Last Thursday, Eurointelligence stated that Royal Assent of the Benn Bill was likely on Friday. I strongly objected.
Eurointelligence repeated that view on Friday and again I strongly objected.
I seldom go against their views because they are generally unbiased. In this case, however, I was confident they blew the legal discussion.
This morning, without admitting or even discussing their now obvious errors, Eurointelligence says “Chances of no-deal are rising and rising.”
Eurointelligence Dramatic Change in Tune
Boris Johnson will not break the law and go to jail. We note there is a lot of hyperventilating commentary out there that misses the essential point. He will circumvent the law. And it looks like he is ready to involve the EU in this. We have been arguing for a while that Remainers are somewhat optimistic about their ability to force an extension. It is the EU, not the UK parliament or a UK court, that has the final decision. And each member state has a veto.
That paragraph is a total whitewash of what they said last week. Here is one snip. from last week:
So what can Johnson do apart from cranking up the rhetoric, like the pledge that he’d rather die in a ditch than ask for an extension? What will he do when the request for an extension is the law? Another option for Johnson is to defy the Brexit bill, and risk being impeached by parliament.
I commented ” Eurointelligence is making an assumption that Boris will not pursue one of the options it laid out. But why would Johnson tell the opposition in advance what it would do? …. Eurointelligence jumped the gun.”
OK, I made my point. Let’s return to the critical issue with today’s Eurointelligence report.
The Daily Telegraph has a story this morning that Johnson is considering writing two letters – one that follows the formal instruction to ask for a three-month extension, and another saying that the government is not planning to meet the EU’s conditions. We doubt very much that the EU would extend based on such a request, especially if the UK does not fulfil the formal commitments of an extension agreed at the April European Council: to point to a political way forward. The French foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, said yesterday that France is presently minded to veto. The French narrative is based on lack of progress in the negotiations. This only goes to show that active non-cooperation is a viable strategy for Johnson. Imagine the EU’s response if he threatened to veto every decision in the European Council.
The Guardian ended its story with the remark that France will in the end not veto because Emmanuel Macron does not want to be blamed for a no-deal Brexit. We find that astonishing. Who on earth would blame Macron for Brexit?
Our understanding is that Johnson and his team are pressing ahead relentlessly, despite the largely-negative media commentary. Yesterday he lost Amber Rudd as works and pensions secretary. He may lose a few more ministers. The more he loses, the stronger his position becomes internally.
At the end of a week described by the media as disastrous, the Tories’ poll rating went up. A YouGov poll has the Tories up by 10pp. We disagree with the evolving media consensus about Dominic Cummings. His disruption is working politically. Media commentators should resist the temptation to overestimate their influence. We note the same tendency in continental newspapers whose outrage is fuelled further by the sudden realisation that Brexit may actually happen.
Intelligent Commentary
That’s mostly intelligent commentary. I have some objections that I will discuss later.
This observation is the same one I have made repeatedly: “Yesterday he lost Amber Rudd as works and pensions secretary. He may lose a few more ministers. The more he loses, the stronger his position becomes internally. “
Here’s another important Eurpintelligence observation:
Also consider that, the more radical the Tories are, the more Nigel Farage will co-operate. There only has to be a single pro-Brexit candidate on every constituency ticket against a multitude of pro-Remain candidates.
We also hear reports that Johnson is ready to involve the Supreme Court, which may struggle to rule on the matter in time.
I said both of those things, first.
The parts I agree with are also what I repeatedly have said over the past few days.
I admit my bias. It’s difficulty to disagree with yourself.
Two Letter Strategy
The Telegraph reports Boris Johnson draws up plan to legally stop Brexit extension if MPs vote against general election.
One plan under serious consideration would see the Prime Minister send an accompanying letter alongside the request to extend Article 50 setting out that the Government does not want any delay after Oct 31.
On Sunday night, a Cabinet source told The Telegraph: “There is a prescribed letter that has to be sent… Does that stop the Prime Minister sending other documents to the EU? I don’t think it does.
Really the Plan?
