This is the answer

  • 0 Replies
  • 781 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
This is the answer
« on: March 21, 2019, 04:26:27 PM »
I had written a long formal reason, and now Viv (thanks) has provided much the same from ConHome, written with less hyperbole and probably greater precision, and which itself seems to borrow from something I had written in mid-February to all 649 MPs:

I've melded the two together...

Without a statutory or prerogative power to seek, offer or agree an extension, or conditions attached to such an extension, what the PM has stated she is going to do will be ultra vires and, if even one Gina Miller Equivalent on our side with sufficiently deep pockets exists (many do) to make an application, will be struck down by the Courts after the fact.
As a consequence of Gina Miller's actions, The Supreme Court ruled 8-3 that authority was needed to serve the Article 50 Notice, and the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 was passed, receiving Royal Assent almost exactly two years ago on March 16, 2017.
Nothing comparable exists in relation to applying for an extension under Article 50.
So, absent further statute, there is no power to do so, whatever the monstrous barnacle (the so-called Prime Minister) on the hull of HMS Great Britain may claim.
I thank Gina Miller for the great help her work in the early part of 2017 in establishing what would be needed.A motion of the House falls hugely short of being able to authorise such an action. A motion can't repeal statute! Only other statute can.
Perhaps if an extension to Article 50 is offered, with or without conditions, and the Prime Minister undertakes to bring forward an Act to approve it as soon as she is able, there won't be criminal sanctions from the Courts against the proposed illegality (i.e., we won't see her/them dragged out and slung into prison) - but illegal it will have been, and therefore ineffective, and ineffective not from the time the Court so decided, but right from the time the government, or parliament, purported to exercise these non-existent powers.
The Constitution may be unwritten but every principle of how the legislature, executive and judiciary interacts supports this view.
And getting an Act of Parliament through all its stages BEFORE the expiry of the current time limit (~200 hours from now) is simply impossible.
It follows that I am correct.

Freddy Vachha

UKIP London

Regional Chairman


 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)


SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk