On Brexit and the role of the British Parliament

 I'll be in Belfast next week to start working on the consequences of the so-called Brexit vote in the UK, firstly in Northern Ireland. Then I'll start working in our French suburbs again. I produce stories for radio because in television, control is always putting an end to any story a journalist tries to produce independently, I see it every week in different newsrooms. I've lived it for so many years, working with so many different networks.

But don't we need enlightened media more than ever in Western so-called democracies?

-

The British press scares me... And French press has no courage.

What can we do and where can we still write?

Sometimes I wonder is the idea of democracy really does exist anywhere on this planet... Of course, the Parliament should rule the the EU / UK situation in a country that is a parliamentary regime... What is the Daily Mail preaching?

Here below is a simple series of useful statements.


-

Gina Miller: Brexit ruling prevents UK from being a 'tin-pot dictatorship'

Lead claimant in high court battle to give MPs a vote on EU exit says people should thank her for creating legal certainty

Press Association

Sunday 6 November 2016 10.39 GMT

Gina Miller, the businesswoman behind the successful legal battle against launching Brexit without parliament’s approval, said the high court ruling has stopped the government behaving like a “tin-pot dictatorship”.

The investment fund manager and philanthropist said the press had “behaved disgracefully” following the court judgment. She told BBC One’s Andrew Marr Show: “This is about creating legal certainty, and actually, everyone in the country should be my biggest fan because I’ve used my own money, and a few of us used our own money, to create legal certainty for Mrs May to move ahead.”

She said it was “misdirection” to claim that the decision was unpicking parliamentary sovereignty. “The case is that she cannot use something called the royal prerogative to do it because we do not live in a tin-pot dictatorship,” she said.

Miller, 51, was born in Guyana but grew up in Britain. She co-founded the firm SCM Private and previously launched a campaign with her hedge-fund manager husband, Alan, against mis-selling and hidden fund charges in the City of London’s fund management industry.

Reaction to the Brexit case had been fuelled by sexism, racism and homophobia, she said. “I was aware there would be nastiness because if there’s anything to do with the word Brexit, people lose their minds and it’s all about heart.”

Meanwhile, Nigel Farage warned there would be disturbances on the streets if parliament attempted to thwart Brexit. The interim Ukip leader said political anger – “the likes of which none of us in our lifetimes have ever witnessed” – would emerge if voters felt they were going to be “cheated” over the June referendum result to leave the EU.

He called on Brexit backers to “get even” through peaceful protests and oppose at the ballot box anyone who seeks to overturn the process. But Farage claimed he was “finished” with party politics, as he sought to downplay any potential return to leading Ukip in future. 

The MEP told Marr: “We may have seen Bob Geldof and 40,000 people in Parliament Square moaning about Brexit. Believe you me, if the people in this country think they’re going to be cheated, they’re going to be betrayed, then we will see political anger the likes of which none of us in our lifetimes have ever witnessed in this country. Those newspaper headlines are reflecting that.”

Asked if there was a real danger of “disturbance in the streets” if Brexit was thwarted by parliament, Farage replied: “I think that’s right. I heard you talking to Gina Miller earlier about the nasty things that have been said about her. Believe you me, I’ve had years of this, I’ve had years of hate mobs – taxpayer-funded hate mobs – chasing me around Britain.

“The temperature of this is very, very high. Now, I’m going to say to everybody watching this who was on the Brexit side – let’s try to get even, let’s have peaceful protests and let’s make sure in any form of election we don’t support people who want to overturn this process.”

-

EU referendum and Brexit

The Observer

Brexit judgment reinforces the supremacy of parliament

An expert in constitutional law assesses why the government has been told that it cannot use the royal prerogative to trigger Brexit

Sionaidh Douglas-Scott

Sunday 6 November 2016 06.04 GMT

In a landmark legal decision last Thursday, the high court upheld a legal challenge brought against the government by Gina Miller and others, and ruled the government cannot use the royal prerogative to trigger article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, and so formally commence the process to leave the EU, without parliamentary approval.

