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.
Isn't there a potential meeting pencilled in for next weekend? (genuine question)
My guess is they'll do nothing for as long as possible (as usual).
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. HYUFD was certain he would not send the letter. This should have been the day that Johnson resigned and we were left without a PM, or Corbyn became a PM only to lose a Vote of No Confidence on Tuesday, or something else like that.
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.
Pathetic.
I never know whether any of you political types believe this sort of twoddle when you type it? I presume not.
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.
Isn't there a potential meeting pencilled in for next weekend? (genuine question)
My guess is they'll do nothing for as long as possible (as usual).
In court tomorrow: Lawyer: “I ask the court to declare that the PM has failed to comply with the spirit of the law and must be declared in contempt”
Judge: “Has he complied with the letter of the law”
Lawyer: “yes”
Judge: “why are you wasting our time?”
‘Must seek to obtain’ is surely worth a few billable hours of arguments.
I guess. That he never actually says to ignore parliament's request feels like the government's arguments that he did not stymie it. But I guess it depends on how much pisstaking they are prepared to put up with when it makes no difference as Tusk is already actioning things based off the request.
In court tomorrow: Lawyer: “I ask the court to declare that the PM has failed to comply with the spirit of the law and must be declared in contempt”
Judge: “Has he complied with the letter of the law”
Lawyer: “yes”
Judge: “why are you wasting our time?”
‘Must seek to obtain’ is surely worth a few billable hours of arguments.
The complete clause states explicitly how the request must be sought, without any commas or grammatical construction to separate the fact he must seek one, and how he must do it.
In court tomorrow: Lawyer: “I ask the court to declare that the PM has failed to comply with the spirit of the law and must be declared in contempt”
Judge: “Has he complied with the letter of the law”
Lawyer: “yes”
Judge: “why are you wasting our time?”
‘Must seek to obtain’ is surely worth a few billable hours of arguments.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
It should have been enough for our PM to agree a deal with the EU, but the politicians, who we were told wouldn’t have the final say, demanded the final say
So they voted to stop us leaving, three times.
Now there is a deal that MPs will vote for and we can leave
So MPs vote to render the vote meaningless
How can anyone defend them? You’ll look back on it with horror
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.
Pathetic.
I never know whether any of you political types believe this sort of twoddle when you type it? I presume not.
We believe everything we say completely sincerely and passionately, including the contradictory bits.
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 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.
I've said that I think he is in breach of the law and I'm happy to admit to having erred if the court finds that is not the case. It wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong about something. You would hope that the PM had a better grasp of the law than most random opinionated people on the internet.
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. HYUFD was certain he would not send the letter. This should have been the day that Johnson resigned and we were left without a PM, or Corbyn became a PM only to lose a Vote of No Confidence on Tuesday, or something else like that.
HYUFD is certain of a lot of s**t. We're also going to repartition Ireland and send the troops in to beat up Nicola Sturgeon. Have I missed something?
In court tomorrow: Lawyer: “I ask the court to declare that the PM has failed to comply with the spirit of the law and must be declared in contempt”
Judge: “Has he complied with the letter of the law”
Lawyer: “yes”
Judge: “why are you wasting our time?”
‘Must seek to obtain’ is surely worth a few billable hours of arguments.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
It should have been enough for our PM to agree a deal with the EU, but the politicians, who we were told wouldn’t have the final say, demanded the final say
So they voted to stop us leaving, three times.
Now there is a deal that MPs will vote for and we can leave
So MPs vote to render the vote meaningless
How can anyone defend them? You’ll look back on it with horror
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.
Lock him up.
No beat him in a GE. What you don't want one. There's a surprise!
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.
Isn't there a potential meeting pencilled in for next weekend? (genuine question)
My guess is they'll do nothing for as long as possible (as usual).
If you’re the EU there’s no incentive to reply quickly at all, and every incentive to have a few leaders sound sceptical about an extension in order to force the issue here.
I presume we’ll therefore have the unedifying spectacle of Grieve and co, Alan Partridge like, turning up in Brussels next week saying “go on you shit, give us another extension”.
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. HYUFD was certain he would not send the letter. This should have been the day that Johnson resigned and we were left without a PM, or Corbyn became a PM only to lose a Vote of No Confidence on Tuesday, or something else like that.
HYUFD is certain of a lot of s**t. We're also going to repartition Ireland and send the troops in to beat up Nicola Sturgeon. Have I missed something?
Nuking Madrid
I can't tell if he's serious all the time, but he's part of the furniture now.
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.
Isn't there a potential meeting pencilled in for next weekend? (genuine question)
My guess is they'll do nothing for as long as possible (as usual).
EU Ambassadors in the morning
Thanks; if they signal an intention one way or the other that quickly it will certainly have the potential to affect next week's votes. My guess is that they will say they are 'thinking about 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?
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.
