Johnson has complied with the law. It didn't require him to send it with flowers.
Rather missing the point.
There is an obligation not to frustrate the purpose of the Act. The second letter may be seen by the Court as seeking to do just that.
If so, then the next question is whether this is in breach of the undertakings given by the PM to the Court.
If it is, then the PM is in contempt of court and the Court has various powers available to it to punish those who are in contempt. Contempt of court is a very serious matter, especially for a PM.
None of this affects what the EU is or is not doing.
I don’t know what the Scottish Court’s view will be on these questions. But it does strike me as silly of the PM to get involved in such arguments at a time when he needs all the votes he can get to get the WAIB through Parliament.
He is winding up a lot of people and winning lots of votes
Based on what evidence?
So far he got the deal he said he would , parliament shat their breeks, he has sent the puny letter and we may see EU help finalise the whole sage and give no extension and we will see these coward scrap themselves this week and beg him to let them vote for his deal. He really is making a fool of them big time.
Yes and it's not surprising, at least on a superficial level Boris clearly has charisma and is personable (not to mention Boris speaks French so probably helped him charm Macron, Juncker et al). Fair to say it's one of his big advantages over May.
I think the EU could offer an extension that complies with the Benn Act but stipulate that if legislation is passed the UK can leave as soon as it's ready. They did something similar with May already.
Maybe better to just sit on it until the end of the month, keeps them out of Britain's internal spat and leaves the pressure on MPs to pass the deal.
But the other question is whether the European Parliament now goes ahead with speed-ratification. If they don't, we're back to extension vs deal.
The EU would have been well aware either way that the extension request is coming from parliament and not him, so it doesn't really make any difference. Our fate rests in Macron's hands now.
If the deal passes, will we see an early election, as so many suggest? The line is already being stated that the deal is just a pathway to no deal, helped along by comments from various ERG MPs. So Labour can say no deal still not truly off the table yet. Not inconceivable that various excuses are found to delay an early election until Johnson's victory glow has faded at least (no winter election etc. public don't want one over xmas).
Governments only called elections when they thought it was good for them in the polls or when the term was up. Now that the opposition has that power, wouldn't the same logic apply?
Varadkar is a big player in this as well as Macron and remember they get on very well with Boris
Parliament needs to pas ironclad laws that BoZo can't frustrate, wriggle out of, ignore, bypass, or break.
Classic Dom...
The way Bozo has betrayed the DUP is extraordinary and, I suggest, unprecedented in modern British politics. Only weeks ago he told them a border in the Irish Sea was inconceivable. Now we find him proposing just that. His reputation for dissembling was pretty dire already - no sentient politician could ever trust a word he says ever again after such a brazen betrayal of colleagues who have, after all, kept him and his party in power for the past two years.
Johnson has complied with the law. It didn't require him to send it with flowers.
The concern seems to be that he sent the letter in a childish and sullen way, making clear he personally and the government did not want to do it but were forced to by Parliament.
For one, that is an entirely accurate summary of what happened.
For two, the EU know that is an entirely accurate summary of what happened.
Is complying with an Act in sullen and childish fashion really frustrating it? It's petty, to be sure, but is grudging compliance really unlawful?
To be fair the act doesn’t stipulate he can’t do it in a sullen way. Perhaps Benn should have insisted Johnson affect a “ happy and co-operative tone” whilst submitting it. The width of his smile should have been stipulated also? 😀
The bill actually expressed the exact form of the letter all he had to do was sign it. It’s all a little silly the big issue is actually what happens in 14 months time which is gaining no traction. You’re being conned the Uber rich are going to piss all over everybody as they laugh all the way to the bank. But you can’t and won’t see it, enjoy you’re sovereignty and a venture capitalist driven conservative Britain.
Nonsense.
Tin-foil hatted neurotic paranoid nonsense.
In any event - even if remotely plausible I’d rather that than live under the stultifying, oppressive, suffocating tyranny of Hard left cronyism.
Does the Benn Act say that Boris has to ACCEPT any offer of any extension?
If it's for 31st Jan 2020, yes, automatic acceptance. Any other date and parliament decides whether to accept. I believe that's it? Although it's more of a formality I think - doesn't the EU itself have the unilateral power to extend? When May extended she asked, they made her leave the room while deciding, told her what they were giving her and that was it. Nothing changed on our end.
Well they'd be wrong, because the Act goes on to say...."by sending a letter". He's done that using exactly the wording required by the Act.
I think you might be right. If the Benn Act had separated that into two sections it'd be stronger: ie a) the PM must seek an extension, AND must send a letter. The wording in a single sentence makes it seem like the two are the same.
No doubt govt lawyers have been over this pretty carefully.
Your telling me that legislation rushed through in under a day might not be watertight?
For some reason I was wikipediaing that one earlier.
The House of Lords, reversing the Court of Appeal, held that a minister's discretion to refuse an investigation was subject to judicial review where a refusal would frustrate the policy of an Act. An order should be made to direct the minister to consider the complaint.
Lord Reid said: The policy and objects of the Act must be determined by construing the Act as a whole, and construction is always a matter of law for the court.
Boris's personal letter does not direct the Council to ignore the request from Parliament, I'm still not seeing the frustrating of policy going on.
You're a lawyer, what am I missing here? He can publicly announce to the world that he does not want to send the letter, and that's not frustrating the Act, but a letter saying he does not want to send it is?
This is a dead cat thing, right? It seems so utterly inconsequential but various bods will get worked up about Johnson not complying, when really it's just petty and the EU have treated it as complying regardless, and they know that the Parliament of the UK has asked for an extension.
And of course the more the opponents kick up a fuss and involve the courts again the more publicity Boris receives and is likely to gain many more votes
His opponents would be best advised to calm down
However, the three letters are very clever and no doubt this was all part of the gaming involving Cummings. No wonder remainers despise him
What is wrong with you @Big_G_NorthWales? Why have you suddenly started drinking the Cummings Kool-Aid? Nothing has changed.
Boris got a deal. That part has changed.
We already had a deal. It doesn’t matter.
He’s just rehabilitating himself with his natural home but then I doubt he really ever left because his membership hasn’t gen suspended and won’t be until he goes about 14 months after it expires.
"An Act to make further provision in connection with the period for negotiations for withdrawing from the European Union."
The PM was required to send the letter - the precise form of which was dictated in the statute and has been followed equally precisely - and has sent that letter within the time period also set out in statute.
So the policy of the Act has not been frustrated.
The granting or otherwise of the extension is up to the EU. If Johnson tried to then veto any extension at a European level then you could make a case. But he was done precisely what was required of him.
The letter to other EU leaders is a statement of his position and the legal situation. Again - all very clear, precise and understood.
Johnson has complied with the law. It didn't require him to send it with flowers.
Rather missing the point.
There is an obligation not to frustrate the purpose of the Act. The second letter may be seen by the Court as seeking to do just that.
If so, then the next question is whether this is in breach of the undertakings given by the PM to the Court.
I don’t know what the Scottish Court’s view will be on these questions.
But what is your view on the question? Is his being a childish tool frustrating it, and why, given you make the point it will not affect what the EU is doing?
Should the EU be instructed to not consider the extension request until such time as it is confirmed the PM sent it correctly?
How can the covering letters be declared unlawful? He can't unsend them and the court cannot compel the EU to disregard them.
If there's a problem, it'll be that the Benn Act specifies not just that he sends a letter of specific wording, but that:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension..... "
They will try to argue that's he sabotaging it. Govt lawyers will argue that his duty under the act is fulfilled the moment he sent the letter.
I looked up the definition of misconduct in public office and by sending the second and third letter you could argue he is not fulfilling his duties by trying to undermine the Benn letter. BJ might think he is being smart but all it takes is one MP to report him to the Police to start the ball rolling... 😉
The Police would not take any such complaint seriously. There is nothing that has been done tonight that is in any way in contravention of what was required of him under the Act.
I am not talking about the act but fulfilling his duties in office. If he is actively undermining the first letter with the second and third letters, it could be argued he is behaving in a way that constitutes misconduct in public office.
@Big_G_NorthWales I didn’t think you would sully yourself with supporting petulant tantrums like not signing a letter. I mean who is coming up with this stuff?
Are you going to support Boris if he’s found in contempt of court?
This is a dead cat thing, right? It seems so utterly inconsequential but various bods will get worked up about Johnson not complying, when really it's just petty and the EU have treated it as complying regardless, and they know that the Parliament of the UK has asked for an extension.
And of course the more the opponents kick up a fuss and involve the courts again the more publicity Boris receives and is likely to gain many more votes
His opponents would be best advised to calm down
However, the three letters are very clever and no doubt this was all part of the gaming involving Cummings. No wonder remainers despise him
Your Johnson/Cummings infatuation is laughable.
I have to admit Boris has exceeded all my expectations and brought together my party.
I can understand some being upset that I am ready to rejoin as soon as he restores the whip to the rebels
Which rebels?
Anyone who votes for the deal, especially if they didn't vote for Letwin, can and should get the whip back.
Anyone who votes against his deal has chosen their own path. Goodbye.
The rebels i refer to are those who voted against Letwin today but also the other rebels who support the WDIA, the QS and the budget in the future
Johnson has complied with the law. It didn't require him to send it with flowers.
The concern seems to be that he sent the letter in a childish and sullen way, making clear he personally and the government did not want to do it but were forced to by Parliament.
For one, that is an entirely accurate summary of what happened.
For two, the EU know that is an entirely accurate summary of what happened.
Is complying with an Act in sullen and childish fashion really frustrating it? It's petty, to be sure, but is grudging compliance really unlawful?
To be fair the act doesn’t stipulate he can’t do it in a sullen way. Perhaps Benn should have insisted Johnson affect a “ happy and co-operative tone” whilst submitting it. The width of his smile should have been stipulated also? 😀
The bill actually expressed the exact form of the letter all he had to do was sign it. It’s all a little silly the big issue is actually what happens in 14 months time which is gaining no traction. You’re being conned the Uber rich are going to piss all over everybody as they laugh all the way to the bank. But you can’t and won’t see it, enjoy you’re sovereignty and a venture capitalist driven conservative Britain.
The Act doesn't simply say that the Prime Minister must send a letter. It says that the Prime Minister must "seek an extension" by sending a letter.
By sending an additional letter explicitly asking EU leaders not to grant an extension he seems to be acting directly contrary to the Act. He is very clearly not seeking an extension.
I think that Parliament erred when passing this Act to direct a PM against their will in this instance. It would have been better to install a PM who would act in line with the majority in Parliament. However, I also think that the PM is in breach of his legal obligation and the law must be enforced.
If the EU accept the letter as an extension request then it is an extension request. Why is it in the interests of those wanting an extension to get the courts to rule that it is not an extension request?
Because he sent a second letter
Oh boo hoo.
People are allowed to write letters you know. He wrote a second letter in his own capacity as he is entitled to do, he didn't exercise any unlawful authority when he did that.
Johnson has complied with the law. It didn't require him to send it with flowers.
Rather missing the point.
There is an obligation not to frustrate the purpose of the Act. The second letter may be seen by the Court as seeking to do just that.
If so, then the next question is whether this is in breach of the undertakings given by the PM to the Court.
If it is, then the PM is in contempt of court and the Court has various powers available to it to punish those who are in contempt. Contempt of court is a very serious matter, especially for a PM.
None of this affects what the EU is or is not doing.
I don’t know what the Scottish Court’s view will be on these questions. But it does strike me as silly of the PM to get involved in such arguments at a time when he needs all the votes he can get to get the WAIB through Parliament.
The purpose of the Benn Act was to require the PM to send a letter to the EU using exact wording. He's done so. What other purpose do you think it had?
The Act doesn't simply say that the Prime Minister must send a letter. It says that the Prime Minister must "seek an extension" by sending a letter.
By sending an additional letter explicitly asking EU leaders not to grant an extension he seems to be acting directly contrary to the Act. He is very clearly not seeking an extension.
I think that Parliament erred when passing this Act to direct a PM against their will in this instance. It would have been better to install a PM who would act in line with the majority in Parliament. However, I also think that the PM is in breach of his legal obligation and the law must be enforced.
If the EU accept the letter as an extension request then it is an extension request. Why is it in the interests of those wanting an extension to get the courts to rule that it is not an extension request?
Because he sent a second letter
Oh boo hoo.
People are allowed to write letters you know. He wrote a second letter in his own capacity as he is entitled to do, he didn't exercise any unlawful authority when he did that.
We’ll see what the court says. Funnily enough their opinion matters more than yours.
What is wrong with you @Big_G_NorthWales? Why have you suddenly started drinking the Cummings Kool-Aid? Nothing has changed.
Boris got a deal. That part has changed.
We already had a deal. It doesn’t matter.
Whether it mattered was not the point made, the point was saying nothing had changed, when Boris getting a deal when Boris did not have a deal previously is a change, and it is one which many people thought would not occur.
Going all Boris fanboy over that change may not be a wise or sensible reaction, but reacting to that change is not unreasonable, and denying there was a change in circumstance is just silly given, fairly or not, it has already let to a change in the political mathematics and so had an effect.
How can the covering letters be declared unlawful? He can't unsend them and the court cannot compel the EU to disregard them.
If there's a problem, it'll be that the Benn Act specifies not just that he sends a letter of specific wording, but that:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension..... "
They will try to argue that's he sabotaging it. Govt lawyers will argue that his duty under the act is fulfilled the moment he sent the letter.
I looked up the definition of misconduct in public office and by sending the second and third letter you could argue he is not fulfilling his duties by trying to undermine the Benn letter. BJ might think he is being smart but all it takes is one MP to report him to the Police to start the ball rolling... 😉
The Police would not take any such complaint seriously. There is nothing that has been done tonight that is in any way in contravention of what was required of him under the Act.