If you are thinking clearly you would quickly realize that cannot possibly be the plan.
What’s the Plan?
I don’t know, but this move is designed to rattle the opposition. It surely doesn’t reveal the plan. It’s too early for that.
But what it has to do is put doubts in the minds of the opposition.
This is far more believable.
Bluff?
You tell me, but I doubt it.
It is clear the Benn Bill is illegal.
Start your thinking there. But after this move tonight, one must think deeper.
Yet, faith in silliness, even illegal activities, prevails.
Blind Faith in Illegal Activities
Eurointelligence Observation
The parliament will vote tonight on the government’s second request to bring about an election in October. After last week’s pact by opposition parties, this request is set to be rejected again. Once the vote is cast, we expect the government to prorogue parliament today. Johnson will have five clear weeks, unimpeded by parliament, to set the agenda.
Hello October 14
There is no time to both schedule and vote on a motion of No Confidence today.
Parliament will not resume until October 14.
Problem for Johnson?!
The one problem I have with Johnson’s tactic today is that Parliament has the option on October 14 to schedule a motion of no confidence and appoint a caretaker government.
That option was always there, but today’s move may increase that likelihood.
I would have preferred to spring a trap as late as possible in the process.
That said, it would be hugely presumptuous of me to think I know things that Johnson’s legal team doesn’t.
Even still, I do not discuss things I have considered that have not been discussed in public, until they happen.
This double letter idea is one of them. I have still others, not yet discussed.
On the slight chance I have an idea that the opposition has not considered, I withhold discussion and will continue to do so.
Musical Tribute
Two Letter Silliness
If you think the two letter idea is a purposeful distraction, you are thinking along the right lines.
If you think it is the real plan or even a significant portion of the real plan, you are not thinking clearly.
Royal Assent – Who Cares?
Kiss the Benn Bill goodbye, even if it gets Royal Assent.
Today’s action, even if it passes, shows the bill to be useless. As worded, the illegal nature of the bill should be readily seen.
Issues come and go. The Remainers were simply too confident.
Final Comment
I leave you with a statement from Eurointelligence that I have made several times before: “Never underestimate the power of a prime minister, even a caretaker, to set the agenda“.
For the record, I learned that from Eurointelligence and attributed it to them when I used it.
Today, they added an extension that I have not stated previously “even a caretaker“.
That is the problem I worry about tonight. However, the actions and confidence of the Government imply that Brexiteers should not be worried.
Based on my report yesterday, Boris Johnson to “Test Legal Limits”, Amber Rudd Resigns, Javid Interview, Remainers have far more to worry about.
Worry is up to you.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
According to the Remainers at the BBC, the bill supposedly “is passed”. Not sure if that means it got royal assent? I will assume it does, and BBC is either dumbing it down for those of us in the colonies, or just as likely their UK reporter doesn’t know the difference anymore than foreigners.
So what has changed, now that the Remainers “won” their legislative coup? Boris will mail a letter to the EU. Maybe it gets lost in the mail? Maybe Brussels gets the letter. Maybe they get two or three or a baker’s dozen letters from Johnson. France vetos another extension request, or maybe they were bluffing, or maybe not.
The remainers have pulled every slimey trick in the book to create another delay, which will get punished in the next election. The absolute hard and fast deadline of March 31st already went by, they got a temporary reprieve until June was it? They they got another extension until Oct 31st, which will go by as well. Remainers don’t have the money, and neither does the EU.
So we have another bout of procrastination. Its likely that there will be a UK general election in the next few months, with or without another brexit delay.
So maybe Oct 31st happens (no more procrastinating), and Brexit happens.
Maybe the EU grants yet another extension and the UK has a general election…. this time the brexiteers get a bigger majority and a hard exit happens.
Or door number three there is another EU extension and we repeat this whole process again in six months?
Lots of legislative peacocking that changes nothing, or results in Brexit anyway.
All the Benn Bill in the end requires of Johnson is that he “SEEK” an extension. It does not and can’t order him to obtain an extension. So, now they are attacking him on the fact that he and his political allies actually talked about ways to stop the remainers prior to the prorogue, wow what a crime, politicians being politicians, off with his miserable head eh? I would like to know why Johnson discussing the options with his people is a violation of ANY law?
