The holidays, or perhaps it was a glass of mulled wine, have prompted some thoughts on Brexit and the #a50challenge. While this case rightly questions the validity of the govt's notice pursuant to A50 notice in view of the absence of a decision by Parliament, I think there
1/n

may be a closely related but separate and wider issue. That is, irrespective of the lawfulness of the notice, as a matter purely of English constitutional law, would the govt be acting lawfully in entering into an agreement with the EU on the terms of the UK leaving, without 2/n

Parliament having made a decision. Bearing in mind that the matters addressed in phase 1 of negotiations are about to be codified into a binding agreement of some sort, now is the time to consider this question. If, as the SC held in Miller, we cannot be deprived 3/n

rights and freedoms except by Parliament, can the govt. lawfully continue down the negotiating path irrespective of the validity of its notice?

On the matter of removal of our rights and freedoms by leaving the EU, I offer the following comments. It has become commonplace
4/n

to encounter unthinking Leavers who dismiss Remainers complaints with "..if you don't like it, move to Brussels". The irony, of course, is that Remainers will be prevented from doing just that precisely because of Brexit. Again, this raises a wider issue, which arises from
5/n

the fact that while leaving the EU necessarily entails a loss of individual rights, joining the EU (or remaining) entails no loss of rights. Neither a referendum to join the EU, nor the one we had last year, is balanced in this respect. Of the two possible outcomes of the
6/n

2016 referendum, only one entails anyone losing rights and freedoms, and that was the outcome we got. Those who voted to Leave (if they get their Brexit) have taken rights from those of us who voted Remain. Moreover, as stated above, Parliament has not consented to this.
7/n

Had Remain won, those who voted Leave would have lost no rights. Had the referendum been about joining, rather than leaving, then whatever the outcome no-one could have lost any rights, and had the majority voted to join then everyone would have gained rights (whether or not
8/n

they wanted them.

Given the circumstances, as the injustice of half the voters being able to deprive the remaining half of existing rights that they want to preserve, it seems to me that elementary natural justice requires that Remainers be given the option
9/n

to renounce their UK citizenship after Brexit in favour of citizenship of another EU member state, or at the very least in favour of member-stateless EU citizenship (I note that renunciation of UK citizenship is only possible if the applicant has, or is about to obtain,
10/n

another citizenship).

11/n

Apologies both for the length and the typos above, but I very rarely drink. One cup of mulled wine and I'm almost anybody's illiterate.