The court’s judgment means that the process must be subject to parliamentary control and oversight. Importantly (especially in the light of some recent media comments), the court stressed that this is purely a question of law and that the court is not concerned with, and does not express any view about, the merits of leaving the EU. That is a political consideration.

In brief, the case arose because article 50 allows the UK to withdraw from the EU “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements” – but there was disagreement as to what the UK constitution actually requires.

The government argued that it could use royal prerogative powers (namely, that residue of monarchical authority now exercised by ministers) to authorise the UK’s withdrawal. While it is clear that prerogative powers cover international relations and the conclusion of treaties, it is settled UK constitutional law that an act of parliament – in this case the European Communities Act (ECA) 1972 – cannot be supplanted by the exercise of a prerogative power.

The court accepted the claimants’ arguments that, once notice is given under article 50, some rights under EU law (as incorporated into domestic law by the ECA) would inevitably be lost on completion of the article 50 process. Therefore, the government cannot give notice under article 50 without reference to parliament. This judgment can be seen as a victory for parliament. During the EU referendum, voters were constantly urged to “take back control” and regain parliamentary sovereignty from the EU.

Yet in what sense is parliament taking back control, if the government is able, using its ancient prerogative powers, to manage the whole EU withdrawal process without any significant parliamentary involvement? That would be extremely undemocratic – and democracy is what we are told the EU referendum was about.

Furthermore, the court’s judgment makes clear that the exclusion of parliament in the process is not only undemocratic, it is illegal. There is a wealth of case law supporting the claimants’ case, some of it dating back to the 17th century and the English civil wars. Those wars, and the ejection of two kings during that century, established that parliament is sovereign and that the executive cannot ignore it, where it has no legal authority to do so.

This judgment makes clear that the government does not have any such legal authority in the context of triggering article 50. However, it must be stressed that the judgment also makes clear the importance of rights in the Brexit process. Much of the judgment concerns legal arguments over the ECA, which can seem arcane. Yet they are of vital importance to every citizen.

The EU has been described as a “new legal order” and it is in many important aspects different from ordinary international law. One such aspect has been the extent to which it confers rights on individuals. Through the ECA, every UK national has been endowed with rights under EU law – rights of free movement and residence in other EU countries, but also many other types of rights, such as employment rights, consumer rights, or rights to information. Some of these will vanish as a result of triggering article 50 and the withdrawal process.

The government has said it will transfer some EU law into UK law through a “great repeal bill”, and then decide in future whether or not to retain it. Thursday’s judgment makes clear that decisions that inevitably remove rights may not be taken by the executive alone. Parliament must be consulted.

What are the practical consequences of this judgment? First, a government spokesperson has said the government will appeal, in which case it will be fast-tracked and heard very quickly by the UK supreme court. The government might try to change its position, and argue that a notification under article 50 could be revoked – this would be the opposite of its high court concession that triggering article 50 would inevitably result in the withdrawal of the UK from the EU (and so lead to loss of individual rights). At present both government and claimants are treating the triggering of article 50 as the inevitable point when it becomes clear that the ECA will be repealed.

But if it were acknowledged that such a move is reversible, the point would be that, in triggering article 50 by executive act, the government would not be subverting statute at that point, it would not be rendering the ECA a dead letter, inevitably leading to a loss of rights.

Some believe a notification under article 50 is revocable. But this would involve a question of EU law, and the final answer could only be given by the European court of justice. Moreover, such a reversal of the government’s arguments would be politically risky, as it would amount to acknowledging that the UK might decide not to leave the EU, and that Brexit does not mean Brexit after all, perhaps not a very likely position for the government to take.

Thursday’s ruling is a strong judgment, by a powerful trio of judges including the lord chief justice, and its reasoning looks hard to overturn. If the ruling stands, it will be necessary for a bill to be introduced in parliament. Although it is highly unlikely parliament will vote against triggering article 50, parliament may well seek to impose certain conditions on the government.

The June referendum resulted in a vote for the UK to leave the EU. However, it did not determine the way in which the UK leaves the EU. The court’s judgment means that the elected parliament will have a role in debating and deciding many matters, rather than their being determined in private by the executive.

Finally, the judgment raises a question of the role of the devolved nations. If Westminster is to be involved, what about the devolved parliaments? By constitutional convention, devolved parliaments are asked for their consent when Westminster either legislates with regard to devolved matters (see section 28(8) of the Scotland Act) or where it legislates to increase or reduce their powers. If a bill is introduced allowing article 50 to be triggered, would this require legislative consent motions, and, if so, would the devolved nations give their consent? Conflicting answers have been given on this point, and the issue is highly politically charged.

One thing is clear – Brexit is constitutionally fascinating, as well as constitutionally problematic. It also raises as many difficult questions for our understanding of the British constitution as it does of the UK’s relationship with the European Union.

Professor Sionaidh Douglas-Scott is anniversary chair in law and co-director at the Centre for Law and Society in a Global Context, Queen Mary School of Law, University of London

After Mosul, Raqqa

While Iraqi forces are still struggling to take back Mosul in Northern Iraq from the hands of the Islamic State (IS), Arab /Kurdish rebel forces - back by U.S. troops - are now targeting Raqqa in Syria...

Syria conflict: Rebel force targets IS 'capital' Raqqa

(BBC) A US-backed Kurdish and Arab force has announced an operation to capture Raqqa, so-called Islamic State's "capital" in Syria.

The Syria Democratic Forces say they will be aided by US-led coalition air strikes and will begin in hours. 

They have also warned civilians to steer clear of areas where IS militants are present.

The coalition of Kurdish and ethnic Arab militias has been gaining ground in areas to the north of the city.

-

More soon.

Couscous Clan

Le Couscous Clan - Rodolphe Burger, Rachid Taha & Friends : Un concert unique qui a mêlé raï et influences post-punk, au Palais de la Porte Dorée, vendredi 4 novembre.

Le Couscous Clan est une sorte de groupe imaginaire, intempestif, dans lequel le grand explorateur du rock français le Rodolphe Burger invite Rachid Taha, pionnier du rock’n’raï et de fidèles compagnons à exprimer leurs amours musicaux si variés sur une même scène. Les deux icônes se sont ainsi produites ensemble régulièrement et ont réitéré cette rencontre rare ce vendredi, au Musée de l’Histoire de l’Immigration, pour une série de chansons qui leur sont chères.

Le guitariste et chanteur, fondateur du groupe Kat Onoma (1986-2002), Rodolphe Burger a ouvert la soirée avec les mots poétiques et linguistiques de son ‘Arabecedaire’, duo entre français et arabe, écrit avec Rachid Taha.

'Arabecedaire' - Rachid Taha ft Rodolphe Burger

Le ‘Coucous Clan’ s’est ensuite présenté dans tout son spectre en offrant une réinterprétation du ‘Walk on the Wild Side’ de Lou Reed, accompagnée par les chœurs de Rachid Taha et Hakim Hamadouche. Ce dernier a irradié plusieurs des morceaux suivants de son art du luth oriental et de sa voix grave. L’ancien leader du groupe Carte de Séjour, fondé en 1981, a ensuite présenté ses grand succès puis a clos la soirée, comme souvent, avec sa version du ‘Rock The Casbah’ des légendaires Clash. 

On sent fortement l’amitié et l’amour de la musique qui lient les trois artistes. Mais on rêverait aussi voir le résultat – et pourquoi pas un album ? - qui pourraient émerger d’une collaboration sonore plus poussée qui ferait évoluer le collectif si les trois musiciens créaient ensemble un nouveau son, encore plus syncrétique…

-

Couscous Clan :

Conception : Rodolphe Burger & Rachid Taha

Accompagnés par Hakim Hamadouche au luth, Kenzi Bourras aux claviers, Franck Mantegari à la batterie et Julien Perraudeau à la basse.