I am not talking about the act but fulfilling his duties in office. If he is actively undermining the first letter with the second and third letters, it could be argued he is behaving in a way that constitutes misconduct in public office.
There is nothing in the letter that he has sent that comes even close to what you seem to believe has happened.
He acknowledges the legal position. He restates his belief that a further delay is wrong and the actions he is taking to try to avoid it. He is not in a position to refuse an extension.
The Act doesn't simply say that the Prime Minister must send a letter. It says that the Prime Minister must "seek an extension" by sending a letter.
By sending an additional letter explicitly asking EU leaders not to grant an extension he seems to be acting directly contrary to the Act. He is very clearly not seeking an extension.
I think that Parliament erred when passing this Act to direct a PM against their will in this instance. It would have been better to install a PM who would act in line with the majority in Parliament. However, I also think that the PM is in breach of his legal obligation and the law must be enforced.
The act explicitly says how an extension must be sought, which I think he has satisfied.
This is a dead cat thing, right? It seems so utterly inconsequential but various bods will get worked up about Johnson not complying, when really it's just petty and the EU have treated it as complying regardless, and they know that the Parliament of the UK has asked for an extension.
And of course the more the opponents kick up a fuss and involve the courts again the more publicity Boris receives and is likely to gain many more votes
His opponents would be best advised to calm down
However, the three letters are very clever and no doubt this was all part of the gaming involving Cummings. No wonder remainers despise him
Your Johnson/Cummings infatuation is laughable.
You are a pompous ass.
Is that better or worse than being a vacilating fanny?
How can the covering letters be declared unlawful? He can't unsend them and the court cannot compel the EU to disregard them.
If there's a problem, it'll be that the Benn Act specifies not just that he sends a letter of specific wording, but that:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension..... "
They will try to argue that's he sabotaging it. Govt lawyers will argue that his duty under the act is fulfilled the moment he sent the letter.
I looked up the definition of misconduct in public office and by sending the second and third letter you could argue he is not fulfilling his duties by trying to undermine the Benn letter. BJ might think he is being smart but all it takes is one MP to report him to the Police to start the ball rolling... 😉
The Police would not take any such complaint seriously. There is nothing that has been done tonight that is in any way in contravention of what was required of him under the Act.
I am not talking about the act but fulfilling his duties in office. If he is actively undermining the first letter with the second and third letters, it could be argued he is behaving in a way that constitutes misconduct in public office.
There is nothing in the letter that he has sent that comes even close to what you seem to believe has happened.
He acknowledges the legal position. He restates his belief that a further delay is wrong and the actions he is taking to try to avoid it. He is not in a position to refuse an extension.
Where is the misconduct?
Because he’s been instructed by law to get an extension. There’s no maybe about it. If he’s trying to encourage the EU NOT to give us an extension, he’s going against the spirit of the law. Something he said to the Scottish court he wouldn’t do.
If the EU accept the letter as an extension request then it is an extension request. Why is it in the interests of those wanting an extension to get the courts to rule that it is not an extension request?
Because he sent a second letter
Oh boo hoo.
People are allowed to write letters you know. He wrote a second letter in his own capacity as he is entitled to do, he didn't exercise any unlawful authority when he did that.
We’ll see what the court says. Funnily enough their opinion matters more than yours.
Yes, we shall see. If you take that particular argument to the extreme, the Benn act forbids any activity that might lead to no extension being granted, such as signing a deal.
For some reason I was wikipediaing that one earlier.
The House of Lords, reversing the Court of Appeal, held that a minister's discretion to refuse an investigation was subject to judicial review where a refusal would frustrate the policy of an Act. An order should be made to direct the minister to consider the complaint.
Lord Reid said: The policy and objects of the Act must be determined by construing the Act as a whole, and construction is always a matter of law for the court.
Boris's personal letter does not direct the Council to ignore the request from Parliament, I'm still not seeing the frustrating of policy going on.
You're a lawyer, what am I missing here? He can publicly announce to the world that he does not want to send the letter, and that's not frustrating the Act, but a letter saying he does not want to send it is?
To use Alastair Meeks magnificent summary of the recent Supreme court decision as 'Don't take the piss' Boris Johnson is clearly taking the piss by sending three letters and I expect the courts will view it as such when delivering their judgment.
He is winding up a lot of people and winning lots of votes
It’s becoming more obvious the Benn Act was more to humiliate Johnson that anything else.
Seems its architects may have failed on that score.
Of course. That was only ever the reason. Force him to write the letter, humiliate him and drive voters away then call an election.
I would suggest this little tactic has roundly failed. I dislike Johnson intensely and would be glad to see him gone as PM but these Remainer games have made me far more sympathetic to him and his ability to bring back a workable deal will count for far more than these silly tricks by Benn and Letwin.
How can the covering letters be declared unlawful? He can't unsend them and the court cannot compel the EU to disregard them.
If there's a problem, it'll be that the Benn Act specifies not just that he sends a letter of specific wording, but that:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension..... "
They will try to argue that's he sabotaging it. Govt lawyers will argue that his duty under the act is fulfilled the moment he sent the letter.
I looked up the definition of misconduct in public office and by sending the second and third letter you could argue he is not fulfilling his duties by trying to undermine the Benn letter. BJ might think he is being smart but all it takes is one MP to report him to the Police to start the ball rolling... 😉
The Police would not take any such complaint seriously. There is nothing that has been done tonight that is in any way in contravention of what was required of him under the Act.
I am not talking about the act but fulfilling his duties in office. If he is actively undermining the first letter with the second and third letters, it could be argued he is behaving in a way that constitutes misconduct in public office.
There is nothing in the letter that he has sent that comes even close to what you seem to believe has happened.
He acknowledges the legal position. He restates his belief that a further delay is wrong and the actions he is taking to try to avoid it. He is not in a position to refuse an extension.
Where is the misconduct?
Because he’s been instructed by law to get an extension. There’s no maybe about it. If he’s trying to encourage the EU NOT to give us an extension, he’s going against the spirit of the law. Something he said to the Scottish court he wouldn’t do.
He’s asked for one. Tusk has acknowledged the request and said it is being considered. What more do you want?
If the EU accept the letter as an extension request then it is an extension request. Why is it in the interests of those wanting an extension to get the courts to rule that it is not an extension request?
Because he sent a second letter
Oh boo hoo.
People are allowed to write letters you know. He wrote a second letter in his own capacity as he is entitled to do, he didn't exercise any unlawful authority when he did that.
We’ll see what the court says. Funnily enough their opinion matters more than yours.
And if they rule he has complied in every way that matters, I wonder will anyone apologise for accusing him of seeking to frustrate it (we know he won't apologise if they say he did)?
Like with the prorogation case I think his behaviour is poor here regardless of whether he frustrated the act, and since no one seems to think it makes a difference to how the EU will act, focusing on whether it was petty/childish or not rather than unlawful seems more fruitful.
The EU would have been well aware either way that the extension request is coming from parliament and not him, so it doesn't really make any difference. Our fate rests in Macron's hands now.
