Yesterday the government rightly said it would respect the law. It also hinted at a major problem with the European Withdrawal Number 2 Act recently passed by both Houses. It is by no means clear how the government could comply with it, especially given the Kinnock amendment incorporated into it. The rule of law is an important concept. It usually includes the propositions that law has to be clear, reasonable and enforceable. Statute law carries the authority of being passed by Parliament but still needs to meet these tests for the court to enforce it. Quite often the courts and Parliament have exchanges about what the law means and how it should be applied.
This European Withdrawal Act of Parliament says the government “must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension” to UK membership for three months, if no agreement has been reached which Parliament approves . It goes on to give a reason – “to debate and pass a Bill to implement the Agreement between the UK and the EU (The Mrs May Withdrawal Treaty)…including provisions reflecting the outcome of the interparty talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the UK to secure changes to the Political Declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter party talks”.
So the government is asked to pass a major piece of constitutional legislation which the Parliament has three times rejected, with no promises or guarantees from the official Opposition they will change their mind and now vote for it in a Parliament where the government has no majority and has numerous government supporting MPs who do not  agree with the Agreement. In addition it is asked to negotiate a new Political Declaration to include unspecified outcomes from talks which both sides said ended without agreement . Who will share with us what were the outcomes of the talks that now have to be negotiated into the Political declaration and what if he EU will not consent to those changes?
The draft letter laid down in the Act for the PM to send requesting an extension does not offer any reasons to the EU why an extension should be granted because it was drafted on the assumption the Kinnock amendment would not pass. The EU has previously said it would grant more time to secure the passage of the draft Withdrawal Treaty agreed with Mrs May, but later concluded the UK Parliament was not going to pass it given the long and acrimonious debates and the three votes against. The EU has also said it might grant an extension for an election or second referendum, but Parliament has expressly voted against an early election to resolve matters, and has not supported a second referendum on the various occasions it has considered this idea. There cannot now be an election prior to the exit date currently enshrined in UK and EU law.
How could anyone  enforce a law of this kind on an unwilling government when Parliament is asking the government to do something which cannot be done or is based on a false assumption? The evidence is Parliament does not want to vote for the Withdrawal Treaty unamended, and there is no agreed set of changes to the Political declaration emerging from the inter party talks to take up with the EU. This law is a mess. It does not mention a so called “No Deal” Brexit, and does not take it off the table. It seeks to exit the EU based on the current Withdrawal Treaty which has thrice been rejected by the very same Parliament passing this Act. Government lawyers need to analyse this Act carefully.
September 11, 2019
Sir J0hn,
The whole situation just does not ‘smell right’. Britain’s future must not be decided by something which would never pass the pub test. Suggests the ‘ignorant plebs’ have more common sense than the ‘intellectuals’ representing them.
September 11, 2019
This legislation is a first, faltering, unnecessary step in an attempt by this Parliament to find something it agrees on. I would suggest that if this Parliament succeeds in agreeing on something other than ‘let the people decide’, with the people having a choice between no deal or remain, the only two coherent options, then there will be a reckoning. The question is, will BJ side with the people or Parliament? He must choose between no deal or remain himself. Any kind of fudge or third way won’t cut it.
September 11, 2019
Remain should not be on the ballot paper. The electorate has already rejected it.
September 13, 2019
It is all part of the plan to thwart Brexit while claiming to respect the referendum result.
Box in a minority government. Deny them a General Election. Hopefully damage them at the same time as destroying Brexit.
At the same time push the idea of another referendum with a choice between Remain and Brexit in Name Only.
All aided and abetted by Continuity Remain in the Houses of Parliament and the judiciary and media and presided over by a blatantly biased Remain Speaker.
September 11, 2019
Very little English law, especially property law would probably pass the “pub test”.
I agree with John to a degree that this is an unusual position, but it is not unduly complex, it seems to me.
I have not read the Act, but my understanding is that it specifies the wording of a letter which should be sent to the European Union under the relevant conditions.
If so then that would appear to be pretty clear and simple.
If the UK had a fully codified constitution, then John could make a claim in the courts that this law breached it in some way, but the UK doesn’t have one.
Perhaps you should be campaigning for just that, John?
September 11, 2019
A fully codified constitution would land us with more well intentioned idiocies like the FTPA.
September 11, 2019
@Pominoz
Being intellectual doesn’t appear to be a prerequisite to becoming an MP.
I’ll name no names.
September 11, 2019
It is the “ignorant plebs” that have to live with the results that the “intellectuals” come up with. Mass immigration is shoved onto the working class areas, not the high class expensive areas. It is the worst off that have to pay for them, not the live abroad, tax avoiding rich.
September 11, 2019
Basically its simple; you cannot force No Deal on the country by default. There is no mandate no Parliamentary support and the clear majority in the country do not want it.
This verdant farce has grown for the original seed, the great lie which was that we could leave the EU and retain the economic advantages of staying in it.
We all know the problem, but how to fix it ? I think it should go back to the people.
Remain v No Deal – Those are the real life options
September 11, 2019
Stop the lies. Parliament knew, when it voted for A50, that we would leave, with or without a deal. They also knew that the legal default was ‘no deal’ when they voted for the EU Withdrawal Act.
There is an extremely good video on Raheem Kassans facebook page, showing many high profile Remainers ‘warning’ that we would leave on WTO terms if necessary, and that no deal is better than a bad deal.
September 11, 2019
So you want Brexit to happen on the terms claimed by the Remain campaign, which lost the referendum!! You are joking, I presume
September 11, 2019
Clearly the majority in Parliament do not feel that by voting through A 50 they were assenting to no deal
September 11, 2019
Newmania
Then they should have read A50 before they voted for it
September 12, 2019
As described in detail here:
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2019/07/22/chiming-our-independence/#comment-1039139
the Second Reading vote on February 1st 2017 was preceded by a vote on an SNP amendment which would have stopped the Second Reading on any one of five grounds, the last being:
â⊠as withdrawal from the European Union follows two years after the invoking of Article 50 if agreement is not reached in the forthcoming negotiations, unless they are prolonged by unanimity.â
So even if some MPs had forgotten that aspect of Article 50 before the SNP highlighted it they were given a timely reminder.
September 11, 2019
No sir, you frame the question falsely in the hope of seizing an advantage. By your own argument the real choice is between Ever Closer Union and Independence.
September 11, 2019
But we have Hard Remain instead. Because no way can we get Remain – as was – back. It must be made clear that a new Remain will be a mandate to drop all opt outs and take us fully into the EU.
I disagree that a referendum is the solution because the same result as 2016 will give us the same problem as we have now – a Parliament out of kilter with the voters. A general election please.
September 11, 2019
We know full well what leader and what manifesto would utterly destroy Labour in a general election. Clue. It’s not yours, Newmania.
September 11, 2019
We’ve had a general election since the referendum. The voters have had a say about Brexit already! You people keep moaning about a remainer parliament…but that was the one voted in in 2017!
September 12, 2019
Not if you believed the manifestos of the Labour and Conservatives and believed the PM who said on over 100 occasions that no deal was better than a bad deal.
My MP, who represents a leave voting constituency, said just that, but once elected tried every way possible to stop us leaving.
Imagine Simon your MP had done that to you.
September 12, 2019
Most candidates said they would support Brexit !
September 11, 2019
Repeating the Remainers mantra in your post does not make it true it just reinforces your own misconceptions. It will then be harded for you to accept the truth when the UK leaves the EU on 31st October followed by a General Election which Boris will win. Give up my Friend you are only hurting yourself the country has moved on and the antics of the last week have moved it on further. The country is doing well the EU is failing, we are heading for the open seas of Independence, may God bless all who sail with us. .
September 11, 2019
The “great lie” is that Brexit, especially a no deal Brexit, would be a disaster.
September 11, 2019
Newmania, for the sake of brevity, let’s accept your hypothesis that there was a Great Economic Lie, and that no Leaver had considered for many years the concept of ever-greater political and legal union, as manifested in the Maastricht and Lisbon Treaties.
And let’s accept your proposal for a 2nd Referendum:
if the outcome were ‘No Deal’, what percentage of the electorate do you suppose would trust the current HoC to respect the result?
September 11, 2019
No problem sm. There is no way in hell that the forces of anti-democracy would permit “no deal” to be on the ballot. That’s how the EU second referendum shuffle works.
September 11, 2019
It has to be “a credible Leave option”. That is to say, BRINO.
September 11, 2019
The country isn’t being forced, Parliament agreed that we should leave on a particular date absent any withdrawal agreement and deal, that is the law that applies.
The EU rule is quite simple, there can be no deal until we have actually left the EU and they have decided outside Article 50 that a deal can only be negotiated if we have signed the Withdrawal Agreement and paid them money.
BTW The remainiac parliament does not want to test the true desire of the country.
September 11, 2019
The default position which a majority of MPs signed up to when they agreed to trigger article 50 is NO DEAL.
September 11, 2019
An election would have sorted that , however when asked twice , the opposition and others said no. Clearly the Conservatives want to leave the others ,well who knows this morning .
September 11, 2019
The 2016 referendum result was clearly and loudly based on the remain promoting propaganda pamphlet from Cameron, sent to every household, that spelt out in no uncertain terms that we were voting to leave the single market and the customs union. There can be no reasonable doubt that that meant “no deal” was the backstop if the eu was not prepared to agree an alternative trading arrangement differing from WTO rules, which the world generally traded by competitively already. What can seriously be different from the basis of the 2016 referendum result and your idea. You and the remain establishment are treating us like plebs and idiots … the public is not a bunch of idiots as I am confident you will find out when the opposition to democracy finally finds it cannot avoid a general election.
September 11, 2019
Newmaniac
Totally wrong Parliament VOTED on it, passed it by a large margin and now leaving with no deal is actually the law
Just so you know THERE ARE NO ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES to staying in the EU
You still haven’t got back to me on your rampant assertions that all the city jobs were moving to Frankfurt, Paris and Brussels. They are leaving it a bit late, oh and Goldman Sachs just opened their new ÂŁ1 billion European HQ …. in London
September 12, 2019
” oh and Goldman Sachs just opened their new ÂŁ1 billion European HQ âŠ. in London”
With SIR Olly on board !!! Thought he was supposed to go to Brussels.
September 11, 2019
A clear majority in the country don’t want to remain in the EU, so why have you got Remain as an option in your new referendum question ?
September 11, 2019
“The clear majority in the country do not want it.”
Not from my conversations and observations.
September 11, 2019
‘No Deal’ is the Law and Parliament did not seek to amend that Law.
September 11, 2019
Parliament has legislated for no deal and that law is on the Statute Book.
September 11, 2019
We already voted Remain vs leave. We had two years to agree a ‘deal’. This did not happen. According to Article 50 if there is no agreement we leave with ‘no deal’. That’s the default and we should leave on those terms.
September 11, 2019
Dr Evil You are doctor good.
September 11, 2019
Quite right, and if Newmania needs his memory refreshing he should take a look at the interviews with David Cameron during the Referendum campaign, and also his Chatham House speech on 10 Nov 2015.
“It will be your decision whether we remain in the EU, or whether we leave. It will be the final decision. You, the British people, will decide. NOT politicians, NOT parliament… just you! And it will be the final decision. The EU referendum will be a once in a generation choice. An IN or OUT referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected â not ignored. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum. Think very carefully, because this Choice cannot be undone. If you think we should leave â and leave means leave â then campaign for that and vote for it… ”
Furthermore this interview with Hillary Benn during the campaign could not be clearer:
“Hillary Benn 2016 videoclip. If you vote to Leave you vote to get out.”
https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1171008156870352896
September 11, 2019
Unfortunately, Robin Tillbrook took the extension of Article 50 to court and was summarily dismissed.
Strange that flimsy Remain appeals are allowed to go through the system….and that Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament is challenged and he has even been forced to disclose documents wheras Blair went unchallenged in 1999.
September 11, 2019
Tillbrook’s case was an attempt to empower the government at the expense of Parliament. It failed. Miller and Cherry were exposing attempts by the government to neuter Parliament. Their cases succeeded. Is this a wicked conspiracy? Or is it protection of our sovereign Parliament? Think it through
September 11, 2019
Think of this…
Tillbrook is appealing but no urgency has been given to him yet the deadline he is appealing was 29 March, 20119.
Remainers are given urgent consideration despite the fact that their deadlines haven’t yet been reached.
As for “sovereign Parliament”; they need to remember that their sovereignity exists through democracy and that is the very thing that they are playing fast and loose with.
September 11, 2019
Well. Clearly there is a big difference between a sovereign Parliament and a sovereign nation.
September 11, 2019
It is the people who are sovereign, not the bunch of shysters in Parliament who want to renege on previous votes to leave the EU.
September 12, 2019
No – it was an attempt to point out that the executive had failed to follow the law by not getting an Act of Parliament to delay Brexit. It was shabbily treated by the judges with no leave to appeal and dirty work at the cross roads in an attempt to cause the case to fail on procedural grounds…. words left out ed e. The case is now on its way to the European Court of Human Rignts. If the supreme court rules against the government on prorogation after the way refusing to hear the Tillbrook case Leavers will have good cause to complain of judicial bias and they will do so noisily and perhaps, …….
September 11, 2019
On the radio today they said it was not only Parliament against the people but now the judicial against the people. The rot has certainly gone deep.
September 11, 2019
Rubbish, every single Leave campaigner told us in 2016 we would get a great deal because the EU canât manage without us. So bring us that great deal and then Parliament will sign off on leaving. Until then, nope. Donât blame Parliament, go ask the Leavers where that great deal they promised us is. If they canât deliver it then we know Brexit was based on a false prospectus. And that means it is not valid
Reply Just not true. I repeatedly said No deal would work fine if no good deal was on offer.Remain constantly said we would be out of the single market and customs union and forecast a bad deal in many cases.
September 11, 2019
Nobody mentioned the customs union. And thatâs your issue – nobody knew what it was, including all the leading Leavers.
September 11, 2019
Rubbish Andy.
Read the Leaflet.
Go back and listen to many speeches by Cameron and others talking about what leaving the EU meant.
September 11, 2019
Ken Clarke certainly didn’t either!
September 11, 2019
This assertion is completely untrue. It was discussed extensively. The Leave campaign argued that One of the main advantages of Brexit was an independent trade policy, including setting our own tariff schedules.
September 11, 2019
Cameron’s promise to the House.
âThe very next day after 23rd June I will sign Article 50 , taking us OUT of the EU and OUT of the Single Marketâ.
September 11, 2019
Quite right. There was no proviso within the Referendum for any so-called ‘deal’ within that simple vote.
We voted leave.
It ought to be known by those militant Remainers, and their associate ‘mobs’ that The Leavers ALSO have teeth – but of course, will only use them if they feel they are being fully betrayed by the cowards and their vocal ‘mobs’. Beware, in other words, the silent MAJORITY!
September 11, 2019
Newmania
There is a mandate for it, it was in the Conservative Manifesto “no deal is better than a bad deal” remember.
There is no Parliamentary support because our MPs lied to us to get elected.
Remain LOST
How do you know “the clear majority in the Country do not want it”? Should that be the vote ‘No Deal’ or accept the EU WA.
September 11, 2019
This is the Conservative manifesto which was rejected by 58% of voters?
You mention eight words âno deal is better than a bad deal.â
Can you tell us what was in the rest of the 3 pages of the manifesto about Brexit?
Thought not.
September 11, 2019
Manifesto? Surely you are joking? The bribery by all Political Parties (except may I say UKIP who have fully COSTED their plans in any Manifesto!) which they jokingly call a ‘manifesto’ has, since the beginning of time contained ‘carrots’ which have never had any legal standing………. and contain mythical, fairy-tale nonsense for the ‘Proles’ to salivate over – until the truth is disclosed.
The Torys are probably the worst purveyors of these ‘faery stories’ and no thinking person ever pays attention to them – the others are not far behind. The VOTE was to LEAVE. And was guaranteed to be respected – which has not happened – YET! Leavers also have teeth – but have not bared them – YET!
September 11, 2019
Remain MEPs were rejected by 85% of voters in the recent EU referendum !
September 11, 2019
How the heck do you know there is no clear majority in the country for a no-deal.
That’s an assumption made by most remainers based on NO factual information.
Back to the people, gee your another ignorant remainer who has no idea what democracy is and how it should be implemented based on the DEMOCRATIC vote with in-out options.
We as a country will no doubt thrive on dealing with 85% of the world economy, so maybe get out of your fear ridden bubble and man up.
September 11, 2019
100% correct. No Socialist, or treasonous Tories, can change that decision.
They will do so at their peril.
September 11, 2019
jeff
Poll
Britain Elects
·
Sep 9
“If the Government cannot get a Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament, they should leave the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement (i.e. without a deal)”
Agree: 42%
Disagree: 38%
So there IS a majority ( small one ) to leave with no deal according to this poll
September 11, 2019
Iâm inclined to agree with this, disagreeable as that process would be. A general election would be a good substitute. If Boris wins a majority, the referendum result will be honoured. If it produces any result other than a Conservative majority govt that will presumably be the end of Brexit.
Most laughable of all is the Labour position of renegotiating Mayâs deal to make it even more like moving to the status of an economic colony of the EU and then putting that ludicrous option to the people, vs remain, with no real option to leave! Presumably remain would win 90-10%or so on c. 30% turnout.
At least the LibDems now have the honesty to say their policy is simply to revoke article 50, & stuff the referendum.
September 11, 2019
In 2016, Cameron told us that the electorate would decide or future by the result of the referendum, not the government nor parliament. The pre-referendum leaflet stated this also. After 2 years of negotiations, we would be out of all EU institutions, deal or no deal. This was confirmed by various ministers, including the then chancellor, Mr Osborne.