Le Palais de la Porte Dorée s'associe au mouvement Fraternité générale : www.fraternite-generale.fr

-

The rights of unaccompanied children in Calais

HELP REFUGEES GRANTED HIGH COURT PERMISSION TO CHALLENGE HOME SECRETARY OVER DUBS CHILDREN

Calais Jungle, February 2016

Leading refugee aid organisation Help Refugees was granted permission yesterday (Thursday 3 November 2016) by the High Court to judicially review Amber Rudd over the Dubs Amendment (s.67 Immigration Act 2016).  

The Dubs Amendment was passed in May 2016 in response to the global refugee crisis.

S67 Immigration Act 2016 requires the Secretary of State to “as soon as possible… make arrangements to relocate” unaccompanied refugee children from other European countries to the UK.

But until Help Refugees issued legal proceedings on 18 October not one child had been relocated to the UK under the Dubs Amendment.

Before October 2016, the children who the Home Secretary and her Ministers claimed to be bringing to the United Kingdom under the Dubs Amendment were in fact children to whom the Home Secretary already owed separate duties under European Union law (the Dublin III Regulation) for family reunion purposes rather than the provisions of the Dubs Amendment.

The Help Refugees legal challenge also alleges that the Home Secretary’s failure to implement her Dubs Amendment duties towards unaccompanied children in Calais – despite commitments in Parliament to prioritise those children – contributed to those Calais children being exposed to serious human rights violations.

Before the demolition of the Calais Jungle on 24 October 2016, the Secretary of State was repeatedly warned that unless proper registration and relocation processes were put in place to implement her Dubs Amendment and Dublin III duties, children who would otherwise be relocated under s.67 might go missing. 129 children remain unaccounted for after the previous partial demolition of the Jungle in March 2016.

Despite these warnings, the Home Office’s registration of children in the Jungle for the purposes of relocating them to the UK under s.67 Immigration 2016, only began on 21 October, three days before the eviction and demolition, and after Help Refugees had begun their legal challenge.  The first relocations to take place to the UK under s.67 Immigration Act 2016 started on 22 October, two days before demolition. 

At the time of the eviction on 24 October, many children, including very young children, remained unregistered and non-accommodated. Children slept by the roadside or re-entered the partially demolished Jungle Camp in which fires were burning.  Unaccompanied children are believed to have gone missing during and in the aftermath of the demolition of the Jungle Camp. 

Rosa Curling, from the human rights team at law firm Leigh Day, who represents Help Refugees, said:

“We welcome the fact that the High Court has recognised the importance and merit of our legal challenge. This challenge is vital for lone refugee children who urgently need protection and are potentially eligible for relocation. The UK government must fulfil its obligations without further delay.”

Josie Naughton, one of the Founders of Help Refugees, said: “We are pleased that Dubs Amendment relocations have at last begun, apparently prompted by our legal challenge.  But the Home Secretary’s actions come tragically late for some children at Calais and so much more is needed.”

Help Refugees are not alone in their criticism of the Home Secretary’s inaction in Calais. The Office of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child issued an unusually strongly worded statement on 2 November condemning the failures of the French and British Governments to protect refugee children in Calais:

“The events of the past week have shown clearly that political and other considerations prevailed over the initial promises by both Governments that the situation of unaccompanied children would be their priority. The best interests of the child have been completely disregarded.

“Disagreements between the French and UK Governments over who should take responsibility for the majority of these children have led to major violations of these children’s rights. Hundreds of children have been subjected to inhumane living conditions, left without adequate shelter, food, medical services and psychosocial support, and in some cases exposed to smugglers and traffickers.”

How to Help Dadaab Refugee Camp in Kenya

A message from Refugee International...

Threatened Closure of the Dadaab Refugee Camp in Kenya Has Already Caused Irreparable Harm to Somali Refugees, New Refugees International Report Concludes

Washington, DC – Somali refugees will face further and considerable insecurity if the Kenyan government proceeds with its plans to close the Dadaab refugee camp in late November, according to the new Refugees International report, Refugee Returns from Kenya to Somalia: “This is About Fear… Not About Choice.” 

But even if the Kenyan government’s threat is empty, thousands of refugees have repatriated to Somalia where large-scale returns are unlikely to be sustainable. Facing pressure from the Kenyan government to leave, and induced by a monetary return package from the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), returnees face dire conditions within Somalia, with food insecurity on the increase and continued fighting between a multitude of armed groups.

“The Somali refugees in Dadaab fled to Kenya to escape the violence, persecution, and turmoil at home. Forcing them back to Somalia now would return these people back to the very conditions from which they originally fled. UNHCR claims that it only supports voluntary returns, but none of the refugees whom we spoke with in Dadaab said they felt like they have much choice,” said Senior Advocate Mark Yarnell, author of the report.

Yarnell and Refugees International President Michel Gabaudan traveled to Kenya and Somalia in September 2016 to investigate the conditions for Somali refugees within Kenya and for those returning to Somalia. While in Somalia, Yarnell and Gabaudan traveled to Kismayo in the south, one of UNHCR’s designated areas for refugee returns, to gather first-hand information about the humanitarian and security conditions. Their findings inside Somalia add an important new dimension to the debate around the future of Dadaab and its inhabitants.

South central Somalia is experiencing a humanitarian crisis due to drought and conflict, and Kismayo itself is home to more than 40,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) who live in deplorable conditions. Access to work and education is very limited, and tragically, some recently returned refugees from Dadaab are now living in IDP camps inside Somalia and dependent on humanitarian aid for survival. Though Kismayo town is relatively safe, the presence of the armed group Al-Shabaab in the immediate surrounding area presents a threat to returnees, many of whom originally fled to Kenya because of this same insecurity.  

The Refugees International report offers a set of recommendations to support and protect the Somali refugees in Kenya and those returning to Somalia.  Those recommendations include:

• The Kenyan government must lift its deadline of November 30, 2016, for closing the Dadaab refugee camp. Further, it must cease coercive efforts to promote premature returns to Somalia and assure refugees that they will not be forcibly repatriated. 
• The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) must improve and expand the information provided to Somali refugees in the Dadaab camp, sharing reliable information about security conditions in Somali areas of return and support available to Somalis when they depart Kenya.
• Donor countries and organizations must increase humanitarian assistance for Somalia to close a $500 million gap in UN funding and address urgent needs, particularly relating to food insecurity.

“The harm of Kenya’s announced policy is that the only option provided to refugees in the wake of closing the camp is return to Somalia – where, for many, hunger and violence awaits,” Yarnell concludes. “It is a failure of the international refugee response system that other options are not available, such as local integration or large-scale resettlement. Until better alternatives and processes are put in place – and until durable peace and development in Somalia take hold – the Dadaab camp must remain an option for the Somali refugees who have nowhere else to go.” 

Read the full report.

###

Refugees International (RI) advocates for lifesaving assistance and protection for displaced people and promotes solutions to displacement crises. We are an independent organization, and do not accept any government or UN funding. For more information, visit www.refugeesinternational.org.

Giles Duley and Massive Attack tell us more about their collaboration for refugees

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) produced this video to explain more in depth Massive Attack's collaboration with their photographer, Giles Duley, on their show calling for more solidarity with refugees.

Watch here the interview with Giles and Robert Del Naja:

Massive Attack calls for solidarity with refugees

British group Massive Attack has included images of refugees, taken by photographer, Giles Duley, in their concerts. Together the artists are collaborating to encourage people to support refugees.

“These are people just like you, and me. By doing it against a white background and making it very clean it is taking them out of that context, so you can just see them as people," said photographer Giles Duley.