If the deal passes, will we see an early election, as so many suggest? The line is already being stated that the deal is just a pathway to no deal, helped along by comments from various ERG MPs. So Labour can say no deal still not truly off the table yet. Not inconceivable that various excuses are found to delay an early election until Johnson's victory glow has faded at least (no winter election etc. public don't want one over xmas).
Governments only called elections when they thought it was good for them in the polls or when the term was up. Now that the opposition has that power, wouldn't the same logic apply?
Varadkar is a big player in this as well as Macron and remember they get on very well with Boris
Yes and it's not surprising, at least on a superficial level Boris clearly has charisma and is personable (not to mention Boris speaks French so probably helped him charm Macron, Juncker et al). Fair to say it's one of his big advantages over May.
I think the EU could offer an extension that complies with the Benn Act but stipulate that if legislation is passed the UK can leave as soon as it's ready. They did something similar with May already.
The Benn Act cannot compel the EU to grant an extension.
I'm not so sure an election is imminent. As long as Boris is popular the remainers cannot risk one so the war of attrition will continue until the tide turns against him/Brexit, until 2022 if necessary.
How can the covering letters be declared unlawful? He can't unsend them and the court cannot compel the EU to disregard them.
If there's a problem, it'll be that the Benn Act specifies not just that he sends a letter of specific wording, but that:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension..... "
They will try to argue that's he sabotaging it. Govt lawyers will argue that his duty under the act is fulfilled the moment he sent the letter.
I looked up the definition of misconduct in public office and by sending the second and third letter you could argue he is not fulfilling his duties by trying to undermine the Benn letter. BJ might think he is being smart but all it takes is one MP to report him to the Police to start the ball rolling... 😉
The Police would not take any such complaint seriously. There is nothing that has been done tonight that is in any way in contravention of what was required of him under the Act.
I am not talking about the act but fulfilling his duties in office. If he is actively undermining the first letter with the second and third letters, it could be argued he is behaving in a way that constitutes misconduct in public office.
There is nothing in the letter that he has sent that comes even close to what you seem to believe has happened.
He acknowledges the legal position. He restates his belief that a further delay is wrong and the actions he is taking to try to avoid it. He is not in a position to refuse an extension.
Where is the misconduct?
Because he’s been instructed by law to get an extension. There’s no maybe about it. If he’s trying to encourage the EU NOT to give us an extension, he’s going against the spirit of the law. Something he said to the Scottish court he wouldn’t do.
He’s asked for one. Tusk has acknowledged the request and said it is being considered. What more do you want?
The Prime Minister not to undermine his legal requirement to secure an extension with silly 2nd letter nonsense.
His fanbois are cheering, but it is not the act of a sober statesman.
I don't think it's that, he says whatever he needs to say to whoever he's talking to in the way he needs to say it. In the Commons he was talking (mainly) to wavering MPs. With the letters he's talking to Tusk, communicating in the actual legally binding letter, and tabloid headline writers, via the second letter. The EU leaders know what politics is, they won't care about the second one.
I think it's effective politics: The brexit enthusiasts seem happy when they could have been sad, the wavering Tories won't flip back over this, and the EU have accepted that they've received an extension request.
@Big_G_NorthWales I didn’t think you would sully yourself with supporting petulant tantrums like not signing a letter. I mean who is coming up with this stuff?
Are you going to support Boris if he’s found in contempt of court?
Who said I supported him not signing the letter but there is a part of me that finds the outrage quite funny and if he is found in contempt of court that is for another day
What is wrong with you @Big_G_NorthWales? Why have you suddenly started drinking the Cummings Kool-Aid? Nothing has changed.
Yes it has.
The party has come together and when the rebels have the whip restored I will rejoin to fight against Corbyn and all he stands for
And are you going to attack the rebels who supported Boris today as well as myself
Who cares about the ‘party’?
It has only ever been about the party. That’s all that matters, it is their god given right to rule as was explained to me many years ago by a Tory council leader. They were placed on this earth to show us lesser human beings the only true and right way is the Tory way. They may be right who knows
For some reason I was wikipediaing that one earlier.
The House of Lords, reversing the Court of Appeal, held that a minister's discretion to refuse an investigation was subject to judicial review where a refusal would frustrate the policy of an Act. An order should be made to direct the minister to consider the complaint.
Lord Reid said: The policy and objects of the Act must be determined by construing the Act as a whole, and construction is always a matter of law for the court.
Boris's personal letter does not direct the Council to ignore the request from Parliament, I'm still not seeing the frustrating of policy going on.
You're a lawyer, what am I missing here? He can publicly announce to the world that he does not want to send the letter, and that's not frustrating the Act, but a letter saying he does not want to send it is?
To use Alastair Meeks magnificent summary of the recent Supreme court decision as 'Don't take the piss' Boris Johnson is clearly taking the piss by sending three letters and I expect the courts will view it as such when delivering their judgment.
Fair enough. Although I still don't get how three letters does that but publicly stating he doesn't believe in the extension would not.
If the Benn Act did not want the PM to write to the EU or speak to the EU regarding an extension in any way other than sending the letter prescribed in the Act it should have said so. It did not. The letter required by the Act has been sent. The PM has complied with the law as he said he would.
It may seem an obvious point but are opponents seriously going to Court tomorrow to argue that the ‘spirit’ of the Benn Act has not been complied with (and therefore acknowledging, by implication, that the letter of the law has?). And they expect to get a hearing? A ruling in their favour would overturn centuries of British legal precedent wouldn’t it?
If the EU accept the letter as an extension request then it is an extension request. Why is it in the interests of those wanting an extension to get the courts to rule that it is not an extension request?
Because he sent a second letter
Oh boo hoo.
People are allowed to write letters you know. He wrote a second letter in his own capacity as he is entitled to do, he didn't exercise any unlawful authority when he did that.
We’ll see what the court says. Funnily enough their opinion matters more than yours.
And if they rule he has complied in every way that matters, I wonder will anyone apologise for accusing him of seeking to frustrate it (we know he won't apologise if they say he did)?
Like with the prorogation case I think his behaviour is poor here regardless of whether he frustrated the act, and since no one seems to think it makes a difference to how the EU will act, focusing on whether it was petty/childish or not rather than unlawful seems more fruitful.
You want me to apologise to Boris Johnson if the Scottish Court rules his compliance is lawful?
His fanbois are cheering, but it is not the act of a sober statesman.
I don't think it's that, he says whatever he needs to say to whoever he's talking to in the way he needs to say it. In the Commons he was talking (mainly) to wavering MPs. With the letters he's talking to Tusk, communicating in the actual legally binding letter, and tabloid headline writers, via the second letter. The EU leaders know what politics is, they won't care about the second one.
I think it's effective politics: The brexit enthusiasts seem happy when they could have been sad, the wavering Tories won't flip back over this, and the EU have accepted that they've received an extension request.
For some reason I was wikipediaing that one earlier.
The House of Lords, reversing the Court of Appeal, held that a minister's discretion to refuse an investigation was subject to judicial review where a refusal would frustrate the policy of an Act. An order should be made to direct the minister to consider the complaint.
Lord Reid said: The policy and objects of the Act must be determined by construing the Act as a whole, and construction is always a matter of law for the court.
Boris's personal letter does not direct the Council to ignore the request from Parliament, I'm still not seeing the frustrating of policy going on.
You're a lawyer, what am I missing here? He can publicly announce to the world that he does not want to send the letter, and that's not frustrating the Act, but a letter saying he does not want to send it is?
To use Alastair Meeks magnificent summary of the recent Supreme court decision as 'Don't take the piss' Boris Johnson is clearly taking the piss by sending three letters and I expect the courts will view it as such when delivering their judgment.
Can you point to the language in the letter to Tusk (and others) that you think is relevant?
There is no request to deny the extension request - just repeats of his already and oft-stated position that he doesn't believe a request to be justified and that he will continue to work to ensure it isn't necessary.
If the Benn Act did not want the PM to write to the EU or speak to the EU regarding an extension in any way other than sending the letter prescribed in the Act it should have said so. It did not. The letter required by the Act has been sent. The PM has complied with the law as he said he would.
The law does not say ‘send this letter’. It says ‘secure an extension and accept it’.
This is a dead cat thing, right? It seems so utterly inconsequential but various bods will get worked up about Johnson not complying, when really it's just petty and the EU have treated it as complying regardless, and they know that the Parliament of the UK has asked for an extension.
And of course the more the opponents kick up a fuss and involve the courts again the more publicity Boris receives and is likely to gain many more votes
His opponents would be best advised to calm down
However, the three letters are very clever and no doubt this was all part of the gaming involving Cummings. No wonder remainers despise him
Your Johnson/Cummings infatuation is laughable.
I have to admit Boris has exceeded all my expectations and brought together my party.
I can understand some being upset that I am ready to rejoin as soon as he restores the whip to the rebels
Which rebels?
Anyone who votes for the deal, especially if they didn't vote for Letwin, can and should get the whip back.
Anyone who votes against his deal has chosen their own path. Goodbye.
The rebels i refer to are those who voted against Letwin today but also the other rebels who support the WDIA, the QS and the budget in the future
I'm content with any rebels who voted against Letwin and for the WAIB, QS and budget regaining the whip.
I'm content with anyone [former whip holder or current whip holder] who votes against the WAIB, QS or budget losing the whip.
How can the covering letters be declared unlawful? He can't unsend them and the court cannot compel the EU to disregard them.
If there's a problem, it'll be that the Benn Act specifies not just that he sends a letter of specific wording, but that:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension..... "
They will try to argue that's he sabotaging it. Govt lawyers will argue that his duty under the act is fulfilled the moment he sent the letter.
I looked up the definition of misconduct in public office and by sending the second and third letter you could argue he is not fulfilling his duties by trying to undermine the Benn letter. BJ might think he is being smart but all it takes is one MP to report him to the Police to start the ball rolling... 😉
The Police would not take any such complaint seriously. There is nothing that has been done tonight that is in any way in contravention of what was required of him under the Act.
I am not talking about the act but fulfilling his duties in office. If he is actively undermining the first letter with the second and third letters, it could be argued he is behaving in a way that constitutes misconduct in public office.
There is nothing in the letter that he has sent that comes even close to what you seem to believe has happened.
He acknowledges the legal position. He restates his belief that a further delay is wrong and the actions he is taking to try to avoid it. He is not in a position to refuse an extension.
Where is the misconduct?
Because he’s been instructed by law to get an extension. There’s no maybe about it. If he’s trying to encourage the EU NOT to give us an extension, he’s going against the spirit of the law. Something he said to the Scottish court he wouldn’t do.
Unless he could erase his history of many many words stating he did not want an extention then there seems no way he could have complied. Not even a blank sending of the letter would do that.
The Act doesn't simply say that the Prime Minister must send a letter. It says that the Prime Minister must "seek an extension" by sending a letter.
By sending an additional letter explicitly asking EU leaders not to grant an extension he seems to be acting directly contrary to the Act. He is very clearly not seeking an extension.
I think that Parliament erred when passing this Act to direct a PM against their will in this instance. It would have been better to install a PM who would act in line with the majority in Parliament. However, I also think that the PM is in breach of his legal obligation and the law must be enforced.
As I understand it (from BBC reports) he asks the EU to ask Parliament to reconsider their decision. This is absolutely not the same thing as asking the EU not to grant an extension.
If the Benn Act did not want the PM to write to the EU or speak to the EU regarding an extension in any way other than sending the letter prescribed in the Act it should have said so. It did not. The letter required by the Act has been sent. The PM has complied with the law as he said he would.
The law does not say ‘send this letter’. It says ‘secure an extension and accept it’.
If that were really true then the EU refusing an extension would put him in breach of the law. Which is clearly nonsense.
If the EU accept the letter as an extension request then it is an extension request. Why is it in the interests of those wanting an extension to get the courts to rule that it is not an extension request?
Because he sent a second letter
Oh boo hoo.
People are allowed to write letters you know. He wrote a second letter in his own capacity as he is entitled to do, he didn't exercise any unlawful authority when he did that.
We’ll see what the court says. Funnily enough their opinion matters more than yours.
And if they rule he has complied in every way that matters, I wonder will anyone apologise for accusing him of seeking to frustrate it (we know he won't apologise if they say he did)?
Like with the prorogation case I think his behaviour is poor here regardless of whether he frustrated the act, and since no one seems to think it makes a difference to how the EU will act, focusing on whether it was petty/childish or not rather than unlawful seems more fruitful.
You want me to apologise to Boris Johnson if the Scottish Court rules his compliance is lawful?
Yes. Just a simple post here apologising would be enough, no need to say it to his face
I don't think it's that, he says whatever he needs to say to whoever he's talking to in the way he needs to say it. In the Commons he was talking (mainly) to wavering MPs. With the letters he's talking to Tusk, communicating in the actual legally binding letter, and tabloid headline writers, via the second letter. The EU leaders know what politics is, they won't care about the second one.
I think it's effective politics: The brexit enthusiasts seem happy when they could have been sad, the wavering Tories won't flip back over this, and the EU have accepted that they've received an extension request.
I think you are wrong.
In the house a few weeks ago, talking to MPs that he needed onside, he threw a strop. He was belligerent, and childish, and it cost him.
Today he toned it down in the house, as he needed to.
Then threw another strop. The 3 letters are childish. The fanbois are lapping it up, but serious commentators think it foolish, and it may yet fall foul of the courts.
The EU isn't thick and knows that two of those letters are basically for domestic political consumption.
The difficult question for the EU is how to least interfere with internal British politics.
Is it by keeping quiet for a week? By offering a short extension to the end of November to allow extra time for the Parliamentary approval of the withdrawal agreement?
I don't think the EU want to insert themselves into a struggle between the PM and the Commons. But that's what has happened.
If the Benn Act did not want the PM to write to the EU or speak to the EU regarding an extension in any way other than sending the letter prescribed in the Act it should have said so. It did not. The letter required by the Act has been sent. The PM has complied with the law as he said he would.
The law does not say ‘send this letter’. It says ‘secure an extension and accept it’.
He is winding up a lot of people and winning lots of votes
It’s becoming more obvious the Benn Act was more to humiliate Johnson that anything else.
Seems its architects may have failed on that score.
Of course. That was only ever the reason. Force him to write the letter, humiliate him and drive voters away then call an election.
I would suggest this little tactic has roundly failed. I dislike Johnson intensely and would be glad to see him gone as PM but these Remainer games have made me far more sympathetic to him and his ability to bring back a workable deal will count for far more than these silly tricks by Benn and Letwin.
If the Benn Act did not want the PM to write to the EU or speak to the EU regarding an extension in any way other than sending the letter prescribed in the Act it should have said so. It did not. The letter required by the Act has been sent. The PM has complied with the law as he said he would.
The law does not say ‘send this letter’. It says ‘secure an extension and accept it’.
It says seek an extension by sending a letter. If you are going to use quotation marks, use actual text from the act.
This is a dead cat thing, right? It seems so utterly inconsequential but various bods will get worked up about Johnson not complying, when really it's just petty and the EU have treated it as complying regardless, and they know that the Parliament of the UK has asked for an extension.
And of course the more the opponents kick up a fuss and involve the courts again the more publicity Boris receives and is likely to gain many more votes
His opponents would be best advised to calm down
However, the three letters are very clever and no doubt this was all part of the gaming involving Cummings. No wonder remainers despise him
Your Johnson/Cummings infatuation is laughable.
I have to admit Boris has exceeded all my expectations and brought together my party.
I can understand some being upset that I am ready to rejoin as soon as he restores the whip to the rebels
Which rebels?
Anyone who votes for the deal, especially if they didn't vote for Letwin, can and should get the whip back.
Anyone who votes against his deal has chosen their own path. Goodbye.
The rebels i refer to are those who voted against Letwin today but also the other rebels who support the WDIA, the QS and the budget in the future
I'm content with any rebels who voted against Letwin and for the WAIB, QS and budget regaining the whip.
I'm content with anyone [former whip holder or current whip holder] who votes against the WAIB, QS or budget losing the whip.
If the Benn Act did not want the PM to write to the EU or speak to the EU regarding an extension in any way other than sending the letter prescribed in the Act it should have said so. It did not. The letter required by the Act has been sent. The PM has complied with the law as he said he would.
The law does not say ‘send this letter’. It says ‘secure an extension and accept it’.
I think you are incorrect. The Act says must seek to obtain an extension.....by sending a letter. He's sent the letter and in doing so has complied. He could not be required to secure an extension in any case since the EU may decline such an extension.
Away from this nonsense, I guess the interesting thing is the numbers next week. I think we now know (after what Letwin said and with Labour members breaking cover) that he has the numbers to pass the Act. However::
- With the DUP, can a second referendum pass? To do so, some of the above would have to break for it, an no other Labour MPs vote against. Seems unlikely but more possible than it seemed last week.
- Will the withdrawal Act acquire a shopping list of CU, single market etc? Must be odds on.
Anything else meaningful I’m not thinking of?
I suspect there’s limited money to be made on second referendum market movements next week, but small sums. Not sure on the other bits.
If the EU accept the letter as an extension request then it is an extension request. Why is it in the interests of those wanting an extension to get the courts to rule that it is not an extension request?
Because he sent a second letter
Oh boo hoo.
People are allowed to write letters you know. He wrote a second letter in his own capacity as he is entitled to do, he didn't exercise any unlawful authority when he did that.
We’ll see what the court says. Funnily enough their opinion matters more than yours.
And if they rule he has complied in every way that matters, I wonder will anyone apologise for accusing him of seeking to frustrate it (we know he won't apologise if they say he did)?
Like with the prorogation case I think his behaviour is poor here regardless of whether he frustrated the act, and since no one seems to think it makes a difference to how the EU will act, focusing on whether it was petty/childish or not rather than unlawful seems more fruitful.
You want me to apologise to Boris Johnson if the Scottish Court rules his compliance is lawful?
I think when people accuse someone of acting unlawfully and it is subsequently shown they acted lawfully an acknowledgement of being wrong is not unreasonable. It's a very serious accusation to make. Of course, he has shown no such humility when found to have acted unlawfully, and behaved terribly in response, so I doubt anyone will give him such acknowledgement.
But as an example if someone were to say 'How dare Bojo frustrate the ac like he has? the man is a disgrace' and the court says he has not frustrated it, why would someone not hold up their hand and say 'Ok, he was not a disgrace for frustrating the act, he's just a dick'?
As it is I think he's acted wrongly even if it was lawful, so it doesn't matter.
If the EU accept the letter as an extension request then it is an extension request. Why is it in the interests of those wanting an extension to get the courts to rule that it is not an extension request?
Because he sent a second letter
Oh boo hoo.
People are allowed to write letters you know. He wrote a second letter in his own capacity as he is entitled to do, he didn't exercise any unlawful authority when he did that.
We’ll see what the court says. Funnily enough their opinion matters more than yours.
And if they rule he has complied in every way that matters, I wonder will anyone apologise for accusing him of seeking to frustrate it (we know he won't apologise if they say he did)?
Like with the prorogation case I think his behaviour is poor here regardless of whether he frustrated the act, and since no one seems to think it makes a difference to how the EU will act, focusing on whether it was petty/childish or not rather than unlawful seems more fruitful.
You want me to apologise to Boris Johnson if the Scottish Court rules his compliance is lawful?
Yes. Just a simple post here apologising would be enough, no need to say it to his face
The really funny thing is that there was so much discussion about the possibility of his refusing to send the letter, resigning as prime minister, putting in a substitute prime minister to send the letter then coming back, and so on and so forth.
And here we are with the letter done with less fuss than a schoolboy's thank you letter to Aunt Flo for the lovely socks.
Remainers here are (and the ones who we're kindly exposed to from Twitter) really livid about the second letter. How... odd. Along with sending the letter that MP's compelled him to send, is he banned from sending other letters? Was he meant to put SWALK on the end of it? Remainers got what they wanted but for some reason the taste of victory has turned to ash.
There is only one letter the EU will worry about. The other two are for domestic consumption only. Any court asked will undoubtedly find that to be the case. The law has been complied with. And, if needed, the EU will grant an extension.
If the EU accept the letter as an extension request then it is an extension request. Why is it in the interests of those wanting an extension to get the courts to rule that it is not an extension request?
Because he sent a second letter
Oh boo hoo.
People are allowed to write letters you know. He wrote a second letter in his own capacity as he is entitled to do, he didn't exercise any unlawful authority when he did that.
We’ll see what the court says. Funnily enough their opinion matters more than yours.