Nothing would have stopped Johnson from advising the Queen that the bill was garbage and royal asset should not happen. Brexit proceeds october 31st as planned.
Parliament should have been told (not asked) that the Queen is the sovereign, not Brussels. Anyone who disagrees should speak up right now. Go on record that they obey Brussels and not the Queen.
That is the law of the land. No one in Europe said anything about closing down their national legislatures or forfeiting their sovereignty. It didn’t happen.
If the remainers want to go to court, ignore it — both the court and the remainers. It doesn’t matter, the Queen is still sovereign and Brussels is still nothing but a suggestion.
Don’t like that answer? Great, call a general election, but the country is going to exit the disaster it officially never joined in the first place. Johnson is merely a PM, not a dictator — so call an election if you think he is wrong.
As this stands, it will be at almost two MORE months of animosity and uncertainty, with not a thing resolved. That is the best case scenario. Animosity and uncertainty could drag out for months after that if this childishness in Parliament is tolerated.
There was no referendum to surrender to Brussels.
There was a referendum to “exit”, which happened after months and months of debate. That is the decision that both Theresa May and Boris Johnson are accountable to.
Time to grow a spine and rip off the band-aid. End the farce. Instead Johnson wants to be wishy washy, which doesn’t resolve a thing, and in fact makes Johnson appear indecisive and weak.
“Parliament should have been told (not asked) that the Queen is the sovereign, not Brussels. Anyone who disagrees should speak up right now. Go on record that they obey Brussels and not the Queen.”
Boy you said a mouthful there CB, and I could not agree more. I am glad I had no coffee in my mouth this morning when I read about the Scottish ruling about Johnson somehow illegally talking to his people about prorogue and how the remainers said he should resign for “misleading the queen.” As if she is so senile or daft she could have been gulled into illegally proroguing the parliament. I would have shot hot coffee out my nose all over my computer again. I bet she was really happy to see them saying that.
Call a general election?
Johnson demanded they either call a general election or table a motion of no confidence in the government. They refused, by doing that they said they were happy enough with his leadership. They accuse Brexiteers of manipulating the situation when they have no legs upon which to stand, he offered to allow them to put a more like minded government in place if they did not approve of his strategy, they instead passed the Benn Bill which does not stand up to scrutiny. We agree 100% there as well.
The difference with our opinions is that I do not think Johnson is wishy washy, I think he is already using the prorogue time without the remainer trash to get a real deal that everyone can live with and the EU will agree because they look pretty stupid as ogres that are trying to keep the UK in the EU against Britain’s will. They have a lot of problems that are actually larger than Britain right now.
I think he is going to work out a deal for an all Ireland border deal that will make the backstop and hard border meaningless. With that in place the EU and UK will be satisfied. Leo Varadkar for the next few weeks will be a behind the scenes star. It is up to him to make a deal all of Ireland can live with.
The Queen is sovereign. They had option to call an election and chose not to. They had option to vote no confidence, but said they were happy enough with his leadership.
So problem solved. No need to be wishy washy. Proceed with “exit” as scheduled for October 31st from the silly club that the country never voted to join in the first place.
The onus should be on “remainers” if they want to declare Brussels as sovereign. Let the remainers go on TV and tell the nation they unilaterally pushed the Queen aside. Let the “remainers” call an election if that is what they want.
Unless and until then, proceed as scheduled for separation on October 31st.
Years of previous discussions did not produce an agreement suitable to both the EU and the people of England — and Parliament seems divided too. Can London and Brussels really speak for Dublin and Belfast — and have whatever result stick? All of this is going to magically take place in less than a month and a half?
So why not show a little backbone? Just cut to the chase and honor the results of the referendum and the established sovereign of the land.
Mish, can you publish the SHA-256 of your secret idea?
I thought studying physics was hard. Nothing compared to Brexit. I suspect something will happen in a few months to resolve it and no one will understand the solution.
It’s interesting to see that the people falling on their swords are Remainers…first Rudd, now Bercow. If Remainers are “winning” why do they keep jumping ship? Just saying. As for the bill, it did get Royal Assent today, which opens up the door to legal challenges…a direction Mish has been hinting at. Looks like it will be an interesting two months…
What about the simple logic: “Parliament cannot supersede or impede the referendum, and by extension the Benn bill is void” ?
That is what I am saying, the parliament passed the Referendum Act and that gave the Article 50 authority to the people and carried the weight of law, it did not impose restrictions on how happy Corbyn or Benn or the minority remainers would be with the terms of a deal or even if there was a deal at all. Nobody has the power to overturn that referendum and most certainly not on the weak kneed fears of the opposition that opposes mostly because they don’t like the conservatives. No matter the cost Brexit must proceed and claiming that the people did not vote for a no deal Brexit or a deal that was in some opinions a bad deal, they voted right or wrong to leave and that is the law.
Good commentary. It makes sense the two letter thing is a diversion. However, a ‘no-confidence motion on or after Oct 19th, the date the Johnson government is required to submit an extension, is probably the greatest threat to Brexit. Rest assured, 100%, that if the Johnson government steps down, Jeremy Corbyn will form a new government with support from everyone against Brexit and he will stop Brexit. I’m sure Boris realizes this, he would not prorogued parliament otherwise.
Psychologically, we seem to be entering a twilight zone where whoever wins, loses. If the remainers succeed in preventing Brexit at this time, they will harden the pro-Brexit groups, and most likely be slaughtered at the polls whenever the next election actually occurs. On the other hand, if BJ succeeds in forcing a hard Brexit, the consequences will cause the Conservatives to be slaughtered at the polls. Is it, therefore, possible that BJ plans to let the remainers win this round, knowing that when there ultimately is an election, his way forward will be unimpeded?
The Bill has now received Royal Assent so Boris must have something else. Very little has been said about the Kinnock Amendment to this Bill. This was added by a bizarre circumstances where the Government “forgot” to appoint anyone to count the votes against it so it passed by default. My information is that it conflicts with the main Bill but I don’t know the technicalities. Maybe this is to form the Legal Challenge and the “mistake” to let it pass wasn’t a mistake.
I think this government was doing well tactically up until the moment the opposition didn’t take the bait on an early election. I think this surprised Johnson and his people, and they have been scrambling ever since. Then again, the decision to immediately prorogue parliament almost came out of nowhere. Nobody was expecting that timing. So, maybe they have something similar up their sleeve. Who knows.
“That said, it would be hugely presumptuous of me to think I know things that Johnson’s legal team doesn’t.”
In fact, it is equally presumptuous to think the same about the opposition. 🙂
The opposition is too divided to have its own legal team.
So they have more than one.
I have hard time seeing that a Bill handing over the right to decide over sovereignty to EU would pass. But we are living strange times. My country never voted to join Euro currency and our dishonest politicians just said it was decided when we joined the EU free trade area. I despise the EU.
Its an embarrassment to watch these people falling over themselves to betray their country
It is highly unlikely to receive Royal Ascent.
And it is 99.9% certain that if Johnson makes that recommendation it won’t.
If Johnson allows RA (my advice is to delay) then Johnson has another legal challenge in mind.
This is all clear now. or should be
To you or I, who have no skin in the game. To BoJo and Her Majesty, witholding Royal Asset could trigger a Constitutional Crisis. You may well see Labour go for that election and run on abolishing the “anachronistic Monarchy,” which would be interesting since it is one of the UK’s stronger industries outside of financial and legal services.
In a sane world, your take that BoJo will delay advice on RA pending further legal clarification seems the most reasonable move.
As a French, if I have correctly understood what is going on, and since the British Constitution is an historic, unwritten construct, anything is possible, even a Speaker not abiding by the common rules, and ignoring his duty to always ask the Crown , even if rhetorically, about Royal Ascent and Royal Conscent.