I've said that I think he is in breach of the law and I'm happy to admit to having erred if the court finds that is not the case. It wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong about something. You would hope that the PM had a better grasp of the law than most random opinionated people on the internet.
Or at least be better advised than us. But then advisers can be wrong. I have no problem admitting to being in error if it turns out he has acted unlawfully, nothing embarrassing about getting things wrong, generally.
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.
Pathetic.
Well as she is no longer PM, perhaps she can countenance it.
It should have been enough for our PM to agree a deal with the EU, but the politicians, who we were told wouldn’t have the final say, demanded the final say
So they voted to stop us leaving, three times.
Now there is a deal that MPs will vote for and we can leave
So MPs vote to render the vote meaningless
How can anyone defend them? You’ll look back on it with horror
We don’t like the deal. And what?
Indications are the deal will be agreed. But the chance to demonstrate that has been further delayed.
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. HYUFD was certain he would not send the letter. This should have been the day that Johnson resigned and we were left without a PM, or Corbyn became a PM only to lose a Vote of No Confidence on Tuesday, or something else like that.
HYUFD is certain of a lot of s**t. We're also going to repartition Ireland and send the troops in to beat up Nicola Sturgeon. Have I missed something?
I hope the DUP are enjoying rubbing shoulders with parliamentary politicians who secretly and in my experience very often not so secretly despise them. In worrying that the deal puts them on the UK's window ledge they have overlooked the fact that the Conservative and Unionist Party were their best guarantors that they will not be allowed to fall off it. I suspect that might be rather less the case now.
It should have been enough for our PM to agree a deal with the EU, but the politicians, who we were told wouldn’t have the final say, demanded the final say
So they voted to stop us leaving, three times.
Now there is a deal that MPs will vote for and we can leave
So MPs vote to render the vote meaningless
How can anyone defend them? You’ll look back on it with horror
There’s a better than evens a chance this site will be hilarious come election night. The people, the bastards, will get their say.
In court tomorrow: Lawyer: “I ask the court to declare that the PM has failed to comply with the spirit of the law and must be declared in contempt”
Judge: “Has he complied with the letter of the law”
Lawyer: “yes”
Judge: “why are you wasting our time?”
‘Must seek to obtain’ is surely worth a few billable hours of arguments.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
We’ll see wont we.
Well my legal training does give me at least some insight into how these things work. I know that lawyers tend to read everything not just the bits you want to cut and paste.
In court tomorrow: Lawyer: “I ask the court to declare that the PM has failed to comply with the spirit of the law and must be declared in contempt”
Judge: “Has he complied with the letter of the law”
Lawyer: “yes”
Judge: “why are you wasting our time?”
‘Must seek to obtain’ is surely worth a few billable hours of arguments.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
Isn’t the wording actually rendered nonsensical given today’s events? The stated reason for delay in the act is to secure changes to the WA. But the vote today did not reject the WA, so why the need to secure changes?
Arguably Johnson’s covering letters made complete sense in the circumstances. Parliament has not rejected the WA, he expects to pass it by October 31, so a further extension serves no purpose and is in nobody’s interest.
I hope the DUP are enjoying rubbing shoulders with parliamentary politicians who secretly and in my experience very often not so secretly despise them. In worrying that the deal puts them on the UK's window ledge they have overlooked the fact that the Conservative and Unionist Party were their best guarantors that they will not be allowed to fall off it. I suspect that might be rather less the case now.
The Tories threw the DUP under a bus. They did right by the island of Ireland because, in the end, the unionist bit of the party name is now redundant. Brexit matters more.
In court tomorrow: Lawyer: “I ask the court to declare that the PM has failed to comply with the spirit of the law and must be declared in contempt”
Judge: “Has he complied with the letter of the law”
Lawyer: “yes”
Judge: “why are you wasting our time?”
‘Must seek to obtain’ is surely worth a few billable hours of arguments.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
On reflection the letter was a hostage to fortune by whoever drafted the Bill. A simple requirement to seek an extension would have been much more difficult to symbolically bypass. I wonder who thought of the letter? Not Letwin by any chance?
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. HYUFD was certain he would not send the letter. This should have been the day that Johnson resigned and we were left without a PM, or Corbyn became a PM only to lose a Vote of No Confidence on Tuesday, or something else like that.
HYUFD is certain of a lot of s**t. We're also going to repartition Ireland and send the troops in to beat up Nicola Sturgeon. Have I missed something?
HYUFD repeatedly assured us that Bozo would resign rather than seek an extension.
In court tomorrow: Lawyer: “I ask the court to declare that the PM has failed to comply with the spirit of the law and must be declared in contempt”
Judge: “Has he complied with the letter of the law”
Lawyer: “yes”
Judge: “why are you wasting our time?”
‘Must seek to obtain’ is surely worth a few billable hours of arguments.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
Isn’t the wording actually rendered nonsensical given today’s events? The stated reason for delay in the act is to secure changes to the WA. But the vote today did not reject the WA, so why the need to secure changes?