And if they rule he has complied in every way that matters, I wonder will anyone apologise for accusing him of seeking to frustrate it (we know he won't apologise if they say he did)?
Like with the prorogation case I think his behaviour is poor here regardless of whether he frustrated the act, and since no one seems to think it makes a difference to how the EU will act, focusing on whether it was petty/childish or not rather than unlawful seems more fruitful.
You want me to apologise to Boris Johnson if the Scottish Court rules his compliance is lawful?
I think when people accuse someone of acting unlawfully and it is subsequently shown they acted lawfully an acknowledgement of being wrong is not unreasonable. It's a very serious accusation to make. Of course, he has shown no such humility when found to have acted unlawfully, and behaved terribly in response, so I doubt anyone will give him such acknowledgement.
But as an example if someone were to say 'How dare Bojo frustrate the ac like he has? the man is a disgrace' and the court says he has not frustrated it, why would someone not hold up their hand and say 'Ok, he was not a disgrace for frustrating the act, he's just a dick'?
As it is I think he's acted wrongly even if it was lawful, so it doesn't matter.
I don’t think I’ve actually said he’s acting unlawful. I’ve just said that we’ll see what the court says about it and accused him of petulance.
The really funny thing is that there was so much discussion about the possibility of his refusing to send the letter, resigning as prime minister, putting in a substitute prime minister to send the letter then coming back, and so on and so forth.
And here we are with the letter done with less fuss than a schoolboy's thank you letter to Aunt Flo for the lovely socks.
Yes. It did have the feel of tough talk more than anything else. I know he used the words 'die in a ditch', but really, he'd die in a ditch over a letter he was forced to send agaisnt his will? He'd give up being PM?
Part of why he shifted so much on the deal I guess - sending in the extension request (albeit he still tried to avoid it today) when he managed to get the EU on board for something demonstrates he did some work to avoid it, whereas sending it when he sat back and tried to let no deal happen really would make him look very weak.
There is only one letter the EU will worry about. The other two are for domestic consumption only. Any court asked will undoubtedly find that to be the case. The law has been complied with. And, if needed, the EU will grant an extension.
Yeah, the interesting question is how long it'll take for the EU to reply. Maybe not as quick as some might hope.
If the EU accept the letter as an extension request then it is an extension request. Why is it in the interests of those wanting an extension to get the courts to rule that it is not an extension request?
Because he sent a second letter
Oh boo hoo.
People are allowed to write letters you know. He wrote a second letter in his own capacity as he is entitled to do, he didn't exercise any unlawful authority when he did that.
We’ll see what the court says. Funnily enough their opinion matters more than yours.
And if they rule he has complied in every way that matters, I wonder will anyone apologise for accusing him of seeking to frustrate it (we know he won't apologise if they say he did)?
Like with the prorogation case I think his behaviour is poor here regardless of whether he frustrated the act, and since no one seems to think it makes a difference to how the EU will act, focusing on whether it was petty/childish or not rather than unlawful seems more fruitful.
You want me to apologise to Boris Johnson if the Scottish Court rules his compliance is lawful?
I think when people accuse someone of acting unlawfully and it is subsequently shown they acted lawfully an acknowledgement of being wrong is not unreasonable. It's a very serious accusation to make. Of course, he has shown no such humility when found to have acted unlawfully, and behaved terribly in response, so I doubt anyone will give him such acknowledgement.
But as an example if someone were to say 'How dare Bojo frustrate the ac like he has? the man is a disgrace' and the court says he has not frustrated it, why would someone not hold up their hand and say 'Ok, he was not a disgrace for frustrating the act, he's just a dick'?
As it is I think he's acted wrongly even if it was lawful, so it doesn't matter.
I don’t think I’ve actually said he’s acting unlawful. I’ve just said that we’ll see what the court says about it and accused him of petulance.
And I deliberately framed my examples of people apologising in generic terms, not saying you should have to do so based on what you personally have said, but as a hypothetical based on some of the wilder accusations that are no doubt flying around.
What is wrong with you @Big_G_NorthWales? Why have you suddenly started drinking the Cummings Kool-Aid? Nothing has changed.
Yes it has.
The party has come together and when the rebels have the whip restored I will rejoin to fight against Corbyn and all he stands for
And are you going to attack the rebels who supported Boris today as well as myself
Who cares about the ‘party’?
I do
I don't think that party loyalty is a bad thing in and of itself. Nor is the ability to unify your party a political skill to be treated lightly. Johnson's skills in this area have been mixed but better of late than previously. I suspect that in the short to medium term he will succeed in delivering Brexit and achieving electoral success, so people like me who think he is a morally bankrupt scumbag will have to grit our teeth for a while yet.
Remainers here are (and the ones who we're kindly exposed to from Twitter) really livid about the second letter. How... odd. Along with sending the letter that MP's compelled him to send, is he banned from sending other letters? Was he meant to put SWALK on the end of it? Remainers got what they wanted but for some reason the taste of victory has turned to ash.
Corbyn can’t wave a signed letter in Johnson’s face over the dispatch box, all those memes of Johnson in a ditch carefully crafted over the past few weeks look a little misplaced. All the fun and games people were going to have on this momentous day have been a little bit...undermined.
All the talk of how humiliating it would be and driving BXP voters back to Farage in their droves..all those dreams and hopes turned to dust.
By a man they dismiss as an idiot. Quite funny really.
What is wrong with you @Big_G_NorthWales? Why have you suddenly started drinking the Cummings Kool-Aid? Nothing has changed.
Yes it has.
The party has come together and when the rebels have the whip restored I will rejoin to fight against Corbyn and all he stands for
And are you going to attack the rebels who supported Boris today as well as myself
Who cares about the ‘party’?
It has only ever been about the party. That’s all that matters, it is their god given right to rule as was explained to me many years ago by a Tory council leader. They were placed on this earth to show us lesser human beings the only true and right way is the Tory way. They may be right who knows
Quite. A few short months ago Theresa May solemnly intoned that putting a border in the Irish Sea could not be countenanced by any British Prime Minister.
Today she voted to create such a border.
Because doing so might keep the Tory Party together for a few more days.
Benn requires him to seek an extension. The EU27 are considering the request. He has not asked them not to offer the extension or stated he would refuse it. Joanna cherry stamping her feet because the bad man doesn't love the extension is just nonsense and there is no legal issue here.
What is wrong with you @Big_G_NorthWales? Why have you suddenly started drinking the Cummings Kool-Aid? Nothing has changed.
Yes it has.
The party has come together and when the rebels have the whip restored I will rejoin to fight against Corbyn and all he stands for
And are you going to attack the rebels who supported Boris today as well as myself
Who cares about the ‘party’?
I do
I don't think that party loyalty is a bad thing in and of itself. Nor is the ability to unify your party a political skill to be treated lightly. Johnson's skills in this area have been mixed but better of late than previously. I suspect that in the short to medium term he will succeed in delivering Brexit and achieving electoral success, so people like me who think he is a morally bankrupt scumbag will have to grit our teeth for a while yet.
