Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
How can something that specifies, if Parliament doesn't agree or the EU Parliament doesn't agree, then X has to be done, be legal? Parliament won't specify what they would agree to, and the EU Parliament have only said what they would agree to. How can a 3rd party(ie Boris) be held responsible or accountable for any of that?
Anyway you look at it, that limb of the legislation can only be reached if any proposals have been put to both Parliaments. The "question" hasn't been asked, never mind answered.
Another aspect of this ILLEGAL law(eg rushed through and has debating time limits specified) is that the "no to no deal" means both Leave and Remain. Some of Leave side voted for it to have a TEMPORARY TRANSITIONAL deal, but the Remain side are using it to FORCE A COUP of never ending delays to leaving. How would the logic of that "law" be legal in any other context? Imagine if it was used for a Benefits related law, and it was something any claimant could never ever achieve. Imagine if the Scots voted for independence, and these tactics were used.
|
You should probably offer your services to the Attorney General, as you seem to think you know more/better than him and the entire Government legal team.
---------- Post added at 15:18 ---------- Previous post was at 15:15 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
Are you deliberately missing the point? Many Remainers make much of the mantra that “no deal” was not on the ballot paper. But if the voters took “leave altogether” as an understanding from the PM’s lips, then “no deal” is an implicit possible outcome.
|
Relevant word in bold/underlined...
But you also seem to be missing a/the point - you are stating that something should happen because the (then) PM said so, and his word must be believed; he also said something else, which wasn't true, but that doesn't need to believed.
As I said - chosing your "promises" from DC selectively...
---------- Post added at 15:20 ---------- Previous post was at 15:18 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
It is becoming clearer what el gov intends to do in order to circumvent the Surrender Act without breaking the law.
Quote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49936352
A senior Downing Street source said: "The government will comply with the Benn Act, which only imposes a very specific narrow duty concerning Parliament's letter requesting a delay - drafted by an unknown subset of MPs and pro-EU campaigners - and which can be interpreted in different ways.
"But the government is not prevented by the Act from doing other things that cause no delay, including other communications, private and public.
"People will have to wait to see how this is reconciled. The government is making its true position on delay known privately in Europe and this will become public soon.
|
|
From a
barrister...
Quote:
This familiar “Senior No 10 source” presumably thinks that if you point a gun at someone, grab their wallet and shout “this is NOT a robbery!” then you have ingeniously thwarted the statutory prohibition against robbery.
This is the same legal genius who floated the idea of sending a second letter asking the EU to ignore the first letter requesting an extension, until he was temporarily put back in his box by everyone who had ever had any dealings with any court ever.
|