The bill does still need to be debated and passed, so that bit is still somewhat sensical.
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.
Isn't there a potential meeting pencilled in for next weekend? (genuine question)
My guess is they'll do nothing for as long as possible (as usual).
EU Ambassadors in the morning
Thanks; if they signal an intention one way or the other that quickly it will certainly have the potential to affect next week's votes. My guess is that they will say they are 'thinking about it'....
My guess would be “were confused - we need a meaningful vote to understand the parliamentary arithmetic”. Macron seemed to be laying the ground for that earlier. Taking that line doesn’t hurt them or prevent later agreement.
In court tomorrow: Lawyer: “I ask the court to declare that the PM has failed to comply with the spirit of the law and must be declared in contempt”
Judge: “Has he complied with the letter of the law”
Lawyer: “yes”
Judge: “why are you wasting our time?”
‘Must seek to obtain’ is surely worth a few billable hours of arguments.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
Isn’t the wording actually rendered nonsensical given today’s events? The stated reason for delay in the act is to secure changes to the WA. But the vote today did not reject the WA, so why the need to secure changes?
Just one of the reasons why the Act is a bad piece of legislations.
Benn, Letwin, Grieve et al thought they had thought of everything. It is so clear that they didn't
Anyway the fact is that Boris has requested an extension.
He’s basically Theresa May and that’s very funny.
Not really, he has a deal with a chance of passing.
Not before he made a dick of himself with his Super Saturday grandiose theatricals. It was framed to be victorious Super Statesman Boris casting all those in his path asunder. Instead he finished the day looking like a petulant child.
Johnson's victory when it comes later this week will be unbearable hubristic. I genuinely regret cheering on Mrs May's travails earlier this year.She deserved better than to have her legs taken from under her by Johnson and his ERG bullies, for them only to re-heat her deal, change the name and call it their own.
I hope the DUP are enjoying rubbing shoulders with parliamentary politicians who secretly and in my experience very often not so secretly despise them. In worrying that the deal puts them on the UK's window ledge they have overlooked the fact that the Conservative and Unionist Party were their best guarantors that they will not be allowed to fall off it. I suspect that might be rather less the case now.
The Tories threw the DUP under a bus. They did right by the island of Ireland because, in the end, the unionist bit of the party name is now redundant. Brexit matters more.
Shifting the DUP may have been rather unwise. If ever there was a contest in grudge holding, Ulster Unionists would be nailed on for the gold medal.
The Benn Act was too clever for its own good. Had it required the PM to seek an extension to 31 January, but not said how he must do so it would have placed him in a very difficult position with respect to compliance and evidence of compliance. By stipulating the means so precisely by which he had to request the extension it has made it much easier for him to comply with the letter of the law, as he has done. Too clever by half.
It should have been enough for our PM to agree a deal with the EU, but the politicians, who we were told wouldn’t have the final say, demanded the final say
So they voted to stop us leaving, three times.
Now there is a deal that MPs will vote for and we can leave
So MPs vote to render the vote meaningless
How can anyone defend them? You’ll look back on it with horror
There’s a better than evens a chance this site will be hilarious come election night. The people, the bastards, will get their say.
Given that an overwhelming number of constituencies voted Leave, you could be right.
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.
Absolutely.
Yep agreed
I work in ( export) manufacturing. I was out and about in Cumbria, the “M62” and Lincolnshire this week. I rigorously avoid politics in business, but multiple times spontaneously folks raised “we just need a bloody decision”. This lawyer fest sponsored delay is unlikely to be welcomed.
Have to say I’m missing the petulance and rudeness in Johnson’s second letter. He’s very polite about all the EU players. The dig at Parliament is really neither here nor there. They’re big boys and girls.
I hope the DUP are enjoying rubbing shoulders with parliamentary politicians who secretly and in my experience very often not so secretly despise them. In worrying that the deal puts them on the UK's window ledge they have overlooked the fact that the Conservative and Unionist Party were their best guarantors that they will not be allowed to fall off it. I suspect that might be rather less the case now.
The Tories threw the DUP under a bus. They did right by the island of Ireland because, in the end, the unionist bit of the party name is now redundant. Brexit matters more.
And yet, Northern Ireland as the gateway to the EU for the UK, and the gateway to the UK for the EU, gives a sort of 21st century reason for being that can only cement its long term position within the UK.
The Benn Act was too clever for its own good. Had it required the PM to seek an extension to 31 January, but not said how he must do so it would have placed him in a very difficult position with respect to compliance and evidence of compliance. By stipulating the means so precisely by which he had to request the extension it has made it much easier for him to comply with the letter of the law, as he has done. Too clever by half.
As I said, Boris already promised a Scottish court he would not “frustrate the purpose of the act”.
