Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
is SCHEDULE FORM LETTER itself.

That is the work product of HoC with respect to EU Council, TEU, TEU A.50(3), and the Withdrawal Agreement laid before UK parliament not once but four (4) times. I was insulted a couple of weeks ago even tho' I am not a citizen of any EU member-state. Where were you? Still working out how Section 2.3 Report on progress of negotiations on the United Kingdom's relationship with the European Union "lawfully" binds the EU to the "supreme law" of the UK, while HoC neither debates how to exit the TEU nor contemplates UK "customs union" preserved by an act to revoke A.50.

The trouble isn't one man. This trash epitomizes UK politicians' historic inability to function constructively as a state in domestic or international relationships.


European Union (Withdrawal)(No. 2) Act 2019

Prime Minister's letter to President Donald Tusk: 19 October 2019
This documentary evidence is what Scottish and Westminster courts will consider along with government "pledges" published by THE PRIME MINISTER AND ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND'S FURTHER SUBMISSIONS ON RELIEF and correspondence between T. May and EU Council President Tusk, establishing the acceptable format of requests for A.50(3) period between heads of state.

archived
A few first principles, last words from SCOTUK

Was the advice lawful?

55. Let us remind ourselves of the foundations of our constitution. We live in a representative democracy. The House of Commons exists because the people have elected its members. The Government is not directly elected by the people (unlike the position in some other democracies). The Government exists because it has the confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy other than that. This means that it is accountable to the House of Commons -and indeed to the House  of  Lords -for its actions,  remembering always that the actual task of governing is for the executive and not for Parliament or the courts. The first question, therefore, is whether the Prime Minister's action had the effect of frustrating or preventing the  constitutional role of [the Crown in] Parliament in holding the Government to account.

58.The next question is whether there is a reasonable justification for taking action which had such an extreme effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy. Of course, the Government must be accorded a great deal of latitude in making decisions of this nature. We are not concerned with the Prime Minister's motive in doing what he did. We are concerned with whether there was a reason for him to do it. It will be apparent from the documents quoted earlier that no reason was given for closing down Parliament for five weeks.

I wouldn't turn my back on a one of them in broad daylight.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Sun Oct 20th, 2019 at 11:49:39 PM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series