The English Democrats

Did you know that the English Democrats

are the only political party that is putting the people of England, and the English Nation’s interests first?

We hear many comments in the media from the Scottish First Minister and the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh First Minister and the Welsh Parliament, the N. Ireland First Minister and Northern Ireland Parliament, however how many times have you heard from the English First Minister and the English Parliament?

The simple answer is never, the people of England are denied the same democratic rights that the people of Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland enjoy.

Whilst the people of Scotland, Wales, and NI get to have a direct say in how their nations’ public services are run via their own parliamentary elections, the people of England have no direct say on how England’s public services are run, as they are controlled by the British Government. We don’t have a voice at the table.

This attempt to deny England a voice is clearly evident during the Brexit process, whether you are for ‘Remain’ or ‘Leave’ the clear fact is there is no English First Minister, and No English Parliament sticking up for the people of England, our public services, or our businesses.

The European Convention of Human Rights

The English Democrats have appealed to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Article 6(1) of that Convention which says:-“In the determination of his civil rights…everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an…impartial tribunal”.

The Applicant brought a case for Judicial Review regarding the implementation of Brexit in respect of the legal position of the UK and of the legal position of all citizens of the UK and, in particular, all those in England who voted to leave the European Union in the EU Referendum and of all “Persons” in the UK. The UK Government sought to get around Parliament by using the Royal Prerogative to extend the Article 50 notice period. The Applicant’s Article 6 rights were infringed by Orders made on 19th June 2019 and on 19th August 2019 and its domestic Appeal remedies have been exhausted. 

The relevant Application was for a declaration that the Applicant and all the above were out of the European Union on the 29th March 2019 by reason of the expiry of the UK’s Notice Period. All the legal rights and obligations created by the European Union would therefore not apply to the Applicant nor any of the above and therefore the Application was determinative of the Applicant’s EU “civil rights and obligations”. Since “Community Law” applies directly in the UK and other EU treaty obligations are incorporated into municipal law the Applicant’s civil rights and obligations under municipal law were affected as well. The Applicant’s Judicial Review Application was not dealt with in a timely manner, despite making Applications for it to be expedited.

Further, despite the importance of the matter, the Court chose to deal with the matter at a time when the Applicant’s lawyer was absent from the country and to do so in such a way that, unless an Application for an Appeal was dealt with before the Applicant’s lawyer returned from holiday, the case would be dismissed without any hearing because the Court has adopted a procedural rule whereby Judges can declare that an Application for Judicial Review is “Totally Without Merit”, which has the effect of preventing an Applicant from having any hearing at all, let alone a “fair and public hearing”. This Order is dated 19th June 2019.

This is a case in which numerous very experienced lawyers, including a retired Court of Appeal Judge, the Rt Hon. Sir Richard Aitkins, and many Queen’s Counsel (Senior Barristers), Barristers and Solicitors had all opined that it was of strong legal merit, so the decision to classify this case as “Totally Without Merit” was legally wrong and seems to the Applicant to be a politically motivated and biased decision intended to prevent the Applicant’s case getting a public hearing.

What will shock some readers is the apparent suggested bias in this case, that the Lord Justice of Appeal, who finally prevented this case being heard in his Order dated 19th August 2019, is an open advocate of Multi-culturalist “Diversity” and is personally opposed to the Applicant’s political position. He is a member of the European Legal (Law) Institute

whose avowed purpose is:- “To evaluate and stimulate the development of EU law, legal policy, and practice, and in particular make proposals for the further development of the acquis and for the enhancement of EU law implementation by the Member States.” It follows that on an Application to try to implement Brexit such as that brought by the Applicant, Lord Justice Hickinbottom is clearly thought not to be an “Impartial” figure. 


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s