“People feel afraid to be sympathetic. It is if that by supporting a humanitarian cause and by being in solidarity with people that need you, that you are somehow endangering the security of your own nation - which is crazy," said Massive Attack frontman Rob del Naja. “We are in this together, all of us.”


--

More from Giles Duley:

Photographer Giles Duley and Massive Attack team up to stand #WithRefugees

In September 2016, photographer Giles Duley joined forces with the band Massive Attack to show their support for refugees.

By: Giles Duley   |  3 November 2016

Stories only have power when people listen. As a photographer, taking a photograph is only part of my work – I also have to make sure people see the images. And that has never felt more important to me than when covering the refugee crisis for UNHCR.

---

In recent years I’ve been collaborating with poets, writers and musicians, seeking opportunities to reach new audiences and tell stories in innovative ways. Massive Attack were one of the bands I’d been talking to, and working together to highlight the refugee crisis seemed like a perfect and timely collaboration.

“I was deeply moved by the pictures he was sending me,” recalls Massive Attack’s Robert Del Naja. “What’s really shocking is that you could be looking at photographs from any time in the last 100 years of a crisis involving refugee migration and war. And what’s terrifying is you think ‘Nothing’s changed,’ and that is what we have to engage with because this is not the past. This is now.”

In early September 2016, I made my way down to Bristol to see the final outcome of the collaboration. While the rain fell, I sat on the side of the stage waiting for the final track, ‘Unfinished Sympathy’. As it played, the portraits appeared behind the band – projected 30 feet high, dominating the stage, onto vast screens with the words “In This Together” written across them.

“Working together to highlight the refugee crisis seemed like a perfect and timely collaboration.”

A good portrait creates empathy, a certain understanding, a moment of intimacy with a stranger. But while for most they were nameless faces, for me each was a memory from Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon. Each portrait had a name and a story – Kraymeh, Ranim, Halima, Murad… I hoped I’d done them justice.

As Shavgar’s image came up, I took a photograph and sent it to his mother, Nesrin, in Domiz refugee camp, in northern Iraq. She immediately posted it on her Facebook page. “Thank you for remembering us,” read the caption.

That, for me, was the moment that made everything worthwhile.

That, for me, is what it means to say: “We are in this together. I stand with refugees.”

More about Giles Duley’s project ‘Legacy of War’

-

Link: http://www.unhcr.org/news/stories/2016/11/57e92bee4/photographer-giles-duley-massive-attack-team-withrefugees.html-

Brexit: The central role of the Parliament

Brexit legal challenge wins: Theresa May must get approval to trigger Article 50, High Court rules Ruling hailed as 'the chance to say no to an irresponsible hard Brexit that risks our economy and our jobs'.

Here is what the British press published this morning:


THE INDEPENDENT

Theresa May’s plans for triggering Brexit were plunged into chaos today by a sensational High Court judgment that she cannot bypass Parliament. 

Three judges ruled the Prime Minister does not have the right to use the Royal Prerogative to invoke the Article 50 notice to leave the EU without involving MPs and peers.

The extraordinary development throws into confusion whether Ms May can stick to her timetable to trigger Article 50 by the end of March – and leave the EU by spring 2019.

If it leads to the Government being forced to push a Bill through Parliament – with numerous chances for it to be amended - there is thought to be virtually no chance of that timetable being achieved.

The Government immediately confirmed it would challenge the ruling at the Supreme Court – probably on December 7 – with speculation the case could end up at the European Court of Justice.

The pound immediately surged on the news, as the markets judged it would make it more difficult – at the very least – for Ms May to pursue a so-called ‘hard Brexit.

And Ladbrokes slashed the odds on a snap general election next year to 2-1, amid a belief that the Prime Minister will turn to the voters if she runs into an impasse at Parliament.

Given the huge Conservative lead in the polls, that could hand Ms May a much bigger Commons majority than the slender 12 which she inherited from David Cameron - and greater freedom to deliver Brexit.

