries throughout the world.

The ballot paper did not need to specifically mention ‘no deal’ to determine a ‘no deal’ Brexit; the absence of any mention of a deal of any kind meant that the vote was in favour of leaving the EU with no mention of a deal, or simply Brexit with ‘no deal’. That was the default decision if no deals were mentioned on the ballot paper.

An injunction should be sought to guarantee that the ‘No Deal’ EU withdrawal (I. e. leave under WTO rules) decision of the EU Referendum is implemented, as promised in the government’s booklet sent to every home in the country before the referendum took place. Natural justice determines that the Government undertaking to implement the voters’ decision made the referendum result binding.

The courts hold that in a Parliamentary democracy Parliament has supreme power. But again, natural justice demands that the voters’ direct democracy decision in a binding referendum should take precedence over that of their parliamentary representatives – who like to consider themselves representatives (able to act according to their own judgement) rather then delegates (required to act according to their electors’ wishes).

Gina Miller obtained a Supreme Court judgement that Parliamentary decisions took precedence over those of the Government, but neither Parliament of Government should take precedence over binding referendum decisions of the voters themselves, if democracy is to mean anything.

If we leave the EU under ‘no deal’, or WTO rules, we would subsequently be able to come to any trade agreement which was mutually acceptable between us and any other WTO member country, such as a ‘free trade agreement’. Other WTO countries include the EU, most individual EU countries, USA, Russia, China, Canada and around 150 others. Hopefully, the EU would not be punitive and seek to punish Britain with restrictive trade measures – but if it did we would be entitled to retaliate and set up free trade agreements with other countries globally. We can buy cars from USA, and Japan (even better buy them here in Britain) rather than polluting German cars, and wine from California, South Africa and South America, rather than over-priced wines from Europe.

As the saying goes – the world is our lobster!

Bookmark the permalink.

One Comment

  1. Exactly! WTO member countries like Britain and the E.U. are required to treat each other as “most favoured nations”. Britain is willing to offer free trade to Europe, so the whole world will know that the EU is culpable if they refuse to reciprocate after a WTO Brexit.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *