ANDALUCÍA'S regional presidential candidate has struck a deal with far-right outfit Vox to enable him to govern in coalition with centre-right Ciudadanos, signalling a complete about-turn in strategy for the...
Bremain in Spain and other 'Brexpats' lament High Court setback
BRITISH expats living in Spain, Italy and France are deciding their next step after the UK High Court rejected their appeal against Brexit based upon 'lies and corruption' on the part of Leave campaigners.
Sue Wilson, co-founder of Bremain in Spain, along with Ellie Grayson and John Shaw, from France and Carole-Anne Richards from Italy are seeking for the result of the referendum on June 23, 2016 to be annulled due to illegal practices including overspending and misuse of statistics, for which the official Leave campaign has already been pulled up on.
The Office of National Statistics reportedly warned former foreign minister Boris Johnson over the 'Leave bus' claim strongly hinting that the £350 million per week the UK sends to the European Union would be used to fund the National Health Service (NHS), a statement which failed to mention that this is the gross figure, not taking into account rebates and grants.
Also, the Electoral Commission fined Vote Leave £61,000 and Leave.EU £70,000 (currently €67,239 and €77,162 respectively, based upon today's rate of €1.10 to the £1 as quoted on Xe.com) for deliberately going beyond their spending limit.
Vote Leave broke its budget two days before the referendum, but continued to spend, which the Electoral Commission ruled illegal.
Additionally, the UK's National Crime Agency (NCA) is investigating Leave.EU's Arron Banks for 'multiple criminal offences'.
Sue, Ellie, John and Carole-Anne consider the referendum result was neither free nor fair due to the unlawful advantage provided by the Leave campaign's extra funds.
They cited British prime minister Theresa May's 'failure to act' on 'growing evidence' of illegality on the part of the Leave side after the results of the Electoral Commission's investigation came to light.
The 'UK in Europe Challenge', as the case is known, aimed to show that illegally-funded advertising 'reached tens of millions' of eligible voters, which could easily have swayed the referendum results.
Recently, an Oxford University professor stated that it was 'evident' that the additional cash had swung the referendum towards a Leave outcome.
British residents in the European Union have long challenged Mrs May's claims that the Leave result was 'the will of the people', largely because an estimated three to five million of those who will be directly affected by Brexit were unable to vote – including all EU nationals living in the UK, irrespective of length of residence, and all UK nationals who had lived outside of Britain for 15 years or more or, effectively, who left the country in or before June 2001.
Bremain in Spain and its sister groups in France and Italy also cite misleading information by the Leave campaign and overspending, influencing voters, and the fact that demographics and greater knowledge two-and-a-half years on from the vote now mean 'Remainers' are in the majority.
But the High Court's Mr Justice Ouseley found 'no evidence' that illegal overspending had affected the referendum result.
He rejected permission for a full hearing on the grounds that the case had taken too long to come forward and that it 'lacked merit'.
The 'delay' arose because of the recency of the Electoral Commission's findings, and because the plaintiffs had to crowdfund the case.
As far as the Europe-based anti-Brexit campaigners are concerned, the battle is not over yet, but they have decided to regroup and work out the next step.
Meanwhile, Mrs May announced this afternoon that she intended to postpone the Parliamentary vote on her Brexit deal – which has been approved by the EU-27 – in light of lack of support from MPs.
It is thought she will return to the EU to discuss the matter, but the European Commission has said today that it 'will not renegotiate'.
This latest twist in the Brexit saga comes just days after Theresa May's Conservative government was found in contempt of Parliament – for the first time in living history – for having withheld information about legal advice sought concerning the withdrawal of Brexit.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has now stated twice that Britain is able to unilaterally revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU without needing the consent or consensus of the other 27 member States.
Note: www.thinkspain.com employs the terms 'migrant', 'immigrant' and 'would-be immigrant' when describing non-EU citizens entering or living in an EU country, either via authorised means or without border clearance. These descriptions cover legal residents as well as persons who may intend to seek asylum but have not yet commenced the process, in addition to those who may be fleeing persecution, armed conflict, severe political unrest, natural disasters or the real risk of torture or death and who are likely to be awarded refugee status, as well as those seeking relief from poverty by attempting to travel to a first-world nation from a developing country and who are not likely to be considered in sufficient immediate danger to qualify for asylum.
This vocabulary is in line with the terminology employed by the BBC and other UK-based British and English-language media.
For EU and EEA citizens, including British nationals, living in a non-native member State, the English-language media in Europe employs the term 'expatriates' or its abbreviation, 'expats'. Whilst this terminology is not, strictly, accurate – since 'expatriates' are traditionally defined as persons on secondment abroad or whose stay is intended to be temporary – its use in English-language media in Spain originated in the early 1970s and is designed to differentiate between migrants from the European Union, who are not considered by their host nations as 'immigrants' but as 'residents', and those from third countries.
'Residents' is the term employed by www.thinkspain.com to describe persons living in a specific area, irrespective of nationality, and includes native or naturalised citizens, although in Spain, it is the name used to describe non-Spanish EU citizens residing permanently in the country.
The term 'Brexpat' may be used to describe Britons living in the EU who may be affected by their native country's decision to withdraw from the Union, popularly termed 'Brexit'. The qualification of 'Brexpat' began to be employed in the Europe-based English-language media from the date of the referendum on June 23, 2016, and does not imply membership of, nor is it linked to, any official organisation, campaign or association employing the term 'Brexpat' in its title.
More Politics & People content
KING Felipe called for 'resentment and grudges' to be kept out of society, expressed his 'revulsion and condemnation' of violence against women and empathised with young adults and the 'problems'...
CENTRE-RIGHT Ciudadanos and the right-wing PP expect to reach a deal to govern Andalucía before Christmas Eve is out, but will not include any members of the far-right party Vox in their coalition. PP secretary-general...
AN ELEVENTH-HOUR meeting between Pedro Sánchez and Catalunya's president Quim Torra ahead of the separatist protests in Barcelona ended with mutual satisfaction and a pledge to continue with two-way open dialogue....