Posted on April 13, 2017 by Robert Henderson
The No 10 petitions unit rejects a petition to get the UK out of the EU using the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
On 2nd April 2017 I submitted a petition to the No 10 website which hosts petitions created by any British citizen. My petition, including the further explanatory details which are allowed on the No 10 site, was this:
The EU can spend two years giving the UK the run around whilst pocketing two years of further UK contributions and obliging the UK to honour all EU laws and regulations including freedom of movement. At the end of the two years the UK is unlikely to have an agreement which will effect Brexit .
More details:
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties gives the UK ample grounds for repudiating all EU Treaty obligations on the grounds of bad faith by the other treaty members and the failure to apply the rules of the EU, for example, the repeated failure to produce accounts which satisfy the auditors, the multiple breaches of Eurozone rules and the failure to enforce government aid rules against the likes of Germany, France and Italy – see https://englandcalling. wordpress.com/
When I submitted the petition the No 10 website software brought up a message stating there was no similar petition already on the site.
The second hurdle a petition has to clear is to get five sponsors for the petition. This I rapidly achieved, with a total of 19 sponsors.
When I sent the petition I received an acknowledgement saying that a decision to allow or disallow a petition “ usually takes a week or less.”
It took 11 days to reject mine.
The rejection
My petition was eventually rejected on the single ground that a similar petition was already on the No 10 website.
This is the Petition:
End negotiations with the EU forthwith.
The PM has no mandate to negotiate with the EU. We voted for a hard Brexit and demand it. Time to tell the EU “no deal, end of negotiations, goodbye.”
The reason given for the rejection is literally absurd, for the two petitions do different things. My petition gives a legal way to leave rapidly, the other petition offers no legal route out of the EU. In fact it urges the Government to act illegally by breaching a treaty.
The difference between my petition and the other one is so striking that it is not unreasonable to suspect that the refusal of my petition is for political reasons rather than the reason the No 10 Petitions Unit has given.
What might that reason be? Well, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties allows the UK to get out of the EU a good deal faster and with a much cleaner exit. The delay in rejecting the petition is also suspicious as it suggests there was an extended debate about it taking place.
The other suspicious thing is the fact that the petition which is supposedly similar to mine has only just be posted to the No 10 site. Each accepted petition expires after six months on the site. The expiry date for this one is 11 October 2017. Hence, it must have been put up after I sent in my petition on 2nd April. The odds are that this petition is one concocted by those opposed to Brexit after my petition was submitted to provide an excuse for rejecting mine. It is worth remembering that public servants are generally remainers.
Whatever the reason is for refusing my petition, it indubitably qualifies to go up on the N 10 website.
Let us hope the civil servants responsible for the petitions see sense and change their mind.
——————————————————————————————————————————
I am waiting for a reply from the No 10 unit to this email
13 April 2017
Dear Sirs,
The reason for your rejection is literally absurd. My petition gives a legal way to leave rapidly the petition you cite offers no legal route out of the EU. In fact it urges the Government to act illegally by breaching a treaty. I would also point out that when I registered the petition with you your own software created a message saying there was no similar petition already in existence on the site.
In the light of these facts I ask you to reconsider your rejection of my petition.
I also ask you to give me the name of the person heading your unit and a phone number on which I can contact him or her.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