In a devastating judgment for the Government, the Lord Chief Justice said its arguments had been contrary to “fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of Parliament”.

The ruling said: “The court does not accept the argument put forward by the government. There is nothing in the text of the 1972 Act [to join the EU] to support it."

Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, hailed the decision as “the chance to say no to an irresponsible hard Brexit that risks our economy and our jobs”.

He said: “It is critical that the government now lay out their negotiating to Parliament, before such a vote is held. So far, May’s team have been all over the place.”

But a furious Nigel Farage said: “I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand. Our political class, who were out in force, do not accept the 23rd of June Referendum result. 

“I now fear that every attempt will be made to block or delay the triggering of Article 50. If this is so, they have no idea of the level of public anger they will provoke.”

And prominent Conservative Leaver Dominic Raab said: “This case is a plain attempt to block Brexit by people who are out of touch with the country and refuse to respect the result.”

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the party “respects the decision of the British people to leave the European Union”.

But he added: “This ruling underlines the need for the Government to bring its negotiating terms to parliament without delay.”

A delighted Nicky Morgan, a Conservative MP who has demanded that MPs vote on Article 50, said: “Democracy has been asserted.”

But she added: “We are very well aware of how people voted – 17 million to leave the European Union in June – and I expect that Parliament will trigger the approval of the Article 50 notice.”

It is thought unlikely that MPs will seek to block Brexit, because – although a majority were pro-Remain – most, especially nervous Labour MPs, now accept the verdict of voters in June.

However, MPs - and peers in the House of Lords – could be handed the opportunity to challenge, or even delay, the process, if they are not satisfied with the Government’s strategy.

The ruling is a huge blow to Ms May, who tore into MPs wanting to influence Brexit at the Conservative conference, claiming they “are not standing up for democracy, they’re trying to subvert it”.

She said: “They’re not trying to get Brexit right, they’re trying to kill it by delaying it. They are insulting the intelligence of the British people.”

The challenge was brought by Gina Miller, a London businesswoman, arguing the inevitable consequence of invoking Article 50 was the loss of statutory rights enjoyed by UK and EU citizens.

They included the right to refer a legal case to the European Court of Justice, of freedom of movement and to sell services – rights which should only be taken away by Parliament.

The Attorney General argued, unsuccessfully, that the court challenge was an attempt to “invalidate” the public’s decision, in the June referendum, to leave the EU.

In a brief statement, a Government spokesman said: “The Government is disappointed by the Court’s judgment.

“The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by Act of Parliament. And the Government is determined to respect the result of the referendum. We will appeal this judgment.”

Ms Miller herself said: “This result today is about all of us - our United Kingdom and our futures.

“It is not about how any of us voted – each of us voted to do what we believed was the right thing for our country. This case is about process, not politics.

“However you voted on June 23, we all owe it to our country to uphold the highest standards of transparency and democratic accountability that we are admired and respected for around the world.”

--

THE BBC

Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU, the High Court has ruled.

This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal exit negotiations with the EU - on its own.

Theresa May says the referendum - and existing ministerial powers - mean MPs do not need to vote, but campaigners called this unconstitutional.

The government is appealing, with a further hearing expected next month.

A statement is to be made to MPs on Monday but the prime minister's official spokesman said the government had "no intention of letting" the judgement "derail Article 50 or the timetable we have set out. We are determined to continue with our plan".

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn urged the government "to bring its negotiating terms to Parliament without delay", adding that "there must be transparency and accountability to Parliament on the terms of Brexit".

And UKIP leader Nigel Farage said he feared a "betrayal" of the 51.9% of voters who backed leaving the EU in June's referendum and voiced concern at the prospect of a "half Brexit".

BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said, if the court's decision was not overturned, there could be delays with potentially "months and months" of parliamentary hurdles.

But there was not yet "clarity" - if the judgement was not overturned - on whether there would be a "short, sharp" vote or whether Parliament would have to consider complex legislation, he added.

