Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
BBC | Court delays decision on Boris Johnson's Brexit tactics
On Monday, those behind the petition - SNP MP Joanna Cherry, businessman Dale Vince and QC Jolyon Maugham - asked for a further extension.

[22] In passing, it may be noted that the 2019 Act says nothing about how the Prime Minister or the government should conduct the negotiations on the withdrawal agreement.

[23] It is perhaps also worth recalling that the government's conduct of the negotiations with the EU with the aim of reaching a withdrawal agreement is not a matter that is justiciable in the courts (R (Webster) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU [2019] 1 CMLR 8 per Gross LJ at para 20;  Re McCord (Northern Ireland Court of Appeal, unreported, 27 September 2019) per Morgan LCJ at para 127).
[55] In my opinion, the terms of the interdict are not sufficiently precise and clear(c.f. Murdoch vMurdoch 1973 SLT (Notes) 13). The wording in the prayer of the petition refers to "taking any action that would undermine or frustrate the will of the Union Parliament as enacted in (the 2019 Act)". In my view, this language is too broad.

[56] The same may be said in regard to other parts of the crave for interdict: for example, the reference to "encouraging (or causing to be encouraged) any other Member State ... either directly or indirectly to disagree with any proposed extension ..."
[58] Similarly, it is unclear why the proposed order refers to the letter of request having to be sent prior to 3.00 pm on 19 October 2019. That is not a requirement of the statutory provisions.

[59] I note also that the order sought would require the first respondent to "take all steps that shall be required in order to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ..."  This goes beyond what the first respondent is obliged to do under the 2019 Act.
[60] At the hearing Mr O'Neill asked for consideration of heads (iii) and (iv) of the prayer to be "held over". I am not persuaded that this unusual step would be appropriate. I have concluded that the petitioners have not made out their case based on reasonable apprehension of breach of statutory duty.For the reasons I have set out, I am not prepared to grant either of the orders for which the petitioners moved at the hearing. Insofar as the petitioners elected not to move for any other heads of the prayer to be granted, they must be taken not to have insisted on those aspects of the petition. The court's practice isto dispose of a case brought by a petition under Chapter 14 at a hearing on the petition and answers. Such a hearing is not, in any sense, an interim one.

[61] Accordingly, I shall sustain the Advocate General's fourth and fifth pleas-in-law and refuse the petition.

Their lawyer, Aidan O'Neill QC, described the manner in which the second letter was sent by Mr Johnson as "unusual". He told the three judges that it was "not entirely in accordance with undertakings which were given to this court" and said it was "sailing close to the wind".

"Unusual" compared to what?  A letter from Prime Minister Theresa May to European Council President Donald Tusk, 20 Mar? Or A letter from Prime Minister Theresa May to European Council President Donald Tusk, 5 April?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 04:19:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series