September 11, 2019
By the way Newmania we aren’t in a No Deal situation via rest of the world as we now have 44 countries who have agreed deals with UK
September 11, 2019
“you cannot force No Deal on the country by default”
As always overlooking the fact that a deal requires both sides to agree, so if the EU and UK do not agree on what should constitute a deal then the default is No Deal; or rather what is actually happening which is lots of small deals/agreements on important or more urgent matters.
You can argue whether one side is being unreasonably intransigent if you like and both sides will always blame the other, but that’s the way life goes, not everyone agrees on everything.
September 11, 2019
Newmania
The only lies around here are yours.
September 11, 2019
Exactly right JR. Let us hope we can still leave on 31st October and in a legal way.
Some good news:- a ComRes pole suggests that 54% agree the referendum result should be respected, and only 25 per cent disagreed (21 per cent didnât know). So over 2 to 1. Even of those who voted Remain in 2016 35% said they now wanted Brexit delivered. Labour and the Libdem surely struggling given this.
What a sick joke Mayâs Honours list was, (especially after her comments on Cameronâs one) apart from G Boycott and perhaps a couple of others. Profoundly depressing news is that Harriet Harman (who like May is clearly in favour of blatant anti-Male discrimination is now favourite to replace the dire Bercow.
September 11, 2019
Who would wish to be tainted by being given an honour by May though?
September 11, 2019
My opinion of May gets worse.
September 11, 2019
Neil Kinnock just now â52/48 vote is a mandate to move house but stay in the same neighbourhoodâ. Complete and utter nonsense Neil. You either leave and the UK people, Democratic UK Government and UK courts become supreme or you remain (under the anti-democratic EU rule) and the EU unelected bureaucrats and EU courts are supreme. The âsame neighbourhoodâ analogy is absurd given this binary choice. There is no halfway house. It is one or the other mate. Mutual cooperation with the EU is fine but or not rule by the EU and becoming mere regions of it.
September 11, 2019
Good morning.
First let me say thank you to our kind host for realising that there are some elements here, as shown by questions raised in his more recent articles, that are not interested in debate but, destroying this site ! I shall continue to ignore them and, ask others to do the same. This would help our kind host and stop them from wrecking this ‘diary’. Thank you.
—
The law is the law, and our kind host has raised an important point – is the law reasonable ? Parliament can demand, like a latter day King Cnut, that the Prime Minister demand that the tide must not come in or the sun not rise in the morning. Obviously this is unreasonable as the PM has no power to do so. As the the WA, the the EU have stated that it will not renegotiate it. The matter, as far as they are concerned, is closed. We either sign the WA, which parliament has rejected three time or, Leave ! The PM is being asked to do something that simply cannot be done, therefore, as stated in Art.50 Section 3, we Leave the EU without a WA. EU Law of course being superior to UK law.
Finally. I shall via YouTube the final scenes of the closing of parliament. The behaviour was a disgrace. I shall not name names but, they were the usual suspects đ
September 11, 2019
Mark, Yes “the Law is the law” but there is also complying with the “spirit of the law” and “the letter of the law”, expect in this case the Government will of course comply with the latter.
What a nonsense from Mr Corbyn to put forwards a motion to debate this frankly hypothetical issue.
The Country has been SILENCED by our hypocritical Parliament, this needs to be dealt with as soon as we disentangle ourselves from the EU.
September 11, 2019
This Tory government could destroy Labour tomorrow if it wanted to. It doesn’t want to. I am sure this PM has access to information exposing the opposition and many of their MPs and their complicity over the last 30 years.
I know, we all know Labour is a stain on our political system. It is a party purporting to be a force of moral good when it is nothing of the sort. It is a party that is openly abusing the once proud history of the real Labour party, a party that died in the mid to late 1960’s.
Labour is the barrier to Brexit and to national renewal. The aim should be to destroy a malignant presence in Parliament. All options should be considered without concern for offence to any vested interest
September 11, 2019
I think Mr Farage has this rat of a party in his sights.
September 11, 2019
Dominic
We are very very very lucky to have a Corbyn led Labour opposition . If they had anyone even half compos mentis we could be in a lot more difficulty . Jo Swinson has been manna from heaven too, having stopped dead in its tracks a resurgent Lid Dem party by announcing that they dont believe in democracy and voters
September 12, 2019
It seems to me that this parliamentary putsch, this coup, is trying to overthrow the Leader of the Opposition as well as the PM and Brexit. Not sure who is the Prince over the Water. Or Princess – Amber Rudd? Yvette Coooper?
September 11, 2019
I think we are being softened up for a forth vote on Mays dreadful WA. Boris is happy to have a border down the Irish Sea telling us what a good deal he’s negotiated.
This won’t fly.
September 11, 2019
Bye bye Tories, hello Brexit Party; look how Labour usurped the Liberals in their early years.
September 11, 2019
It would appear that Boris is proposing to tweak the NI backstop by restricting it to apply only to NI and only to agriculture and agri-foods. In order to get DUP buy-in, he’s floating the idea of a 12-mile bridge between NI and Scotland. He appears to be willing to accept the rest of the appalling terms in the Barnier/Robbins Surrender Treaty.
In other words, he’s preparing to capitulate to the EU and the British Establishment Remainers – and the 17.4 million who voted to LEAVE the EU are betrayed once again. Unlike Churchill, he simply hasn’t the guts to do what’s right and “stand alone.”
September 11, 2019
“This Tory government could destroy Labour tomorrow if it wanted to”
Interesting, how could it do that?
September 11, 2019
It therefore no surprise that law that was invented at high speed purely to block the long decided Independence Day was not thought though.
Hopefully it is therefore unsafe to enforce it, and we can move to ETO terms
September 11, 2019
Tom Tugendhat,Chairman of the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee,has just sent a letter to Foreign Secretary,Dominic Raab,about the WTO-it’s on his twitter feed this morning.
Tugendhat is a remainer and a globalist but he makes useful points about this seemingly collapsing institution.
“What evidence is there that the WTO can still be considered a stable and effective enforcer of international trade rules?
China,Russia and the US have all effectively pulled out of the WTO.What alternatives have you identified to the WTO?
What is your assessment of the health and future prospects of the WTO given the points outlined above?”
The whole letter is worth a read.
September 11, 2019
As is his family background. Tugendhat? That name rings a bell somehow.
September 11, 2019
Perhaps the parliamentary quislings intend to install a temporary government after ousting the present one in a confidence vote that will overlook deficiencies in the law to make representations and issue a letter to the Evil Empire sufficient to obtain an extension?
September 11, 2019
Hi Sir John,
I totally agree with your post. However, I think I can see a way out for the P.M. He must request an extension that is legally ‘In good faith’. In the past, the EU 27 have voted on an extension and offered it to the P.M. who has then accepted it. However according to article 50, the whole of the council must vote on an article 50 extension. The PM, as a member of the council of Ministers could veto an extension which could not then become an offer of an extension that the PM must accept. This might be an idea worth putting to Govt lawyers.
/ikh
September 11, 2019
I understood that the UK representatives are excluded from any votes relating to Brexit.
September 11, 2019
It is a Special European Council, as explained here:
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2019/09/07/government-should-obey-the-law-parliament-should-follow-the-rules-and-conventions-when-passing-laws/#comment-1053401
“He wonât be at that particular meeting to veto anything, like last time it will only be the leaders of the 27 other EU member states … ”
reply The EU needs the UK to agree the terms for any delay
September 12, 2019
But he won’t be at that meeting to vote on anything or veto anything …
September 11, 2019
Article 50 p4 would appear to prevent the UK taking part in such a decision by the council.
September 11, 2019
@/ikh
He’s made a categorical pledge not to request an extension.
He will agree some cosmetic alterations to the Merkel-May Treaty.
September 11, 2019
He might not, but someone else might do it instead ?
September 11, 2019
Not according to Article 50 (4)
“4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.”
September 11, 2019
But any extension must be unanimous including the nation who is leaving
September 12, 2019
Mea Cupa, I re-read article 50 and you are right and sadly, I was wrong.
/ikh
September 11, 2019
I understand article 52(4) says an exiting member cannot vote on article 50 matters!
Reply No of course not, but the EU cannot extend the deadline without the UK consenting
September 11, 2019
/ikh- simple, elegant and Brilliant!
September 12, 2019
But factually incorrect.
September 11, 2019
https://unitynewsnetwork.co.uk/another-eminent-qc-claims-that-we-exited-the-eu-on-the-29th-of-march/
Hi John,
Have you seen the above QC opinion? Very interesting especially as it would appear that civil servants deliberately tinkered with the translation of Article 50 p3 from âextend this periodâ to âextend itâ, this has huge ramifications as it implies that the two year period can be extended only once!
Keep up the good fight.
Hazel
September 11, 2019
It comes as little or no surprise that our current rotten Parliament cannot even write with clarity an amendment to the WE. More proof that a massive clearance of duff MPs is needed at the next GE.
September 11, 2019
Our Parliament and Civil Service has become atrophied due to membership of the EU. It has also become infantised as witnessed by the recent scenes in the House.
September 11, 2019
Thank you for that link Hazel. Thank you also to Sir John for this post. Parliament must not be abused to knock down the pillars of democracy, soverignty, and the rule of law. At the moment the current occupants and external forces are having a good go. They must not succeed !!!
September 11, 2019
Sir John why does Boris not withdraw from the Barry Legg litigation and allow a declaration that we left in April?
September 11, 2019
Hazel, the article first appeared on the Lawyers for Britain web site on 03/06/2019 (https://lawyersforbritain.org/article-50-of-the-treaty-on-european-union-what-it-actually-says) and I posted it on here on 21/06/2019.
Unfortunately, Brexit MPs appear to be unwilling to seek a judicial review of the legality of how the leave date was extended under the terms of Article 50. I have a sick feeling that leave voters are being stitched up.
September 11, 2019
Is there a date specified in the bill by when the government has to request an extension?
could a letter be sent on 31st October by last post?
September 12, 2019
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/26/section/1/enacted
“(3) If neither of the conditions in subsection (1) or subsection (2) is satisfied, subsection (4) must be complied with no later than 19 October 2019.
(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 … “
September 11, 2019
So why didn’t the Lords talk the bill out?
September 11, 2019
Sea Warrior
….because they’re in on the betrayal as well.
September 12, 2019
It was briefly reported at the time that some “pact” had been made between the government and the opposition; under that “pact” the opposition would get their Bill passed speedily, in exchange for which the government would get … ???
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-vote-result-house-lords-boris-johnson-peers-parliament-a9092411.html
“Brexit: Government gives in on bill to block no-deal after âlate-night pactâ to push legislation through House of Lords”
The only possible candidate for a corresponding concession from the opposition under this “pact” seems to be this:
“The Labour leader had said the bill must be passed through the Lords and have received Royal Assent before he would entertain the thought of heading to the polls.
He said: âLet the Bill pass and have Royal Assent and then we can have a general election.â”
September 11, 2019
Which bit of “the government must seek an extension from the EU” don’t you understand?
September 11, 2019
Yes the so called law is an Ass because it is too complicated by far to be understood clearly
I offered my solution a few days ago with regards to the form of letter Boris should write to the EU
Simply ask for an extension (to comply) but say he believes absolutely no point if they are not prepared to negotiate in good faith , as the present offering has been rejected three times by Parliament
Thus let them say no !!!
September 11, 2019
A dogs breakfast vomitted on the carpet. It is so obviously a political stitch up, an attempt to tie the hands of government. One can but hope that the law lords see it as such and declare it unworkable. Ultimately it is symptomatic of a very undemocratic parliament coniving to work against the referendum expressed wishes of the UK electorate.
September 11, 2019
Well apropro of your request yesterday it is one paragraph, short and to the point, so why has it been ignored from 06.19 hours while the trolls continue as before.
September 11, 2019
“It is by no means clear how the government could comply with it”
Well, it is the Prime Minister personally who must comply by sending a letter in the form laid down in the Schedule:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/26/schedule/enacted
“FORM OF LETTER FROM THE PRIME MINISTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL”
The key sentence being:
“I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union … ”
The present Prime Minister has repeatedly declared inside and outside Parliament that he is not prepared to send any such letter, which means that he intends to break the law, and if he persists with that unconstitutional, anarchic, attitude then the only solution will be to replace him with another Prime Minister who will comply with the law.
Indeed the present Prime Minister has already said and done enough for his immediate resignation to have become a matter of honour.
He should stop trying to wriggle where there is no wriggle room, and just go.
Reply You are ignoring the rest of the ACT explaining the reasons for the letter which require the PM to do things that cannot be done
September 11, 2019
Why did EU Bill #6 not require Queenâs consent?
As a money bill, why did it not need to be proposed by a Minister?
Given those flaws why was it given Royal Assent?
September 11, 2019
Perhaps because it is so badly written that it is likely to be challenged in the Courts?
September 11, 2019
I believe this messy Act to be part of the strategy to wear down the public into preferring to remain. At the moment it all seems so hopeless and every avenue to leaving appears blocked. The idea is more chaos: no deal off the table; GE off the table; Irish backstop – build a bridge; which when all this is sorted would allow the idea of a referendum to become a reality – and weâd be so despairing weâd vote to remain!
I heard Tony Blair, a few months ago, when asked about a referendum, reply that that was for further down the road, and he seems to be one of those behind the remain shenanigans.
Ps this idea of a Scottish/Irish bridge….more kicking the can down the road! Can you imagine how long THAT would take?
Pps I notice your question re remainers and why they want to remain – Conservative Woman didnât get any particular responses either.
September 11, 2019
This law is grandstanding by Parliamentarians determined to revoke article 50 but too afraid to push the button with the consequences of such an action.
I do not understand why the opposition parties fear a change of date for a general election. All they have to do is write into their manifestos that they would seek to immediately rejoin the EU and obtain assurances from the EU that this would be allowed. Then if these opposition parties win a general election post 31 October after we have left they can rejoin.
Could it be that they do not think they would win?
September 11, 2019
Wondered why amendment went thro unopposed. No tellers in lobby even.
But someone did say to me…â Donât worry. They are incredibly clever.â
September 11, 2019
The convention in Parliament is when a change cannot be agreed the status quo applies. In due course we will see an outcome but there is clearly a widely held view that we should not leave without a deal.
September 11, 2019
PS One paragraph. The persons teaching Housing Officers in colleges and universities whose courses were financed entirely by Local Authorities ( the tax-payer ) were fully cognizant of the Law but remained silent about it to their students. I do hope this latter category of people are not subject to punishment. In mitigation, they have furnished me with the Truth! Though I knew anyway that heat and cold on a window pane is An Act of God and God should not have been evicted for it even in part. It was unbecoming. You asked for a paragraph JR, I gave you a poem.
September 11, 2019
Scottish Court, Three…just men. In Essence and Spirit proving all my aforementioned True in the Absolute.
September 11, 2019
The withdrawal No.2 act wording, including the letter, states that the ‘United Kingdom’ is requesting an extension, and that the PM must say the ‘United Kingdom’ accepts an offer of extension. Can Boris not comply with this act by saying to the EU, the UK may be requesting this, but I, as the first minister of tbevUK’s head of state within the Council, am not?
September 12, 2019
No.
September 11, 2019
I’d say what’s dubious is that it’s asking the government to put forward legislation based on some talks held 6 months ago by the previous government. This is extremely loose. I’m sure somebody in those talks came up with some pretty scatty ideas. Should those be included?
Also surely those talks broke down. If the ideas coming from them had been agreeable to both sides, they would have been enacted then, and Mrs May would still be in no. 10.
September 11, 2019
This statute, as it has been discussed, appears to violate the separation
of powers doctrine: by it, the legislature is attempting to take power that is the
mark of the executive. What would the response from judges be if Parliament
managed to enact a bill ordering them to find a person “guilty”? Surely,
you would assume that they would flat out refuse on principle.
September 11, 2019
The Withdrawal Agreement is Brexit.
This has been the case since Mrs May first laid down her red lines and boxed the U.K. in in terms of the deal we could achieve.
Unelected El Presidente Johnson will to some cosmetic changes to the WA. He may even sell out Northern Ireland. But however much you all huff and puff – and you all huff and puff a lot – the WA is basically it. Rubbish isnât it?
Mr Gove thinks we will be able to improve things after âBrexit is over the line.â
I think the vast majority of under 50s – the younger generations – will take a look at how rubbish your Brexit is and will, before long, permanently undo it. Shame.
September 11, 2019
El Presidente Johnson is as elected as May or Corbyn is; the UK does not have direct election of the Party leader.
Why do you keep saying this?
September 12, 2019
Julie
“Why do you keep saying this?”
To show how pathetic and undemocratic our system is. We are ruled by an unelected establishment oligarchy.
September 12, 2019
Boris has twice called for an election but Labour refused, despite requesting an election frequently in the past year. Their reason for refusing is profoundly undemocratic, as they admit they don’t want an election out of fear that the public will effectively vote for a “no deal” Brexit.
September 12, 2019
An establishment took us into the CM/EEC/EU and kept us there while selling off the family silver.
An establishment which you and Andy support.
September 11, 2019
I thought multiple posts from the same person just regurgitating the same point as we’ve heard previously ad nauseam were no longer permitted?
September 11, 2019
I thought we weren’t allowing this sort of tosh, John ?
The Withdrawal Agreement is actually Hard Remain. Yannis Varoufakis describes it as a surrender as bad as any nation defeated by war.
September 11, 2019
Clearly Andy is stuck in the UK. He isn’t rich enough to escape the Corbyn assault on his wealth that is going to come because of this Tory botched Brexit.
September 12, 2019
Anonymous
“Yannis Varoufakis describes it as a surrender as bad as any nation defeated by war.”
Not even his own government thought his opinions were worth taking seriously. Did he get fired or leave voluntarily?
September 11, 2019
While I agree with everything you are saying – like all measures rushed onto the statute book, it is a real dog’s dinner- the government cannot ignore it.
I suspect government lawyers are examining it very carefully and may well decide to challenge it in court and have it declared not enforceable.
Boris will have a better chance to set it aside in court than in Parliament.
September 11, 2019
Goods exported from Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic over the land border comprise about 0.1% of UK GDP. For the sake of ensuring that mere 0.1% of UK GDP would continue to comply with EU rules, both customs union and single market rules, the EU proposed that just Northern Ireland should be kept under swathes of EU laws; but in what she presented as a major negotiating triumph Theresa May persuaded them to keep control of the whole UK, 100% of the UK economy. Now according to the Daily Telegraph Boris Johnson could have the answer to the Brexit deadlock, which would be to revert to the EU’s original proposal and keep just Northern Ireland under swathes of EU laws for the sake of that 0.1% of UK GDP which is driven across the land border. It seems nobody in official circles can get their heads around the fairly simple idea that the swathes of EU laws should only apply to the goods which are actually taken across the border into the Republic, and which therefore become a legitimate matter for the interest of the EU, and not to all goods circulating everywhere in either Northern Ireland or the UK as a whole; which goods legally circulating within the UK need not concern the EU any more than goods legally circulating in any other “third country”.
September 12, 2019
Very good Denis and it applies also to the goods from Great Britain going to the EU, not to the entire kingdom.
September 11, 2019
How does ”obey the law” fit in with the video where Guy Verhofstadt allegedly talks about votes for the WA being bought ?
September 11, 2019
Briefing, counter briefing, leaks, fake news, down right lies. Who knows? Parliaments lawyers versus the Governments lawyers. Stuff of fiction but unfortunately very real.
What I do know is I donât trust Boris. I hope I am wrong!
September 11, 2019
The Act requires a request for an extension be sent, but the grounds for its granting are not legally secure. 50(3) is being misused, it being out of time, there cannot be any new negotiations the WA being closed, and a third extension is defeating the intention to allow a Member State to leave with or without an Agreement. Parliament by voting down the WA chose the latter.
All the furore by the outraged backers of the Act that the PM does not wish to implement it, ignores their own duplicity.
In passing the Act, Parliament ignored the T & C’s attached to the current extension and did not put a tick in the box. The Government will therefore be unable to make the application.
Why should a further extension be granted. What do the other 27 members think.
One French official told Mujtaba Rahman, of the Eurasia Group consultancy, that âanti-Johnson forcesâ were âpart of the problem.â
âItâs like a cat that brings a half-dead mouse into your kitchen and looks at you as if to say âarenât I clever?â (Parliaments Bill to request a further extension) Well, we donât necessarily want that mouse. Where does it take us?, â the official said.
The PM still maintains he wants a deal, but, further negotiations are stymied by the refusal to reopen the WA and discuss any alternative to the backstop.
The EU is reluctant to take any blame for a no deal Brexit or to force Ireland to face the severe economic consequences of a disorderly exit.
âYou have to imagine what it would mean to be confronted by an extension request which was actively opposed by the UK government. We would be in a totally surreal world,â the senior official said.
âIf we were confronted by the situations, the leaders in the European Council would not be the judge on what takes precedent. The judge would be the UK Supreme court.â
The Act cannot meet its purpose – to make further provision in connection with the period for negotiations for withdrawing from the European Union.
September 11, 2019
What this demonstrates is that making new Laws on the hoof is foolish, plain and simple. A characterisation that can be applied to all those who voted it through in both Houses.
September 11, 2019
This Brexit thing has certainly shown up the major deficiencies in our two centuries out of date Westminster democracy machine. It does though seem good at doing things arse backwards.
In most modern countries with written constitutions, you need something like a 2 to 1 vote to change a constitution, and a simple majority to change a government. In the UK itâs the other way around. The UK can change its unwritten constitution (2016 referendum) with a vote of 52 to 48; but, needs 2 to 1 to change the government! (I accept that the UK Courts consider a few Statutes to be collectively a sort of written constitution.)
September 12, 2019
The 2:1 vote to change the constitution is contentious because creeping membership of the EEC/EC/EU was procured by stealth, to put it at its politest, and cannot legitimately be held to be the status quo. It was a short aberration in our thousand years as an independent country.
September 11, 2019
I do hope that Boris is keeping his powder dry, and not revealing all to the anti democratic MPâs. They will have no doubt already seen your comments and will be beavering away in the background to construct and impose more remain nonsense upon Boris and us when Parliament reopens.
So SNP MP Wishart has put his name forward for speaker, well thatâs just great, if he got the job, the SNP running the show in Westminster – absolutely fantastic.
and yesterday another bit of fantastic news – not !
Reward for abject failure – Arise Sir Olly Robbins
September 11, 2019
Surely, when we leave on 31st October, we are still leaving with a deal – an agreement between two parties to trade on WTO terms
September 11, 2019
Zocco- agreements normally have to be worked out- in the case of the EU and WTO terms it will probably take months.. it could be that there will be no agreement on some things for maybe years? This is all very much an unknown for us- certainly JIT will be a thing of the past
September 11, 2019
What is of interest to me is the remedy to non-compliance of the Act by the government. I would imagine that the courts would say that in order to maintain separation of powers in our constitution, the remedy to a breach of the act is to have a referendum.
Alternative remedies such as compulsion don’t appear to be credible.
This will then lead to further uncertainty and confusion. If this (inevitably drags on beyond 31st Oct 19), have we left or not? In reality we will have left but of course people will argue that we haven’t.
I suppose non-payment of EU membership beyond 31Oct19 (as you alluded to in a previous post) will settle the matter.
September 11, 2019
Dear Mr Barnier.
The UK would like an extension, and we expect to be paid 20 bn Euros a month for the term of the extension.
We won’t pay you, since we’ve already spent the money and your mates haven’t put money aside to pay you.
We’ve also cancelled EU law, that’s to Barclay, so we won’t be obeying EU law.
We’ve also not brought EU law into UK law, just to reiterate, we won’t follow your rules, no EU courts have jurisdiction.
But we have asked you for an extension as required
September 11, 2019
European Withdrawal Number 2 Act is a mess but I expect this was partly the intention as well as to delay Brexit.
The pro-EU MPs, having tasted power through their coup this week, I would not expect to be voting anytime soon for a GE. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas.
September 11, 2019
This law is a mess – a disgrace to Parliament and it should be ignored. There are a significant number of MPs who are a danger to the stability of our democracy, dictating such a letter should be sent by the PM removes the need for his office. My criticism of the HoL abounds.
September 11, 2019
[…] article was first published in Sir Redwood’s Diary and we re-publish it with his kind […]
September 11, 2019
JR,
What are the rules about copying a reposting elsewhere (BBC) some of your text?
Reply This is published text. Feel free to send it on with citation. It should not be amended or selectively quoted to distort its meaning
September 11, 2019
It is reported that Boris has been pleading with Remainers to support him, and he has reportedly told them that he would “take stabs in the backs from the Brexiteers/Spartans” in order to get the agreement through. If this is true, it does not surprise me as I have never trusted Boris, and I think he is unprincipled, and also weak. What is more, I believe it is the hatred for Farage that Cummings has that is also dominating policy.
If these reports are true, it would appear that Boris is about to do a u-turn and that he will present a tweaked WA and PD as the basis for “leaving” the EU. This does not represent leaving the EU, and if Boris proceeds along this course then he, and the wretched Remainer dominated Conservative Party that he leads will, I think, be taken down. There will be a few Cons MPs who stick to their principles and do not sanction destroying Brexit and democracy, but if they continue to stand by Boris, simply to save the Cons Party, then they will be regarded by the electorate with contempt.
September 11, 2019
The President of the EU Commission ( you know the one thats under investigation for dodgy stuff) has declared that we MUST appoint a European Commissioner
I’ve got two suggestions
1) Nigel Farage
2) Kim Jong-un
September 12, 2019
Libertarian,
I am still waiting for a response to
1) My invitation
2) Your apology
3) Your explanation, why, Germany is the sick man of Europe compared to UK and Italy?
September 12, 2019
I’ve two female suggestions (just to keep the balance)
1) Anne Widdecombe
2) Carol Thatcher
September 11, 2019
Dear Mr. Redwood,
The whiff of betrayal grows stronger; it blows in from all directions. Are the ERG about to find out how quickly and easily Mr. Johnson throws their support back in their faces?
May’s ‘Frankenstein’ Withdrawal Agreement – It Lives!
September 11, 2019
As Mark B mentions there is a problem with responsibility.
Here I remember reading an excellent speech by Enoch Powell (19th feb, poss 1972) where he made the point that responsibility cannot exist without power.
Yet it is clear that the only power the PM has is to ask for an extension, he now, having lost his parliamentary majority does not even have the power to enforce an extension in parliament. Here we have the extraordinary case of an opposition even refusing an election.
So the only extension he can ask for is a unilateral one without UK payments and compliance, something clearly unacceptable to the EU. The pro-EU rebels and opposition have now made no deal almost a certainty, here the PM should be clear how responsible he can be for the act – I would pay it only lip service at best.
September 11, 2019
Sir John,
I am not a lawyer but the EU Wihdrawal No 6 Act seeks to direct the Government to apply for an extension to Article for the reason stated.
If the reason stated is not acceptable to the EU for whatever reason they will reject it.
However, if they accept the application and grant the extension surely this means that it is
not an unreasonable request whether or not it is realistic.
The reasonability of the request seems irrelevant and therefore is unlikely to prove grounds for a successful legal challenge.
Reply The Act says the government needs to change the Political Declaration in accordance with an agreement from inter party talks which does not exist.
September 11, 2019
Sir John,
Although your criticisms of the bill are no doubt correct, none of them relate to the duty to apply for an extension placed on the Government. As this is the most pressing aspect of the Bill, surely the Government must navigate the area around the bill rather than hope to get it set aside.
It strikes me that the decision of the Scottish Court as regards Prorogation i.e that the action of the Government was to prevent Parliament from acting applies in equal measure to this Act as regards preventing the Executive from acting in accordance with law and convention.
September 11, 2019
Let us hope Sir James Eadie presses your point home: that the political motives of the appellants bear examination.
September 11, 2019
And that all their papers and electronic communications be trawled through to find evidence of collusion with a foreign power.
September 12, 2019
The duty is explicitly placed upon the individual who is Prime Minister.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/26/section/1/enacted
“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 … “
September 11, 2019
Lord Denning, with precision and simple logic, would have taken great delight in putting a Remain Parliament in its place.
September 11, 2019
Lord denning wouldnât be qualified to be a judge today. His politics would be wrong and he would have declined to do all the Blair initiated PC âtraining coursesâ which filter out those who arenât on message.
September 11, 2019
Lord Denning would have known that Parliament cannot be judged in any UK court.
September 11, 2019
It’s legality has not been tested. Is it illegal because it does not have a money resolution or a Queen’s consent ? To the Supreme court for all our sakes.
September 11, 2019
Book keepers, money resolution: is three months 93 days or just 92?
September 11, 2019
Our country and People have been under assault from undemocratic forces – civil service, courts, eu, BBC, quangoes, universities etc etc – for several years now and things must come to a head.
Many MPs clearly do not represent us any more and are running scared of the ballot box. Shame on them!
Sooner or later an election must take place and we need a “clear the swamp” manifesto from a party willing to truly represent the People.
If the Conservatives do not rise to the challenge then the Brexit Party will have a clear run.
September 11, 2019
The Remoaners in Parliament clearly just want to cancel Brexit altogether but don’t have the nerve to suggest cancelling Article 50 before the next election, except for the anti democratic LibDem head bangers who at least do and want to ride rough shod over their beloved EU law when it suits.
What I don’t understand is how two conflicting laws can be in place at the same time. We have Article 50 which was voted through by a large majority which states w leave on 31st. October whether with a ‘deal’ or not. Then we have another brand new law which says we cannot leave on that date without a ‘deal’ and must ask to stay in for a period which the EU will decide although Parliament suggests 3 months.
If the letter which Parliament says must be written does not have a reason for the extension, then surely the PM could state in the letter that ‘we have not decided on a reason for the request because Parliament has not authorised a General Election or another referendum and it is clear Parliament will not pass the WA’. These statements are demonstrably true and are un-contestable. Under EU previous statements they would surely be bound to reject such a request. If the letter does not allow this, then the PM must tell the EU verbally when he goes to Brussels next month.
September 11, 2019
8.10 pm and still in moderation. I thought it a serious question, but all sorts of rubbish gets published without problem. What don’t you like about this post? Is something contentious or libelous? Is it worth putting up serious posts or should I go for insults and endless repetition?
September 12, 2019
I agree. Your original post is fine and makes sense. Too much sense đ
The EU have stated that they will only allow a further extension if parliament agree the WA or, there is a referendum or GE. Since there is no chance of any of those then one can only assume the EU will reject it but, this is the EU and they don’t follow their own rules.
September 12, 2019
There is no conflict because:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/26/section/4/enacted
“4 Amendment of existing provision”
September 11, 2019
With the scottish courts saying the government acted illegal, with the opposition parties dictating law, with a minority government and with some of its own MPs not on script with the PM nor the majority of the peopleâŠ..its time to down tools and work to rule i.e stop all government activity till a general election
As the great man once said, if a government canât govern then thereâs no government
September 11, 2019
John McDonnell says labour would trial a universal basic income. With pilot schemes held in Liverpool, Sheffield and the Midlands, McDonnell defending the scheme claimed child benefit was given to all. No it is not – if you earn more the ÂŁ50K you lose it (thanks to Osborne I think).
These magic money tree con merchants (and would be asset thieves) must be kept from power at all costs.
September 11, 2019
You don’t “respect” the law, you obey it. It’s not optional.
Anyway you had better get back to Parliament right away because the proroguement was illegal.
September 11, 2019
EU law has supremacy over UK law, though and EU law says we leave on time. Judges are aware and may have forgotten, the ECJ will step in.
September 11, 2019
The legal bods will get rich on this result, as it now appears that a legal act is now illegal if done for the (supposedly) wrong reason! Unbelievable!
September 11, 2019
Not quite.
It was because the Court held that the Queen was not given the truth as to why the suspension was being sought.
September 11, 2019
But the Court does not know what advice Her Majesty was given because it was given as a Privy Councillor. The Court cannot demand that Boris breaks his PC Oath, so the Court has assumed, used conjecture and political prejudice to draw incorrect conclusions.
September 12, 2019
No, using the facts, the circumstances, and their judgement as to what “on a balance of probabilities” happened.
This is a civil, not a criminal matter, and the burden of proof required is not “beyond all reasonable doubt”.
They are also confident that the Supreme Court will uphold their view.
September 12, 2019
Are you serious !
You’re telling me that the Queen could not work it out for herself and that she does not have advisers.
She’s not some white haired old lady in a Dun Roamin’ bungalow being sold dodgy washing machine insurance !
September 12, 2019
Martin in Cardiff
Er thats NOT what the High Court has ruled at all.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament for five weeks “is not a matter for the courts”, the High Court has ruled.
Giving their reasons for rejecting the case brought by businesswoman Gina Miller, leading judges said the decision to prorogue Parliament was “purely political” and therefore not capable of challenge in the courts.
In their judgement, Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and President of the Queen’s Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp said: “We concluded that the decision of the Prime Minister was not justiciable (capable of challenge). It is not a matter for the courts.”
Made the (Scottish Ed) Judges look a bit biased really
September 11, 2019
Scottish law is very very different from English law, and it is an English parliament that sets out the law. Clearly the Scottish Court making their latest decision did not properly consider the facts in an unbiased and proper way.
September 11, 2019
It is a UK parliament in England. England does not have a parliament.
September 12, 2019
Parliament is in England and ruled by English law.
September 11, 2019
I think that you are opening a massive can of worms there. Are you in agreement that all asylum seekers who have passed through safe countries, prior to arriving in the U.K. Should be returned to their last port of call? That would be obeying the law, rather than ‘respecting’ (and ignoring) the law. Or are you yet another leftie drone with selective morals?
September 11, 2019
Interesting that there are no rubber boats going from the racist UK to enlightened France.
September 11, 2019
What a fatuous observation. The prorogation decision was tested in the court and proven to be legal. âObeyedâ in your terms.
John works 7 days a week, putting in a tremendous effort the balance the frequently untrue and sometimes hysterical claims of the undemocratic remain community.
I and many others appreciate his efforts.
September 11, 2019
Things have come to a pretty pass when saying that the law must be obeyed gets me called a leftie drone.
Which I am not by any means.
You should be very careful what precedents you set because a Corbyn Government will push even further.
September 11, 2019
Stripping away all the flummery of what Boris cannot do or must not do, what are we left with?
1)The only deal the EU will accept is Mrs. May’s deal, which Parliament might finally sign up to, which is lethal, even without the backstop.
2). But the EU will not budge on the backstop anyway.
3)The political declaration is only slightly less of a fixture.
4) If Boris requests an extension, I for one won’t forgive him, along with huge numbers of Conservative voters presently returning to the Tory fold.
5). He will never be trusted again, and will cause all his hard earned goodwill to evaporate.
6). The Tories will not gain a decent majority, only a hung parliament, and may go into terminal decline.
7) Nigel Farage will fill the Brexit vacuum.
8) There’s at least a 50% chance we will be stuck in the wretched EU indefinitely.
9). Sensible government legislative programmes will be made impossible, as long as Brexit is not ‘put to bed’
10). Rampant socialism will rule the roost for years to come.
The only way forward is for a man of courage to break the law, and be willing to be gaoled!
T.I.N.A
September 11, 2019
Options are more limited than that.
What this whole sorry episode, from the beginning right up until now has shown, is that our parliament and parliamentarians are not fit for purpose and, there nothing we can do ! Some 650 souls hold the entire future of this nation and its people, both current and yet to be born, in their hands. Yet, all they can do is prance and preen in front of the cameras.
This is about ‘US’, the people of the United Kingdom, not YOU !!
September 11, 2019
What more can go wrong for those of us who voted Brexit and just want out. The Scottish courts have now ruled it was unlawful for the UK Government to prorogue Parliament. When is your Government going to put an end to yet again the tail wagging the dog John? England voted out, the only say on it’s future it’s ever been allowed, unlike the rest of the dis-UK. Tell Boris he needn’t worry about the Scots leaving (which they won’t, they know which side their bread is buttered on), but the long suffering English if they are yet again ignored. We voted out and if the Scots don’t like it, call their bluff and tell ’em where to go.
September 11, 2019
A very good, but rather sobering and sad point.
September 11, 2019
Jools, Yes, this is beyond a joke. I can’t wait for the day that Scotland chooses to leave the shelter of England. We are fed up to the back teeth of the bloody moaning Scots. I lived in Scotland for 15 years and it was 15 years too long listening to the whining and going’s on about Westminster and the English. Just go!
September 12, 2019
I worked with a Scot, and even he admitted that he was sick of his own peoples’ whining.
September 11, 2019
It’s a mess. But EU law outranks UK law no matter what parliament puts on our statute book and bearing in mind the great repel bill has Royal Assent.
According to the Lisbon Treaty Article 50 is to be enacted by the leaving nation’s executive, not its parliament. Like Macron or Merkel would do. In the UK the Executive is 10 Downing St and our courts know they must obey EU law until the Great Repeal Bill comes into force, probably the end of October 2019.
Maybe someone needs to remind English, Scottish, Welsh and NI judges of that fact, EU law is supreme to UK law.
September 11, 2019
Early Riser, you clearly donât understand the process of proroguing Parliament, it happens before each new session, it had been the longest session since heaven knows when and meant 5 extra days of shutdown and would have enabled Boris Johnson to set out his plans for the forthcoming session, I would have thought that everyone was aware of that by now but your faux indignation indicates that the message hasnât reached the furthest corners of the realm
September 11, 2019
Sir,
I seem to recall you pointing out some years ago that article 50 is not the only route out of the EU. The alternative of simply denouncing the treaties still exists, and if timed to coincide with exit day should not cause a dislocation with domestic law.
Since Bercow has ruled that the recent private member’s bill does not impinge on Crown prerogative, presumably it is open to the government to do this, thus cutting the Gordian knot.
September 11, 2019
And the howls of rage about Dominic Cummings and the calls for him to be sacked just prove if any proof were needed that heâs doing a blooming good job!
September 11, 2019
Yes Lester we are reminded of Cummings and Boris good work when the Scottish high courts pronounced on their actions this morning..and although not over until Tues next in London Supreme court it doesn’t make for pretty reading. Then this evening we hear some of the details of Operation Yellowhammer.. it also doesn’t make for easy reading.. No wonder N Farage was looking so shook up on Sky news.. am sure he’s thinking it’s all slipping away
September 11, 2019
Interesting that Kinnock amendment was nodded through. Wasn’t it a lack of Naye whips. Well done BORIS (and JRM).
September 11, 2019
What an unedifying spectacle from HC yesterday – as one corespondent put it like a Mad Hatter Tea Party! And these people represent us?
September 11, 2019
Well, in many cases they do NOT represent us. That’s pretty much the problem. A great many of them essentially seem to be interested only in representing themselves.
September 11, 2019
Why did this ghastly law ever get Royal Assent? Boris could have simply asked the Queen to deny Royal Assent and the bill would never have become law, forcing the opposition into a motion of No Confidence.
There is a lot of precident for this, the Labour government under Blair/Brown used denial of Royal Assent 39 times to block legislation it didn’t like, most notably to block a private members bill brought by Tam Dalyell MP which would have forced Tony Blair to have a vote in Parliament before taking military action against Saddam Hussein.
So I dont understand why denial of Royal Consent / Assent was not deployed to block the extension bill. Maybe Johnson wanted to lose?
September 11, 2019
> Maybe Johnson wanted to lose?
I don’t know about that but his administration does seem to be rather more feeble than I hoped for. This is a time for aggression and deviousness, and I get the impression that Boris and Cummings have been outmanoeuvred at every turn.
They need to be thinking of nuclear options (whatever those may be in practice) but don’t seem to be capable of doing so, whereas the enemy most certainly using any and all nuclear options available to it.
I also wonder: At what point does Boris say (regardless of any law attempting to constein him): “We’ve tried to get a deal, it’s not possible. Like it or not we are now leaving on a clean break basis”. Here’s the problem: Can you really see him ever saying that? I can’t. And yet, if no deal is to be a realistic option, that is something he must surely say at some point.
September 11, 2019
Royal Assent to a Bill has not been denied since Queen Anne in 1708 refused assent to the Scottish Militia Bill. You are confusing this with ‘Queens consent’ which this Bill patently needed no matter what ghastly Bercow says. But I agree: had I been advising Boris I would have advise Her Majesty to withhold Assent from this silly Bill.
September 12, 2019
Perhaps they knew it would have put the Queen at odds with her people because they know full well that there is a Brexit majority out there now – as do all those blocking a general election.
I believe it to be a ruse. To look like the fight of his life but in fact delivering a softened up WA.
September 11, 2019
I have just read that the government has altered the rules and foreign students can now stay here for five years and after four years they can get permanent residency. I suppose they will then be able legally to vote in elections and referenda. Sixteen hundred people arrive each day in this country, that is more than one and threequarter million since the referendum.
September 11, 2019
Jo Johnson’s other bequest.
September 11, 2019
No, one can have permanent residency in the UK, but not being a British citizen could only vote in local (and up to now European) elections, so not in a General Election, not in referenda either.
By the way, this is what will happen to all the EU people presently trying to get the so-called Home Office Settled Status if they have got five years in the country plus various papers (council tax statements, bank statements, salary payment statements, …) to justify their presence here. So even if they get this Settled Status, as long as they do not ask and obtain British citizenship (a lengthy and onerous process), they will not be “interfering” in a GE vote.
September 11, 2019
If foreign students don’t find a British person to either marry, or have a child with, during their 3 year studies and two-year working extension they’re not trying hard enough to make themselves impossible to deport.
I’m sure most of them will be bright enough to work it out! Once here, never leave, unless they want to.
September 11, 2019
Law no longer exists when a Scottish Supreme Court specifically chosen because it is biased overrules a constitutional right of a UK monarch to prorogue parliament based on hearsay evidence that Boris and the Queen have colluded against remainers. We have lost our rights to GE’s and referendums unless we agree to vote for who we are told. It was once law that we had GE’s, binding referendums were honored, and leave on March 29th.
It was once law that traitors were dealt with swiftly – funny how that was modified.
September 11, 2019
Surely the courts need to rule on the validity of this law? Parliament’s function and duty is to hold the government to account, to scrutinise proposed legislation and enact or reject a bill as it sees fit. Now we have the bizarre spectacle of Parliament usurping the government’s role of proposing legislation. Who can then hold it to account? It cannot be right for proposers of a law to have also the power of enacting it with no external scrutiny; and to deny the electorate a General Election in which they can, if they so choose, rid themselves of unwanted MPs. That is the road to authoritarianism and tyranny.
Imagine a future scenario in which a Marxist government has a small majority and a puppet leader in thrall to extremist MPs, and a biased Speaker allows Marxist MPs to seize the order paper and propose the suspension of general elections for 10 years. The vote is carried. Will the puppet leader have the will or courage to advise Her Majesty to refuse the Royal Assent?
If this sounds ridiculously far-fetched, then reflect that all the mechanisms and precedents are in place. I should be grateful if anyone could reassure me that my fears are unfounded.
September 11, 2019
There must be a difference between ‘respecting the law’ and ‘acting unlawfully’ then. It would appear that the suspension of Parliament has been judged to be unlawful, that the UK parliament was advising the Queen unlawfully, and that Boris Johnson was motivated by the “improper purpose of stymieing Parliament”. If that’s obeying the law, I may need to consult my own standards of behaviour.
September 11, 2019
None of this was demonstrated, only asserted. How could it be? Furthermore, it was motivated by the bigoted assumption that what they call No Deal is beyond the pale. It isn’t. It was voted for by nearly 500 MPs in properly proposed, properly considered, properly debated and scrutinised, major legislation. It was proper law and statute, not something rammed through by a cabal acting in cahoots with the EU and enabled by a bent Speaker, in half of an afternoon and a bit of an evening.
September 11, 2019
Are we not an economic competitor inside the EU? As well as a voice for a different future for the EU?
Perhaps both these aspects get enhanced by leaving.
September 11, 2019
Get the feeling they don’t want an economic competitor around. Is that the reason their WA reads like a capitulation treaty.
September 11, 2019
No ! Germany and France always work closely together agreeing their respective positions BEFORE any Council meetings.
September 11, 2019
Our prime objective is to Leave. This is our trump card. You do not negotiate with the EU.