The purpose of the act is not to send a letter.
Wether or not his childish antics have been seen as frustrating the purpose is another question but we’ll see.
8. The courts order him to make a genuine offer of an extension. He refuses and resigns.
What a bloody silly court order that would be when the EU have already treated the offer as genuine. So sorry Mr Tusk, Mr Johnson cannot answer your call as he has resigned because he won't send you the extension request, you know, the one you already have.
Have to say I’m missing the petulance and rudeness in Johnson’s second letter. He’s very polite about all the EU players. The dig at Parliament is really neither here nor there. They’re big boys and girls.
I'm shocked, people are pontificating on something they haven't even read. Shocked!
There's been a lot of chatter about the Tories throwing the union under the bus in order to get Brexit through. For the first time since this whole sad, sorry business started, I'm starting to wonder whether Boris could lose both Northern Ireland and Brexit.
It should have been enough for our PM to agree a deal with the EU, but the politicians, who we were told wouldn’t have the final say, demanded the final say
So they voted to stop us leaving, three times.
Now there is a deal that MPs will vote for and we can leave
So MPs vote to render the vote meaningless
How can anyone defend them? You’ll look back on it with horror
We don’t like the deal. And what?
Indications are the deal will be agreed. But the chance to demonstrate that has been further delayed.
On those indications I have just gone through how each MP voted and there’s lots of red that did not vote far too many to have been pared off. Are these waverers who are waiting to pass the MV? 🤔
If they are yes to the wrecking but didn’t turn up then it would have passed with much greater margin.
What other indications have we got? There all DUP and quite a few Tories Boris expelled supporting the wrecking amendment.
Parliament needs to close up Thursday for a November election?
Is it true Letwin promised to back government but soon as Jacob brought it back Monday Oliver jumped up to tell speaker they can’t do that?
Sorry for lots of questions, been out all day supporting a crap football team so just catching up.
I hope the DUP are enjoying rubbing shoulders with parliamentary politicians who secretly and in my experience very often not so secretly despise them. In worrying that the deal puts them on the UK's window ledge they have overlooked the fact that the Conservative and Unionist Party were their best guarantors that they will not be allowed to fall off it. I suspect that might be rather less the case now.
The Tories threw the DUP under a bus. They did right by the island of Ireland because, in the end, the unionist bit of the party name is now redundant. Brexit matters more.
And yet, Northern Ireland as the gateway to the EU for the UK, and the gateway to the UK for the EU, gives a sort of 21st century reason for being that can only cement its long term position within the UK.
Not really. The equation in Northern Ireland remains the same: when a majority of people in the north see themselves as Irish reunification will take place. The demographics are inexorable. Orangemen and women have less sex than Catholics!!
Have to say I’m missing the petulance and rudeness in Johnson’s second letter. He’s very polite about all the EU players. The dig at Parliament is really neither here nor there. They’re big boys and girls.
I'm shocked, people are pontificating on something they haven't even read. Shocked!
I read it - the pettiness is in the act of doing it, not the text itself, which personally I described as 'tame'.
It should have been enough for our PM to agree a deal with the EU, but the politicians, who we were told wouldn’t have the final say, demanded the final say
So they voted to stop us leaving, three times.
Now there is a deal that MPs will vote for and we can leave
So MPs vote to render the vote meaningless
How can anyone defend them? You’ll look back on it with horror
The fact that Johnson has a very different deal to May entirely justifies Parliament playing a role in determining how we leave the EU, since such a deal has a large bearing on the law of the land and the rights of its citizens, and it is for Parliament to decide such matters, not the PM.
If a Prime Minister wants to pass a deal then they have to find a deal that can command a majority to vote for it.
Lord Pannick seems to think the PM is the right side of the legal line (see Kuenssberg in Twitter). That’ll do for me.
Quite right. It certainly looks like a massive climb-down. If it looks like a climb-down it probably is a climb-down and therefore probably fulfills the Benn Act.
It should have been enough for our PM to agree a deal with the EU, but the politicians, who we were told wouldn’t have the final say, demanded the final say
So they voted to stop us leaving, three times.
Now there is a deal that MPs will vote for and we can leave
So MPs vote to render the vote meaningless
How can anyone defend them? You’ll look back on it with horror
There’s a better than evens a chance this site will be hilarious come election night. The people, the bastards, will get their say.
Given that an overwhelming number of constituencies voted Leave, you could be right.
Some of those people might still think parties other than the Tories will deliver Brexit though. Only wall to wall television coverage of court proceedings showing that the PM was committed to Brexit, and interviews showing that all other politicians were against, could sure up his vote.
I hope the DUP are enjoying rubbing shoulders with parliamentary politicians who secretly and in my experience very often not so secretly despise them. In worrying that the deal puts them on the UK's window ledge they have overlooked the fact that the Conservative and Unionist Party were their best guarantors that they will not be allowed to fall off it. I suspect that might be rather less the case now.
