show/hide profile info
Register to take part
email

Proponents of the new Bill to stop No Deal face a significant dilemma

  • 0 Replies
  • 65 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3956
  • +75/-0
(If Boris acquiesces and goes to Brussels 'Under Duress', he then agrees to any extension which the EU Commission demands, still Under Duress, he signs anything Under Duress, then any such agreement is null and void, he comes back and carries on as if there were no extension, the courts will agree.)

The Burt-Benn Bill tries to impose a requirement that the PM either agrees to 31 January 2020 or agrees any new exit date suggested by the EU27 (as long as a motion approving the alternative date in the House of Commons is passed). House of Commons procedural rules mean that the government is required formally to approve the Bill by affirming ‘Queen’s Consent’ to the Bill at the Third Reading stage. This is because the power to agree or accept an extension is normally exercised using a prerogative power. If passed, this statute would have the legal effect, by whatever means, of forcing the PM to agree an extension to the Article 50 process would manifestly ‘affect’ the prerogative for the purposes of the relevant test as to whether Queen’s Consent is required.
Proponents of the new Bill to stop No Deal face a significant dilemma over Queen’s Consent




Proponents of the new Bill to stop No Deal face a significant dilemma

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/09/02/proponents-of-the-new-bill-to-stop-no-deal-face-a-significant-dilemma-over-queens-consent/


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



COMODO SECURE

Powered by EzPortal
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 
Comodo SSL