No extensions , No deals. Any deal as such beforehand will have tenticles that will strangle us in the end. Oh for a donald Trump as our leader.
September 11, 2019
Sir John. While you were working
Since May – Anthony Hook, Catherine Bearder and Judith Bunting have met Michel Barnier and top EU polatitions to explain how damaging Brexit will be to Britain
Antony Hook says “Supermarket prices will sky rocket.”
Judith Bunting says “The fear and threat of Brexit is impacing on our ability to care for our love one.”
Working hard to stop Brexit – People have changed their mind 52% want remain.
All the above in a publication that arrived through the letterbox from the Liberal Democrate’s today in Wokingham.
I thought it would amuse
September 11, 2019
Ian- it will take much more than 52 per cent- you know that and thd EU knows it so therefore a long time spent in the wilderness scratching around is on the cards which will be necessary to bring the country to its senses.
September 11, 2019
Grant, that was just repeating the comments in a lib/dem panflet we in Wokingham received today. I found the spin amusing – they can’t stop fighting democracy
September 12, 2019
Ian. And do you really think Barnier and his cohorts are going to paint a picture of roses for the UK. Get real, this is yet more unsubstantiated drivell.
September 11, 2019
On becoming PM, Boris could have created a couple of hundred new, Brexit supporting Peers. He could have encouraged / allowed Brexit-supporting Peers to filibuster the Benn Bill in the House of Lords and prevent it from becoming law. He did neither. I am forced to the conclusion that he WANTED to have No Deal taken off the table so that he could present a re-worked Surrender Treaty to the House and tell Brexit-supporting MPs that “it’s this deal, or no Brexit.”
He’s not a genuine Brexiteer; never was and never will be. Whether he’ll be able to persuade enough Brexit-voters to vote Conservative in a post-BRINO General Election to win a majority remains to be seen. I doubt if Farage will be inclined to rescue him.
September 11, 2019
I fear you are correct. It breaks my heart but I think that either Remain or Brino are now inevitable. Boris has utterly shafted Britain.
And since your post earlier today, No.10 has resolutely rejected Nigel Farage’s explicit offer an election pact (based, of course, on clean break). I cannot describe how incredibly stupid, short-sighted and self-destructive this rejection is.
September 12, 2019
Mark Rousell
“Boris has utterly shafted Britain.”
…….disagree Mark, Corbyn, Labour and the remainers are the culprits, and will be dealt with at the next general election.
September 11, 2019
In the light of the recent news announcement re: the court ruling, my thoughts are … âFirst they came for the Prime Minister, but I was not a Prime Minister …. This is a truly terrifying development.
September 11, 2019
Monitor the Supreme Court from Tuesday 17th September.
September 11, 2019
Let’s face it. It is a mess. Another disgraceful mess the Remain agitators have brought down upon OUR aggrieved country. Why are they even allowed to do it?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. ” In our Parliament, why is it so easy to wrong a right but impossible to right a wrong”? Anyone?
The enforced, anti-democracy hindrances preventing Our leaving the EU, as promised, are turning out to be like a long episode from the “Twilight Zone”. Only these are for real and that is hideously nauseating.
Why should we, the people who voted and by a clear majority, to just “Leave the EU” have to tolerate it? The Parliament-approved wording on the ballot paper were simple enough and all was explained by the stream of Party Leaders when they tried tried to persuade us to Remain.
They failed but then diabolically reneged on their publicly declared promises to abide by our decision and refused to accept OUR decision. I thought only rabid Communists did that.
However, they seem to have got away with their blatant lying to the public. What sort of country is this one of ours? Where politicos lie about their intentions and get a free pass into their own dark world of electoral deception? This is USSR style politics.
When will our Leave voice be recognised or is it that Democracy doesn’t live here anymore?
September 11, 2019
The idea that parliamentary sovereignty can be used to deny national sovereignty â it is an absurd contradiction. A quote by David Starkey today says it all
September 11, 2019
Sir John,
I’ve had 2 ‘awaiting moderations’ well into the evening. Would you prefer me not to contribute? I assume the answer is yes, but could you confirm, and of course I will comply with your wishes. I enjoy reading your diary and posting comments, but there you go, as they say.
September 11, 2019
Don’t give up, and keep shouting about this time after time as I do. You are not alone.
September 12, 2019
For god’s sakes man. We all get left out at times. John is busy. Feel lucky you get published at all.
September 11, 2019
Me too.
September 14, 2019
Oh David….surely you must know Sir John must have had a PC failure, or his internet went down, or possibly still on Waterloo stn waiting for a train that may never come. He would normally have been checking this site to immediately allow your post, perhaps his automatic notification for your entry failed? Please make allowances, we are all human.
September 12, 2019
These mp’s who want an extension for the supposed reason of renegotiating a deal at the expense of no deal must think the public are stupid. They have no intention of renegotiating any deal, their objective is to rip up Article 50 and remain in the eu. For god knows how long all opposition parties have been calling for a GE but now refuse one. Just shows their lack of confidence that they would win. They all should have a yellow streak painted on their backs.
September 12, 2019
The Edinburgh Court ruling did not mention the fact that the suspension period for party conferences had largely been agreed already i.e. 13 September to 9 October. The information was on the Parliament website the other day. The Lib conference starts on Saturday. All Boris did was add an extra 5 days. Hope with all my being that we can escape the EU on 31 October.
September 12, 2019
What about their Constituents, their Voters those that elected them on one Manifesto that became their Mandate for the office as MP were does that leave them? Mislead, been offered fraudulent platforms with no chance of redress and no say.
Everyone has the right to change their mind, but changing your mind on a promise that rewarded you an income without first going back to those that put you there can only be seen as fraud.
That is like having a contract with a builder in to repair your roof. Then when the builder turns up next door does their roof getting you to pay for it and your work still doesnât get done. What would you call that?
September 12, 2019
This went in the wrong place – Please delete
September 12, 2019
I’ve never posted before, but often read this excellent blog.
One thing that’s maddened me, since June 2016, is the wilful misunderstanding/misrepresentation, of what a referendum is, by Remainers – the claims “No one voted for no deal” or “That’s not what the Leave campaign (sic) said or promised.”
These points don’t seem to get rebutted, by an explanation that people were giving an instruction, not voting for a side, or for “promises”.
Could you write a blog, clearly explaining what a referendum is? I know it seems banal, but it could also cover the non-point about “It was only advisory” – how no referendum could ever be “binding”, in our system.
September 12, 2019
It is indeed startling for us all to read what the Edinburgh judges have speculated on, what someone said to someone else when they weren’t there – neither the Judges nor the PM were there. They have also introduced woolly phrases quite alien to law, such as “falling below the accepted standards of behaviour.” This isn’t law, this is bigotry. The broadcasters reported this morning that the judges had “Drawn an inference.” Nothing about evidence or proof. How could they nave been so idiotic as to imagine they could rule on advice to the Queen and pronounce it illegal?
September 12, 2019
Now that we have once again had the so called worst case scenario Yellowhammer document on leaving the EU publicised, we should , in the interest of balanced debate, now see the three other relevant considerations. Namely, the best case scenario for leaving the EU plus the best and worst case scenarios for remaining. I think the latter would be most enlightening. Put all sides of the question in the interest of fairness and balance or simply admit your bias.
September 12, 2019
I’ve been away for a few days and would like to catch up. Mr Benn’s grotty little Bill is presumably now an Act. It is unconstitutional but rather than provoke a constitutional crises, Mr Johnson may have a way out of his dilemma.
First, print off the text of the letter specified in the Benn bill, but on House of Commons paper and not 10 Downing Street paper. Don’t sign it (and nor should any other Conservative) but instead place a grumpy looking emoji in the signature position and underneath it write:
pp Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition
and John Bercow, Speaker of the House of Commons
and Hilary Benn, Shit Stirrer in Chief
That way, the true authors of the letter are revealed.
Secondly, and in the same envelope, Mr Johnson should write what a disastrous organisation the European Union is, how grim its track record and goals are, and why we wish to see it destroyed.
Messrs Macron and Juncker will then veto any extension to Article 50.
September 13, 2019
Mr Redwood, there are multiple ways in which the Surrender Bill is unconstitutional. Do you remember how the courts struck down the Weights and Measures Act 1985, which allowed market traders to sell in lb and oz? Lord Justice Lawes made up the principle on the spot that constitutional laws cannot be “impliedly” repealed, but only with express language, and as the Weights and Measures Act would tread on provisions of the European Communities Act 1972, which it didn’t expressly repeal, the later act of parliament was declared null. Well, the Surrender Bill knocks down many constitutional principles and provisions of previous constitutional acts – including the Treason Act and the Coronation Oath Act (which requires the Queen to swear to govern us according to our laws, not laws drawn up in Brussels) – without expressly repealing them. The Privy Council Oath requires the PM not to hand over the Queen’s pre-eminences or authorities or jurisdictions to a foreign potentate. Boris could easily argue no Act can require him to violate the Privy Council Oath and give the Queen advice that contravenes her Coronation Oath.