Yet, the Crown retains the absolute right to deny either Royal Ascent or Royal Conscent, or both of them. The very purpose of the Speaker’s habit of systematically asking the Crown accounted for by the Government inside the house of Parliament – apart from the Queen’s annual speech inside it – is an inheritance from the past, designed to avoid precisely the situation where the Parliament would have approved a draft bill, only to face the Queen’s refusal.
Usually, since the Queen must search advice from the government before having it on, it should be attached to the bill’s proposal, and that’s what the Speaker’s question for ascent or consent is intended for. In the abscence of a formal government’s position, my guess is the Queen will have to look for an informal one.
By the way, should the Queen acquiesce to this coup, it would create a very dangerous situation where she would have agreed to being stripped of her prerogatives, at the will of the Speaker (and the Parliament). And that does not concern only the Benn bill, but all other possible bills in the future.
There’s a specific group of people to whom and to whose advice HM is obliged to listen, and it does not include Speaker Bercow and most of Commons and Lords. It does include BoJo.
It looks like it has now received Royal Assent if the news I am seeing is being interpreted correctly by me. Johnson is playing a very odd game if a) He was anticipating this and b) he isnt really batting for remain. Maybe he has a joker up his sleeve but somehow I doubt it.
That move by remain with Bercow falling on his sword in order to frustrate Brexit was a big one.
He has already served more than 9 years and his announcement to step down follows last Friday’s tweet by Corbyn saying that “When No Deal is off the table, once and for all, we should go back to the people in a public vote or a General Election to decide our country’s future.”
Well, it is Monday and from the remainer’s point of view they won, a hard Brexit is now off the table on October 31 with a requirement that the PM seek an extension from the EU till the end of January 2020.
Since the EU has already said any further extensions require either a breakthrough in negotiations they favor (not from Johnson it just isn’t in the cards) or an ELECTION is called. That tells me they have quietly arranged an extension with the EU confirmed by Corbyn’s tweet. The EU will not negotiate with BJ in good faith setting the stage for a mutually sought no deal Brexit on the 31st, but now the Benn Bill will require BJ seek an extension. Most people think there is no way the EU will grant that, but they will if they have been assured that means the remainers are going to call for a “public vote ” OR “a general election.” What do you think of that wording? Why a seemingly redundant statement like that? With OR in between. A GE is one thing, a public vote could be anything, even a revote on Brexit itself. Or, perhaps a referendum not on overturning Brexit (a sketchy proposition at best) but a NO DEAL BREXIT, which they think they can sell, because after all the only thing the British public wants less than a no deal Brexit is Jeremy Corbyn as PM. Corbyn would only have to promise to retire to get that passed.
Once a ban on a no deal Brexit is approved by the population that would be the end of Brexit. All they would have to do then is what they are already doing, the remainers and the EU would simply say no deal is good enough. Since that would only leave a no deal hard Brexit they can’t have by voter mandate Article 50 would be dead.
I believe this is the plan by the Libs/Labour.
“It is clear the Benn Bill is illegal.”
No, it is not clear that it is illegal, but it is hard to argue that it is not defective.
If the Benn Bill receives Royal Assent, it becomes an Act of Parliament, and under principles of Parliamentary Sovereignty as evolved under UK Constitutional law, it would be Statute Law, and by definition legal.
Sadly, all too often individuals can corrupt things. Corrupt judges can ensure innocent men are imprisoned, or that guilty ones go free. Corrupt legislation used to enrich people can be passed or to rob others. In this case the constitution has been corrupted and now there is a ridiculous bill forcing Boris Johnson to do something he has made clear that he will not do.
If the law is allowed to stand, does it also mean that they could pass a law ordering the chancellor perhaps, to jump off a bridge? I see no distinction in principle between that and this bill.
Remainers are suspending belief in a lot of things in order to see truth in the path they tread. Overturning a referendum, that is fine, MPs voting against the policies stated in their manifesto, no problem, the speaker allowing the government’s prerogative to be broken, no issue with that, and giving confidence to a Prime Minister who cannot deliver his own legislation but has to instead have legislation forced upon him by the opposition, that is all fine as well. I can only hope that at some point some of them wake up from this stupor they are in. Destroying all these sound principles in order to remain in the EU is never worth it, no matter how much you adore the EU.