There is only one letter the EU will worry about. The other two are for domestic consumption only. Any court asked will undoubtedly find that to be the case. The law has been complied with. And, if needed, the EU will grant an extension.
Tusk has responded with a dignity and good manners completely at odds with the petulant and boorish rude expensively schooled PM.
Comments
There is an obligation not to frustrate the purpose of the Act. The second letter may be seen by the Court as seeking to do just that.
If so, then the next question is whether this is in breach of the undertakings given by the PM to the Court.
If it is, then the PM is in contempt of court and the Court has various powers available to it to punish those who are in contempt. Contempt of court is a very serious matter, especially for a PM.
None of this affects what the EU is or is not doing.
I don’t know what the Scottish Court’s view will be on these questions. But it does strike me as silly of the PM to get involved in such arguments at a time when he needs all the votes he can get to get the WAIB through Parliament.
But the other question is whether the European Parliament now goes ahead with speed-ratification. If they don't, we're back to extension vs deal.
Tin-foil hatted neurotic paranoid nonsense.
In any event - even if remotely plausible I’d rather that than live under the stultifying, oppressive, suffocating tyranny of Hard left cronyism.
The party has come together and when the rebels have the whip restored I will rejoin to fight against Corbyn and all he stands for
And are you going to attack the rebels who supported Boris today as well as myself
The House of Lords, reversing the Court of Appeal, held that a minister's discretion to refuse an investigation was subject to judicial review where a refusal would frustrate the policy of an Act. An order should be made to direct the minister to consider the complaint.
Lord Reid said:
The policy and objects of the Act must be determined by construing the Act as a whole, and construction is always a matter of law for the court.
Boris's personal letter does not direct the Council to ignore the request from Parliament, I'm still not seeing the frustrating of policy going on.
You're a lawyer, what am I missing here? He can publicly announce to the world that he does not want to send the letter, and that's not frustrating the Act, but a letter saying he does not want to send it is?
"An Act to make further provision in connection with the period for negotiations for withdrawing from the European Union."
The PM was required to send the letter - the precise form of which was dictated in the statute and has been followed equally precisely - and has sent that letter within the time period also set out in statute.
So the policy of the Act has not been frustrated.
The granting or otherwise of the extension is up to the EU. If Johnson tried to then veto any extension at a European level then you could make a case. But he was done precisely what was required of him.
The letter to other EU leaders is a statement of his position and the legal situation. Again - all very clear, precise and understood.
How would Padfield apply?
Should the EU be instructed to not consider the extension request until such time as it is confirmed the PM sent it correctly?
Are you going to support Boris if he’s found in contempt of court?
https://twitter.com/joeyfjones/status/1185675271434887171
BoZo had a strop.
His fanbois are cheering, but it is not the act of a sober statesman.
By sending an additional letter explicitly asking EU leaders not to grant an extension he seems to be acting directly contrary to the Act. He is very clearly not seeking an extension.
I think that Parliament erred when passing this Act to direct a PM against their will in this instance. It would have been better to install a PM who would act in line with the majority in Parliament. However, I also think that the PM is in breach of his legal obligation and the law must be enforced.
On that topic, have there been any updates on the order paper for Tuesday’s sitting?
He’s basically Theresa May and that’s very funny.
People are allowed to write letters you know. He wrote a second letter in his own capacity as he is entitled to do, he didn't exercise any unlawful authority when he did that.
Funnily enough their opinion matters more than yours.
Going all Boris fanboy over that change may not be a wise or sensible reaction, but reacting to that change is not unreasonable, and denying there was a change in circumstance is just silly given, fairly or not, it has already let to a change in the political mathematics and so had an effect.
He acknowledges the legal position. He restates his belief that a further delay is wrong and the actions he is taking to try to avoid it. He is not in a position to refuse an extension.
Where is the misconduct?
I would suggest this little tactic has roundly failed. I dislike Johnson intensely and would be glad to see him gone as PM but these Remainer games have made me far more sympathetic to him and his ability to bring back a workable deal will count for far more than these silly tricks by Benn and Letwin.
Like with the prorogation case I think his behaviour is poor here regardless of whether he frustrated the act, and since no one seems to think it makes a difference to how the EU will act, focusing on whether it was petty/childish or not rather than unlawful seems more fruitful.
I'm not so sure an election is imminent. As long as Boris is popular the remainers cannot risk one so the war of attrition will continue until the tide turns against him/Brexit, until 2022 if necessary.
Yeah he has and it’s glorious.
I think it's effective politics: The brexit enthusiasts seem happy when they could have been sad, the wavering Tories won't flip back over this, and the EU have accepted that they've received an extension request.
There is no request to deny the extension request - just repeats of his already and oft-stated position that he doesn't believe a request to be justified and that he will continue to work to ensure it isn't necessary.
I'm content with anyone [former whip holder or current whip holder] who votes against the WAIB, QS or budget losing the whip.
Refusing to sign. Sending more letters. Knob.
In the house a few weeks ago, talking to MPs that he needed onside, he threw a strop. He was belligerent, and childish, and it cost him.
Today he toned it down in the house, as he needed to.
Then threw another strop. The 3 letters are childish. The fanbois are lapping it up, but serious commentators think it foolish, and it may yet fall foul of the courts.
Is it by keeping quiet for a week? By offering a short extension to the end of November to allow extra time for the Parliamentary approval of the withdrawal agreement?
I don't think the EU want to insert themselves into a struggle between the PM and the Commons. But that's what has happened.
- With the DUP, can a second referendum pass? To do so, some of the above would have to break for it, an no other Labour MPs vote against. Seems unlikely but more possible than it seemed last week.
- Will the withdrawal Act acquire a shopping list of CU, single market etc? Must be odds on.
Anything else meaningful I’m not thinking of?
I suspect there’s limited money to be made on second referendum market movements next week, but small sums. Not sure on the other bits.
But as an example if someone were to say 'How dare Bojo frustrate the ac like he has? the man is a disgrace' and the court says he has not frustrated it, why would someone not hold up their hand and say 'Ok, he was not a disgrace for frustrating the act, he's just a dick'?
As it is I think he's acted wrongly even if it was lawful, so it doesn't matter.
And here we are with the letter done with less fuss than a schoolboy's thank you letter to Aunt Flo for the lovely socks.
Part of why he shifted so much on the deal I guess - sending in the extension request (albeit he still tried to avoid it today) when he managed to get the EU on board for something demonstrates he did some work to avoid it, whereas sending it when he sat back and tried to let no deal happen really would make him look very weak.
All the talk of how humiliating it would be and driving BXP voters back to Farage in their droves..all those dreams and hopes turned to dust.
By a man they dismiss as an idiot. Quite funny really.
Today she voted to create such a border.
Because doing so might keep the Tory Party together for a few more days.
Pathetic.
Judge: “Has he complied with the letter of the law”
Lawyer: “yes”
Judge: “why are you wasting our time?”
Joanna cherry stamping her feet because the bad man doesn't love the extension is just nonsense and there is no legal issue here.