Brexit Political Discussion Thread

[Cyneheard]

I was thinking about the fake prorogation, but where has the letter bit been ruled on?

Sorry, misattributed the quote from Lord Pannick (who got prorogation ruled fake) - so it hasn't been ruled on, but it's hard to believe he'll get smacked down for this one based on those kinds of comments. The courts are going to default to giving the PM the benefit of the doubt - it's clearly disrespectful but the fact that the EU's taking the request on its face as valid means BJ is probably fine.

[Krill]

I'm not certain because the legislation states the PM must not frustrate the request for the extension, which he has done, that is the whole purpose of the second letter.

There just isn't anything that can be done to stop him short of a VONC.

[Krill]

...and the court just delayed ruling, so it's not clear cut.

[ipecac]

I was thinking about the fake prorogation

The annulled prorogation wasn't criminal.

[ipecac]

I'm not certain because the legislation states the PM must not frustrate the request for the extension, which he has done, that is the whole purpose of the second letter.

I understand that the Act compels him to convey Parliament's request for extension, not seek an extension himself. As long as the request is efficaciously conveyed, that part is fulfilled.

This is more than a semantic difference: if Boris were to have a private conversation with Macron today, Boris would not be compelled by the Act to ask for an extension. Rather, he is free to argue against an extension. The latter action is essentially the same as the second letter sent.

[Krill]

(4)The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks.

Mmmmh, I'll edit in the post in a few minutes, but it is not clear cut.

This is more than a semantic difference: if Boris were to have a private conversation with Macron today, Boris would not be compelled by the Act to ask for an extension. Rather, he is free to argue against an extension. The latter action is essentially the same as the second letter sent.

I want to stress that I am not saying that what Boris has done with the second letter is unlawful, however there is still a court case that is expected to rule on that. The bolded bit is contravened by Boris' second letter, which is why I can see how a court would rule that sending the second letter was unlawful, but personally, I am not 100% convinced of it.

[ipecac]

(4)The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks.

Mmmmh, I'll edit in the post in a few minutes, but it is not clear cut.

Parsing that awful runon sentence, it seems to be a minor peccadillo not to include that last provision. No one seems to be complaining that Boris copied the form of the letter and did not include that last provision, rather that his other letter 'frustrates' the aim of the bill.

[Krill]

? That is what I'm saying, his second letter is, by it's own existence, potentially an unlawful act as it frustrates that part of that section of the act.

I'd agree that his refusal to sign the first letter is childish, but not as much as simply sending a photocopy and refusing to have it put on headed letter paper. But in no way should it be construed as unlawful IMO, as the third letter from the permanent commissioner confirmed it was from Boris. But the second letter? A court could find that to have been unlawful. Nothing they can do about it though.

[darrelljs]

If the deal and associated domestic legislation pass in Parliament, is it a done deal the EU will accept it? If not passed, will there be an extension granted?

Darrell

[AdrienIer]

The EU has accepted that deal. If it passes, the various EU councils that need to pass the deal will vote in favor of it.
If the deal does not pass, the UK will leave the EU next thursday without a deal.