He predicted that, although a majority of MPs had backed the Remain campaign, most would ultimately be likely to vote for Article 50, as Brexit had been supported in the referendum.

The prime minister has said she will activate Article 50, formally notifying the EU of the UK's intention to leave, by the end of next March.

The other 27 member states have said negotiations about the terms of the UK's exit - due to last two years - cannot begin until Article 50 has been invoked.

Investment manager Gina Miller, who brought the case, said outside the High Court that the government should make the "wise decision of not appealing".

She said: "The result today is about all of us. It's not about me or my team. It's about our United Kingdom and all our futures."

But a government spokesman announced it would contest the ruling, in the Supreme Court.

He said: "The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by Act of Parliament. And the government is determined to respect the result of the referendum. We will appeal this judgement."

Government lawyers had argued that prerogative powers were a legitimate way to give effect "to the will of the people".

But the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, declared: "The government does not have power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union."

The three judges looking at the case found there was no constitutional convention of the royal prerogative - powers used by ministers - being used in legislation relating to the EU.

They added that triggering Article 50 would fundamentally change UK people's rights - and that the government cannot change or do away with rights under UK law unless Parliament gives it authority to do so.

Calling the case "a pure question of law", Lord Thomas said: "The court is not concerned with and does not express any view about the merits of leaving the European Union: that is a political issue."

Reacting to the ruling, International Trade Secretary Liam Fox told the House of Commons the government was "disappointed" but remained "determined to respect the result of the referendum".

'Give people a chance to say no'

He added: "There will be numerous opportunities for the House to examine and discuss what the government is negotiating.

"When we are clear about the position we will adopt, then Article 50 will be triggered but, given the nature of the judgement this morning, we will now have to await the government's appeal to the Supreme Court."

Mr Farage said: "We are heading for a half Brexit."

He added: "I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand... I now fear that every attempt will be made to block or delay the triggering of Article 50. If this is so, they have no idea of the level of public anger they will provoke."

Mr Corbyn said: "This ruling underlines the need for the government to bring its negotiating terms to Parliament without delay. Labour respects the decision of the British people to leave the European Union. But there must be transparency and accountability to parliament on the terms of Brexit."

But Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron, a supporter of remaining in the EU, said: "Ultimately, the British people voted for a departure but not for a destination, which is why what really matters is allowing them to vote again on the final deal, giving them the chance to say no to an irresponsible hard Brexit that risks our economy and our jobs."

--

Analysis - BBC political correspondent Eleanor Garnier

It is one of the most important constitutional court cases in generations. And the result creates a nightmare scenario for the government.

Theresa May had said she wanted to start Brexit talks before the end of March next year but this ruling has thrown the prime minister's timetable up in the air.

Campaigners who brought the case insist it was about "process not politics", but behind the doors of No 10 there will now be serious head-scratching about what the government's next steps should be.

This decision has huge implications, not just on the timing of Brexit but on the terms of Brexit. That's because it's given the initiative to those on the Remain side in the House of Commons who, it's now likely, will argue Article 50 can only be triggered when Parliament is ready and that could mean when they're happy with the terms of any future deal.

Of course, it will be immensely difficult to satisfy and get agreement from all those MPs who voted to remain. Could an early general election be on the cards after all?

3D's Artwork

To come with my book release...

...here are a few of the wonderful artwork / early graffiti created by Massive Attack's 3D's in Bristol, around 1984-87:

He was among the first to impose the use of stencils for instance:

And one of the first graffiti artists to be exposed in an art gallery, in Bristol's Arnolfini Gallery, in July 1985, as shown on the cover of the cool local magazine, Venue:

--


 More of this type of photos can be found in his wonderful art book, 3D and The Art of Massive Attack: https://www.vfeditions.com/product/view/147

A smaller, paperback, version of the book is also available on the band's website:
https://store.massiveattack.com/collections/3d/products/3d-and-the-art-of-massive-attack-book