The Tories threw the DUP under a bus. They did right by the island of Ireland because, in the end, the unionist bit of the party name is now redundant. Brexit matters more.
Shifting the DUP may have been rather unwise. If ever there was a contest in grudge holding, Ulster Unionists would be nailed on for the gold medal.
More love and less grudge might mean longer to reunification! But the Tories undoubtedly need an overall majority now at the next election.
It should have been enough for our PM to agree a deal with the EU, but the politicians, who we were told wouldn’t have the final say, demanded the final say
So they voted to stop us leaving, three times.
Now there is a deal that MPs will vote for and we can leave
So MPs vote to render the vote meaningless
How can anyone defend them? You’ll look back on it with horror
There’s a better than evens a chance this site will be hilarious come election night. The people, the bastards, will get their say.
Given that an overwhelming number of constituencies voted Leave, you could be right.
Yes but few were by an overwhelming amount. It is very possible that a repeat vote gets a different result.
We need a #peoplesvote to get that answer.
If Leavers had any faith in the Will of the People then a further vote should be no hurdle.
Whatever happens I feel pretty happy on one front . I was very worried about a breakdown in negotiations and then Johnson using the blame game against the EU.
I have no time for Johnson but his second letter is very emollient in tone and I think once the UK leaves relations will start off from a good point .
Johnson owns this deal , he said it’s a great deal and because the ERG have got behind it , it’s a “ True Brexit “ . The only risk for him I can see is if by some miracle a second vote happens .
Because it’s now a true Brexit ,it’s perfectly acceptable for Remainers to say it’s the deal v Remain.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but the wording ("must seek...by sending") that you quote appears to require that the Prime Minister sends a letter to the stated effect. Instead, he's got someone else to send it, declined to sign it, and instead signed one saying the opposite. I wouldn't have thought the Court will be impressed, but time will show.
The Prime Minister already told a Scottish Court that he would not “frustrate the purpose of the legislation”.
The purpose of the legislation is not to send a letter. The purpose is to secure an extension.
Where in the act does it say that?
It doesn't. Gallowgate is misrepresenting the language of the Act
What are you talking about? I’m discussing what was said to the Scottish Court, not the wording of the act.
You are trying to assert that the purpose of the Act was to secure an extension.
Which is patently cannot do.
The purpose of the Act is very clearly to set out the circumstances under which an extension must be sought and the mechanism whereby that request is to be made.
Something that has now happened.
And that is very different to the purpose being to 'secure an extension'
All that can be done is to force a request to be made - and that has happened.
The mechanism has been triggered and the letter sent. There is no frustration.
I hope the DUP are enjoying rubbing shoulders with parliamentary politicians who secretly and in my experience very often not so secretly despise them. In worrying that the deal puts them on the UK's window ledge they have overlooked the fact that the Conservative and Unionist Party were their best guarantors that they will not be allowed to fall off it. I suspect that might be rather less the case now.
The Tories threw the DUP under a bus. They did right by the island of Ireland because, in the end, the unionist bit of the party name is now redundant. Brexit matters more.
Did they really? Lord Trimble seems quite happy. Sturgeon even referred to NI's privileged status compared to Scotland. Never mind I'm sure the DUP will jog along fine with their new found bien pensant allies.
Oh and as well as Lord Pannick, David Allen Green accepts that the side letter is lawful (and will have been advised by and plugged in to many lawyers).
The purpose of the act was to seek an extension by sending a letter. Unless there is a hidden bit of the act no one else but yourself can see.
We’ll see what they say next week. Everyone knows the purpose of the act is to secure an extension and to frustrate that purpose is shakey ground.
The Act allows parliament to refuse an extension, not that it would, if a date other than 31 Jan is offered back to the UK. So the Act does not demand an extension is secured in all circumstances, or it really would have been the surrender bill!
The general purpose of the Act was 'An Act to make further provision in connection with the period for negotiations for withdrawing from the European Union.'
Obviously you're right the actual intention was about getting an extension agreed, but that there's text to allow one to be rejected makes it hard to argue the purpose was to secure, rather than seek to obtain.
It should have been enough for our PM to agree a deal with the EU, but the politicians, who we were told wouldn’t have the final say, demanded the final say
So they voted to stop us leaving, three times.
Now there is a deal that MPs will vote for and we can leave
So MPs vote to render the vote meaningless
How can anyone defend them? You’ll look back on it with horror
The fact that Johnson has a very different deal to May entirely justifies Parliament playing a role in determining how we leave the EU, since such a deal has a large bearing on the law of the land and the rights of its citizens, and it is for Parliament to decide such matters, not the PM.
If a Prime Minister wants to pass a deal then they have to find a deal that can command a majority to vote for it.
They could have had a vote on it today, but voted not to!
The Prime Minister already told a Scottish Court that he would not “frustrate the purpose of the legislation”.
The purpose of the legislation is not to send a letter. The purpose is to secure an extension.
Where in the act does it say that?
It doesn't. Gallowgate is misrepresenting the language of the Act
What are you talking about? I’m discussing what was said to the Scottish Court, not the wording of the act.
You are trying to assert that the purpose of the Act was to secure an extension.
Which is patently cannot do.
The purpose of the Act is very clearly to set out the circumstances under which an extension must be sought and the mechanism whereby that request is to be made.
Something that has now happened.
And that is very different to the purpose being to 'secure an extension'
All that can be done is to force a request to be made - and that has happened.
The mechanism has been triggered and the letter sent. There is no frustration.
There is no point discussing this further. We’ll see what the courts say next week.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but the wording ("must seek...by sending") that you quote appears to require that the Prime Minister sends a letter to the stated effect. Instead, he's got someone else to send it, declined to sign it, and instead signed one saying the opposite. I wouldn't have thought the Court will be impressed, but time will show.
Didn't he effectively send it by asking someone else to send it? The authority comes from him, who the messenger boy was isn't important.
Oh and as well as Lord Pannick, David Allen Green accepts that the side letter is lawful (and will have been advised by and plugged in to many lawyers).
You can all stop arguing now.
I mean I was convinced with Lord Pannick...
When even arch-remainers are saying the Benn Act is spent....
I have to admit a personal interest here - probably the most important patent case ever to be heard in the UK is due to be argued in the Supreme Court next week from Monday to Thursday. We have someone covering it. That must not be postponed for something as frivolous as a letter!!!
What a bizarre spectacle yesterday was. I was sitting there wondering to myself, what on Earth was the point of this chicanery? Does anyone now really believe that Brexit can be put back in the box?
A quite pathetic act of denial by Parliament to refuse the government the right to hold the Meaningful Vote, which was something Parliament itself had insisted happen in the first place and through the Benn Act, on this very day.
You lot are getting really wound up about a letter and what it means for the great game. Normal people are wound up wanting to sell their flat before their next kid is born, to be certain what rights their EU spouse will have IN TWO WEEKS, whether it’s safe to upgrade their beaten up old car or temperamental boiler, or to replace the employee that just left.
Finally it wasn’t just an insult to the British electorate who they are supposed to represent, but to the EU partners who negotiated last week in good faith and have other urgent matters to attend to. Do they really have such little respect for them that they refuse to even express an opinion?
All that voted for Letwin are a shame and a stain on the country. Just make a bloody decision! Deal or Revoke! Or you may end up falling by accident into the one thing there’s no parliamentary majority for, No Deal.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but the wording ("must seek...by sending") that you quote appears to require that the Prime Minister sends a letter to the stated effect. Instead, he's got someone else to send it, declined to sign it, and instead signed one saying the opposite. I wouldn't have thought the Court will be impressed, but time will show.
Didn't he effectively send it by asking someone else to send it? The authority comes from him, who the messenger boy was isn't important.
And it is in his name. Truly baffled that a lack of signature is getting people into a flap about this. The additional letter argument has some legs I'd think, but even that is less frustratingly worded than people seem to think it is.
Have to say I’m missing the petulance and rudeness in Johnson’s second letter. He’s very polite about all the EU players. The dig at Parliament is really neither here nor there. They’re big boys and girls.
You’re probably one of the few people to bother reading it before going into auto pilot faux outrageux
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but the wording ("must seek...by sending") that you quote appears to require that the Prime Minister sends a letter to the stated effect. Instead, he's got someone else to send it, declined to sign it, and instead signed one saying the opposite. I wouldn't have thought the Court will be impressed, but time will show.
Where does it say he has to sign it? He has sought by sending.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but the wording ("must seek...by sending") that you quote appears to require that the Prime Minister sends a letter to the stated effect. Instead, he's got someone else to send it, declined to sign it, and instead signed one saying the opposite. I wouldn't have thought the Court will be impressed, but time will show.
The letter - precisely as set out in the schedule - was sent.
Nowhere was any signature requirement indicated or required - so that is a red-herring.
The letter to Tusk (copied to others) restates the legal position of the request for an extension as well as the steps being taken to avoid an extension by passing legislation really isn't saying the opposite.
I wish people would take off their blinkers and look at the detail. Which is all I have done.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but the wording ("must seek...by sending") that you quote appears to require that the Prime Minister sends a letter to the stated effect. Instead, he's got someone else to send it, declined to sign it, and instead signed one saying the opposite. I wouldn't have thought the Court will be impressed, but time will show.
Where does it say he has to sign it? He has sought by sending.
I have to admit a personal interest here - probably the most important patent case ever to be heard in the UK is due to be argued in the Supreme Court next week from Monday to Thursday. We have someone covering it. That must not be postponed for something as frivolous as a letter!!!
That’s quite interesting. How do their Lordships engage on something so specialist as patent law? It had never occurred to me that could end up in the Supreme Court but I guess it ultimately has to.
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. HYUFD was certain he would not send the letter. This should have been the day that Johnson resigned and we were left without a PM, or Corbyn became a PM only to lose a Vote of No Confidence on Tuesday, or something else like that.
HYUFD is certain of a lot of s**t. We're also going to repartition Ireland and send the troops in to beat up Nicola Sturgeon. Have I missed something?
What about nuking Spain as well
Why are we angry with Spain today? Why is hyufd angry with Spain?
Someone on other thread saying EU have told Johnson to hold a confirmatory ref. I can’t find that anywhere.
Also Labour say there can’t be an election for two years in case Boris uses it to no deal the country? That’s apparently what Starmer said. Can they really get away with no election for two more years? 😟
Oh and as well as Lord Pannick, David Allen Green accepts that the side letter is lawful (and will have been advised by and plugged in to many lawyers).
You can all stop arguing now.
I mean I was convinced with Lord Pannick...
When even arch-remainers are saying the Benn Act is spent....
The Benn Act isn’t spent . That depends on what happens on Monday . But I will agree with the brilliant Lord Pannick. There’s nothing in the second letter that’s a big deal .
It’s well crafted and does not frustrate the act because at no time does he ask the EU to refuse the extension. And let’s be honest he could just get on the phone and say refuse without any of us ever knowing .
Have to say I’m missing the petulance and rudeness in Johnson’s second letter. He’s very polite about all the EU players. The dig at Parliament is really neither here nor there. They’re big boys and girls.
Because saying / reporting that doesn't get people on the outrage bus....and we know tw@tter is all about sane calm discussion.
Not signing the "proper" letter is a silly, but its a Trump style signalling stunt that they know will get an over the top amount of coverage for Brexit Party types to hear.
At the end of the day, this is all theatre. The EU knew the situation, and I am sure have already discussed it with and without the Boris negotiating team.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but the wording ("must seek...by sending") that you quote appears to require that the Prime Minister sends a letter to the stated effect. Instead, he's got someone else to send it, declined to sign it, and instead signed one saying the opposite. I wouldn't have thought the Court will be impressed, but time will show.
Where does it say he has to sign it? He has sought by sending.
Stephen Nolan reporting on 5 live that DUP sought assurances from Jester on Tuesday on rumours about his NI concession.
He told them there is no fucking way I will agree to a border down Irish Sea or agree to VAT changes.
In their words the next day he did the exact opposite of what he said he would never do 24hrs earlier.
It does sound like the DUP are mightily pissed off. I wonder whether they are considering if they are at the point of supporting an alternative PM in order to put an end to this deal?
It might sound fanciful that they would put Corbyn into Number 10, but they have literally been in government with Sinn Fein, so I don't think supporting a couple of soft-headed London supporters of Sinn Fein would really faze them. And it would teach the Tories a lesson about crossing the DUP.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but the wording ("must seek...by sending") that you quote appears to require that the Prime Minister sends a letter to the stated effect. Instead, he's got someone else to send it, declined to sign it, and instead signed one saying the opposite. I wouldn't have thought the Court will be impressed, but time will show.
Where does it say he has to sign it? He has sought by sending.
Comments
My guess is they'll do nothing for as long as possible (as usual).
That's what happened
He did EXACTLY what he must do according to the law.
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
It should have been enough for our PM to agree a deal with the EU, but the politicians, who we were told wouldn’t have the final say, demanded the final say
So they voted to stop us leaving, three times.
Now there is a deal that MPs will vote for and we can leave
So MPs vote to render the vote meaningless
How can anyone defend them? You’ll look back on it with horror
What you don't want one. There's a surprise!
I presume we’ll therefore have the unedifying spectacle of Grieve and co, Alan Partridge like, turning up in Brussels next week saying “go on you shit, give us another extension”.
I can't tell if he's serious all the time, but he's part of the furniture now.
The Benn Act is a bad Act for so many reasons.
Arguably Johnson’s covering letters made complete sense in the circumstances. Parliament has not rejected the WA, he expects to pass it by October 31, so a further extension serves no purpose and is in nobody’s interest.
He told them there is no fucking way I will agree to a border down Irish Sea or agree to VAT changes.
In their words the next day he did the exact opposite of what he said he would never do 24hrs earlier.
The purpose of the legislation is not to send a letter. The purpose is to secure an extension.
Benn, Letwin, Grieve et al thought they had thought of everything. It is so clear that they didn't
Johnson's victory when it comes later this week will be unbearable hubristic. I genuinely regret cheering on Mrs May's travails earlier this year.She deserved better than to have her legs taken from under her by Johnson and his ERG bullies, for them only to re-heat her deal, change the name and call it their own.
They should have spoken to Marina Wheeler.
But we are used to that now.
No Act can secure an extension - as that is beyond the power of any UK PM or other politician. It is in the hands of the EU.
The Act set out how the request for an extension had to be made - something that has now happened and is currently being acted on.
What the EU decide is outside the scope of any Act of Parliament.
The purpose of the act is not to send a letter.
Wether or not his childish antics have been seen as frustrating the purpose is another question but we’ll see.
See for yourself. https://twitter.com/scott_wortley/status/1185670272734679041?s=21
For the first time since this whole sad, sorry business started, I'm starting to wonder whether Boris could lose both Northern Ireland and Brexit.
Fucking hilarious if so.
If they are yes to the wrecking but didn’t turn up then it would have passed with much greater margin.
What other indications have we got? There all DUP and quite a few Tories Boris expelled supporting the wrecking amendment.
Parliament needs to close up Thursday for a November election?
Is it true Letwin promised to back government but soon as Jacob brought it back Monday Oliver jumped up to tell speaker they can’t do that?
Sorry for lots of questions, been out all day supporting a crap football team so just catching up.
IIRC, Jack of Kent is a defamation lawyer not a constitutional lawyer, though he is less given to going off piste than Windy Miller.
If a Prime Minister wants to pass a deal then they have to find a deal that can command a majority to vote for it.
Everyone knows the purpose of the act is to secure an extension and to frustrate that purpose is shakey ground.
Oh wait...
We need a #peoplesvote to get that answer.
If Leavers had any faith in the Will of the People then a further vote should be no hurdle.
I have no time for Johnson but his second letter is very emollient in tone and I think once the UK leaves relations will start off from a good point .
Johnson owns this deal , he said it’s a great deal and because the ERG have got behind it , it’s a “ True Brexit “ . The only risk for him I can see is if by some miracle a second vote happens .
Because it’s now a true Brexit ,it’s perfectly acceptable for Remainers to say it’s the deal v Remain.
Which is patently cannot do.
The purpose of the Act is very clearly to set out the circumstances under which an extension must be sought and the mechanism whereby that request is to be made.
Something that has now happened.
And that is very different to the purpose being to 'secure an extension'
All that can be done is to force a request to be made - and that has happened.
The mechanism has been triggered and the letter sent. There is no frustration.
You can all stop arguing now.
I mean I was convinced with Lord Pannick...
The general purpose of the Act was 'An Act to make further provision in connection with the period for negotiations for withdrawing from the European Union.'
Obviously you're right the actual intention was about getting an extension agreed, but that there's text to allow one to be rejected makes it hard to argue the purpose was to secure, rather than seek to obtain.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/10/text-of-boriss-letter-to-eu-an-extension-would-be-damaging-to-us-all/
A quite pathetic act of denial by Parliament to refuse the government the right to hold the Meaningful Vote, which was something Parliament itself had insisted happen in the first place and through the Benn Act, on this very day.
You lot are getting really wound up about a letter and what it means for the great game. Normal people are wound up wanting to sell their flat before their next kid is born, to be certain what rights their EU spouse will have IN TWO WEEKS, whether it’s safe to upgrade their beaten up old car or temperamental boiler, or to replace the employee that just left.
Finally it wasn’t just an insult to the British electorate who they are supposed to represent, but to the EU partners who negotiated last week in good faith and have other urgent matters to attend to. Do they really have such little respect for them that they refuse to even express an opinion?
All that voted for Letwin are a shame and a stain on the country. Just make a bloody decision! Deal or Revoke! Or you may end up falling by accident into the one thing there’s no parliamentary majority for, No Deal.
The letter - precisely as set out in the schedule - was sent.
Nowhere was any signature requirement indicated or required - so that is a red-herring.
The letter to Tusk (copied to others) restates the legal position of the request for an extension as well as the steps being taken to avoid an extension by passing legislation really isn't saying the opposite.
I wish people would take off their blinkers and look at the detail. Which is all I have done.
Someone on other thread saying EU have told Johnson to hold a confirmatory ref. I can’t find that anywhere.
Also Labour say there can’t be an election for two years in case Boris uses it to no deal the country? That’s apparently what Starmer said. Can they really get away with no election for two more years? 😟
It’s well crafted and does not frustrate the act because at no time does he ask the EU to refuse the extension. And let’s be honest he could just get on the phone and say refuse without any of us ever knowing .
Not signing the "proper" letter is a silly, but its a Trump style signalling stunt that they know will get an over the top amount of coverage for Brexit Party types to hear.
At the end of the day, this is all theatre. The EU knew the situation, and I am sure have already discussed it with and without the Boris negotiating team.
It might sound fanciful that they would put Corbyn into Number 10, but they have literally been in government with Sinn Fein, so I don't think supporting a couple of soft-headed London supporters of Sinn Fein would really faze them. And it would teach the Tories a lesson about crossing the DUP.
And it is politics