I think the key is that parliament can write and pass any law they can get enough support for and it can become law. Its legality and constitutionality is up to the courts to decide
UK courts do not have judicial review in the sense that US courts have arrogated to themselves. UK courts cannot rule Primary Legislation unconstitutional or void.
But, in certain legislation areas the queen does have veto power right? And it is usually exercised by her proxy in the form of the government (PM) and that is what Queens assent is all about, is this not right?
She has veto power in all legislation … to exercise it without the advice of the Government would almost certainly create a constitutional crisis. The last bill for which Royal Assent was witheld was the Scotish Militia bill in 1706, where Queen Anne witheld assent at the advice of her government because they suspected, after passage of the bill and having learned of a possible invasion of Scotland by the French, that Scottish Militia might be disloyal in such an invasion. (Some things never change).
We have seen mention of queens assent here lately, which raises the prospect that it can be done, the denial of assent, veto, if it were not a distinct possibility it would not be punted around like veto is in America.
And this is certainly as far reaching as any potential French invasion of Scotland hundreds of years ago, that situation only involved some questionably loyal Scots militia, now it is Parliament itself which has such divided loyalty that the government has over the last few years, since the Brexit vote, become so polarized and crippled by the opposition to the vote that they are willing to do untold damage to the UK to get their way. Remainers have made it crystal clear that they will defy the will of the people no matter the cost. It is their own actions that have forced the government into the position it finds itself, facing a no deal Brexit.
Which leads me to wonder aloud, what exactly do the remainers hope to achieve by thwarting Brexit. Clearly they are trying to sabotage any deal so that the UK ends up with a harsh no deal Brexit, something they think is so unacceptable that they believe the rest of the nation will agree with them. They have to be thinking that the consequences will be so horrible that there will be a hue and cry from the people begging for a snap election to reverse the original Brexit vote. Something they would need an article 50 extension to do.
But, even if their little wet dreams did come to pass they would still have half the nation in uproar over that betrayal of democracy. It isn’t going to settle the question and see the UK live happily ever after.
I am US and Irish dual citizen, not British, but my country was British in it’s inception, founded upon British institutions, albeit with some unique twists, I can’t help feeling at least some kinship to the English, my heritage if not my legal status do reach into the deep past of England (mother’s family name was Bullen, that is pretty English). So, Britain faced the Germans not once but twice for it’s very existence in the 20th century, it survived. It lost it’s empire yet it survived. It boned it’s aristocracy but thrived anyway. So why are the remainers claiming that Brexit is such a metaphysical calamity that the UK might not survive it? I think they are massive drama queens. I will say though that I have known quite a few other drama queens and once should not underestimate them when they are backed into a corner.
“So why are the remainers claiming that Brexit is such a metaphysical calamity that the UK might not survive it?”
Why indeed? Why did the nobles of Wales sell their country down the river for union with England? Because they got to be important people in a bigger club.
BTW, some would suggest that the UK provoked Germany into two world wars, the first time on its own account to take down its biggest rival, and the second time at the behest of a US President who wanted to take down its biggest rival.
I was just going to point out to the above commentators that the UK does not have a written constitution. Instead what it has is many hundreds of years of tradition and legal opinions, and various powers carved out over time by different parts of the government, of society, of the sovereign, all very loosely (by now) based upon the Magna Carta. Some parts more loosely than others, and in fact in it is not out of the question for the sovereign to step in when the various parts become so hopelessly bogged down that urgent and existential issues would otherwise damage the realm beyond the point of no return. Since nobody alive has seen how this can be triggered they discount the possibility, but here is what Wiki says and forgive me for having to include this, but at least half the readers here are American and don’t understand how the British system works, it is hard enough for people who are interested in the subject: “The Queen herself is a ceremonial figurehead, who gives royal assent to new laws. By constitutional convention, the monarch does not usurp the democratic process and has not refused royal assent since the Scottish Militia Bill in 1708.”
