Obviously I’m not a lawyer, perhaps someone who is can clarify or correct anything I say here.
My understanding is that in general, especially in criminal law, laws are interpreted as narrowly as possible in terms of what they prohibit. I’m still not sure whether this law (or another) would make it criminal if Johnson were not to comply fully. I’m also not clear if a law compelling an action is treated in the same narrow way as one prohibiting one.
My reading of the text of the bill, as I understand normal English rather than legal phrasing, would agree with the Downing Street interpretation, in that Johnson would not be compelled nor prohibited from any actions regarding an extension apart from sending the exact letter contained in the bill.
So, he could potentially send the letter then immediately send another letter asking the EU to disregard it, for example. I would be surprised if there were any criminal sanction on him for doing so, unless the current Scottish court case were to make it clear that he may not do it.
If Johnson tries to ignore the Act, he can be fined or imprisoned, and someone else can be designated to make the request to the EU. The Supreme Court would act within days.
Nothing more has been heard of the idea of proroguing parliament again. Common sense seems to have prevailed for once. Or perhaps the Queen indicated she would be out if Mr Johnson came to call.
On the plus side, if he gets away with the whole thing, it becomes very likely that he will reach a favorable trade deal with America because of Trump’s love for dictators.
A two-thirds approval in the Senate is needed to approve treaties, but the Democrats are opposing a U.S.-U.K. trade deal unless there is a satisfactory resolution of the Irish border problem.
It takes many years to complete trade treaties, Trump may well not be President then.
Here’s my guess: on the 19th he sends a letter asking for an extension. On the 20th he sends a letter saying “never mind; we’re good” and then the UK leaves without a deal on 31 October.
You mean it may not work. And let’s be realistic, if the courts order the arrest and imprisonment of a Prime Minister who still has the confidecne of Parliament, we have a far greater constitutional crisis than previously, and a far bigger problem to deal with than Brexit.
If Parliament actually wanted to bind the PM to seek an extension by whatever means necessary, they could have passed a bill to do so - but they did not. They passed a bill requiring one specific action to seek an extension, and further actions in the event an extension is passed.
A Supreme Court finding tortuous interpretations of simple laws for political purposes would be far to American for comfort, regardless of whether you agree with the politics of it. There are better ways to deal with this issue, and the most obvious one is for Parliament to install a PM they trust.
If Johnson tried that, it would easily be nullified by any court the next day. Completely straightforward, and no ‘tortuous interpretations’ needed.
Also, the EU is not stupid, and they are carefully watching every detail of what’s happening in the UK. How do you imagine they would react? Laughter, probably, followed by granting the extension.
Johnson’s real ‘secret plan’ may be to persuade Hungary to veto the extension. But good luck to him with that. However sympathetic the current Hungarian government may be to him, the EU has a LOT more leverage over Hungary than Johnson has.
Nullify what, exactly? You think the Court is going to write to the EU telling them to disregard one, but only one of the letters from the PM? And you think the EU will consider themselves bound by a UK court judgement?
I could be wrong, but I don’t think they can unilaterally grant an extension. Indeed, it’s far from clear that they will actually grant it anyway, without a clear path forward from an extension.
Or France, or anyone else who is sick of all this nonsense.
Not that it’s likely to be necessary to do any of that, as while Johnson remains PM, he can keep telling the EU that the UK doesn’t require an extension, and tie up any disputes in court for the 11 whole days that will be necessary.
If Johnson is still PM on October 31st, we will leave the EU. Much to the delight of the leaders of the two main parties, and idiots everywhere.
Oh, and to add to that, what makes you think that the EU wouldn’t be fine with, say, Hungary vetoing the extension? It allows them to put an end to this mess with a convenient scapegoat.
EU finances and the Euro are in a delicate state right now, and they will try to avoid a financial shock if they think there is any realistic possibility of doing so. As long as there is a possibility of a general election and/or a second referendum, with Britain taking a different direction, they will grant an extension.
From what I see, the EU would prefer to have a deal that minimizes the financial downsides of Brexit but isn’t willing to screw over Ireland to get it. They want to make sure they act ethically before they make sure to act beneficially to themselves. So, the opposite of what’s going on with the whole Brexit/GOP civilizational mental breakdown.
More to the point, Ireland isn’t willing to screw over Ireland to get it. So anything that needs the unanimous 27 needs to convince Ireland. Which has kind of has a history with Britain, and may remember a few of the lessons learned in the last 800 years.
No legal requirement, no. But as events have unfolded it’s unthinkable politically that the EU would by qualified majority conclude a Withdrawal Agreement to which Ireoland objects on the grounds that it will lead to a hard border.