The monarch, by the traditions of the unwritten collection of traditions and political satraps, has not refused assent since 1708. But, just because it has not been done since 1708 does not mean it cannot be done. One would have to know the thoughts of the queen, but clearly this situation has the ability to change the lives of every person in the UK. She may not withhold her assent in the end, but can still influence the outcome.
So, if I am wrong I want to hear from people who know better and would KINDLY speak to that in order to guide your cousins in America.
ER-II has stayed largely out of politics during her reign, but she has stepped in a couple times when staying aloof would have led to crisis. While she, like all Monarchs, generally gives Assent as a rubber stamp of the Government’s advice, the prerogative lies solely with her, so she could be a wild-card.
Can you imagine, though, how the Remoaners would act if Assent is withheld? They’d scream “Off with her head!”
The UK constitution is what Parliament says it is at any one time. This is very hard for Brits to understand let alone anyone else. There have been multiple failures to observe UK conventions within the last 12 months. Mrs May broke convention three times when she did not resign immediately when defeated three times on her flagship policy. She, also did not resign when found in contempt of parliament. The UK relies on gentlemen obeying conventions and unenforceable rules. The problem now is that no one trusts Johnson to keep his word and we have an elective dictatorship. For the first time since 1642 the opposition rules.
That is fine, I sort of doubt that it is true in all cases and clearly there is no mechanism in the courts to declare or void constitutionality, I will however pay a lot more attention when it is a MP, PM, or member of the high court when they post here, till then I am going with what I can find on the net, and that universally says courts in the UK do not have the power to overrule acts of parliament.
I agree with most of what you say. UK courts can declare Primary Legislation unconstitutional. For instance if the legislation is in conflict with Human Rights legislation. That said it would be very unusual for the courts to void legislation.
seb,
as I understand it, the courts can only interpret the law as stated for the particular cases that come before them. The law itself cannot be questioned.
If we had a written constitution, then that might mean that Parliament couldnt order someone to jump off a cliff. But as we dont, it is up to the good members to make sure nothing daft like that gets through.
Sadly though, sometimes things do get through, as in this case. If bad men conspire to do bad things, there isnt much we can do short of revolution. Bad things have clearly happened here.
Worse, a general election might help the remainers buy even more time. Emboldened, they might even withdraw or overturn the original referendum result. To them the principle of the EU overrules all other concerns, including respecting referendum results and the rule any law that might threaten to make the UK become independent.
“legality and constitutionality is up to the courts to decide”
No it is not. As we have witnessed is up to Mish to decide. Otherwise he would say: “it is MO that the law is illegal”. I belong to the camp that says “it ain’t over until the fat lady sings”
English courts do not have the power to overturn an act of parliament.
“If the law is allowed to stand, does it also mean that they could pass a law ordering the chancellor perhaps, to jump off a bridge?”
According to Dicey, yes, though some would argue that the principles of equity would excuse the Chancellor from this obligation. In any case, I suspect HM, nice lass that she is, would withold Assent on this.
One Tory today mentioned that this was not a proper Law because it applied only to one Person. Am not a lawyer, but this rang true to me. The Act as written is tyrannical exercise of parliamentary process.
It will not stand if challenged properly.
Also, I don’t think Parliament, by a single Act, has the authority to redefine the scope of powers of Her Majesty’s First Minister.
Finally, the sh*t show in the Commons tonight during prorogation will be Corbin’s lasting legacy: a broken house descending into childish, disgraceful, petty-minded anarchy.
They are going down!!!
The Act as written directs varous members of the Government to perform various functions by various dates. As it received Royal Assent, it would appear to be valid law at this point.
There are two aspects in the Act that have not really been covered much in the media:
The Act does provide for the Houses of Parliament to vote on a No Deal Brexit, but what are the chances of that?
I also doubt any of the EU will veto the exit of one of the EU’s bigger contributors.
This may better be called the European Union (Roach Hotel) No. 6 Act … Once you check in, you can’t check out.