Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
What is the letterhead of the Speaker of Parliament? And why hadn't the "Benn Act" supplied the PM with SCHEDULE FORM LETTER printed on it?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 12:59:48 AM EST
Because the Benn Act required the PM to send the letter, not the Speaker of the HOC, who has no executive function in this matter, and who does not expect the courts to ask him to act in this manner.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 09:00:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

furthermore


Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 12:51:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Act clearly requires the Prime Minister to send the letter, never mind what Bercow said he might do.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen
by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 04:46:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Tell it Cherry QC.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 05:01:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Cherry is no more germane to the matter than Bercow.

The question is what that Act required the PM to do, and what the PM did.

And, not without interest, what the reaction of the EU will be to what the PM did.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 05:53:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
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.
(1) DALE VINCEOBE; (2)JOLYON MAUGHAM QC; and (3)JOANNA CHERRYQC MP v. BORIS JOHNSON AND THE LORD KEEN OF ELIE (7 Oct)

[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 ]
JOLYON MAUGHAM (APPELLANT) for SUSPENSION AND INTERDICT, 18 Oct
[2] The interim orders sought by the petitioner were in the following terms: "(i)to suspend ad interim the purported agreement which is said by the United Kingdom government to have been concluded between it and the European Union and the United Kingdom government, on the basis that this agreement provides for Northern Ireland to form part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain; and

(ii)for interdict ad interim against Ministers of the Crown in right of the United Kingdom including the Prime Minster (and anybody acting on their behalf or at their request) from entering into arrangements under which Northern Ireland is to form part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain".
[...]
[8] The petitioner argue that what the Protocol seeks to do is to create what Mr O'Neill QC described as an overlapping Venn diagram in which Northern Ireland is at one and the same time both a part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom and a part of the customs territory of the European Union. By contrast, the island of Great Britain will, post-Brexit, form a part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom, but the island of Great Britain will no longer form a part of the customs territory of the European Union.

[9] Mr O'Neill drew attention to section 55 of the Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Act 2018("the 2018 Act").  This provides as follows:"55 Single United Kingdom customs territory (1)It shall be unlawful for Her Majesty's Government to enter into arrangements under which Northern Ireland forms part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain.(2)For the purposes of this section `customs territory' shall have the same meaning as in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1947 as amended."
[...]
[14] Mr Moynihan contended that against the background of this statutory framework it was clearly a matter for Parliament to address its own mind to the terms of the draft Withdrawal Agreement.

[15] Mr Moynihan also submitted that the effect of an interim order for suspension would be to prevent the responsible minister from making to Parliament the statements required by the Withdrawal Acts. The agreement would have been declared void and there would be nothing that could lawfully be laid before Parliament. The remedies sought would amount to a manifest interference with the proper processes and procedures of Parliament and would prevent legitimate debate in Parliament about the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement.
[...]
[21] The issues which the court must address at this stage are (i) whether the petitioner has a prima facie case and (ii) where the balance of convenience lies.

[22] In my opinion, the petitioner does not have a prima facie case.  In the first place, the petition is of very doubtful competency.  The orders sought would unquestionably interfere to a major extent with the proposed proceedings in Parliament.  Suspension of the draft withdrawal agreement would mean that the motion for its approval could not realistically or properly go ahead as planned. I cannot see that it would be right for Parliament to be invited to consider a draft treaty which the court had suspended on the basis that it was unlawful. It is a cardinal principle of constitutional law that the courts should not intrude on the legitimate affairs and processes of Parliament. I consider that it should be left to Parliament to proceed in relation to the draft withdrawal agreement in the manner and according to the procedures that Parliament considers most appropriate in the circumstances.  

[23] Secondly, I consider that the petitioner's legal argument as to the incompatibility of the draft withdrawal agreement with section 55 of the 2018 Act is at best a weak one. The starting point, in my opinion, is the clear declaration in article 4 of the draft Protocol. That statement is closely aligned with the definition of a "customs territory" contained in Article XXIV of GATT. The petitioner has placed nothing before the court by way of evidence, averment or oral submission to show that in future Northern Ireland's trading and customs arrangements will not qualify and fall to be treated as amounting to a "customs territory" in the manner envisaged in the draft Protocol.
[...]
[26] For all these reasons, I conclude that the petitioner's applications for interim orders are misconceived and unjustified.  They have no or at best a weak prima facie case. The balance of convenience comes down firmly on the side of refusing to make the orders. I shall accordingly refuse the petitioner's motion insofar as it seeks interim orders.

[27] I shall order intimation and service of the petition and appoint answers to be lodged within 7 days.

I suspect, Maugham and Cherry won't be flapping their lips about this calumny on behalf of a sovereign parliament this week. Maybe BLACK TUESDAY?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 04:46:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
At one time here, Cat, someone would have asked you to rein yourself in and show some respect for other posters. Someone might have said you have hi-jacked this thread with multiple posts containing long excerpts that could very easily have been linked to instead. Someone might also have said that it is not easy to understand what you are saying.

Seriously, who the fuck wants to get into a discussion that has been wallpapered over in this fashion?

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 04:56:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Fine.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 05:03:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Insofar as your comment is also directed at current frontpagers/moderators, I have to say your point is well made. I am currently extremely constrained in terms of the amount of time I can devote to blogging, and so I am restricting myself to a narrow range of topics. If I cannot understand a comment, or understand how it relates to the diary or other comments, my current practice is simply to ignore it - unless I perceive it to be offensive in some way.

If someone wants to start a different conversation, fine, but I would prefer if they did so by writing their own diary - preferably with an intro/summary which gives an overview of the argument being made, and which encourages others to engage. I am not and have no ambition to be a legal scholar and confront matters of law only where they directly impinge on political developments, however there is no reason why the  European Tribune cannot support support separate legal conversations for those who wish to engage in them.


Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Oct 22nd, 2019 at 10:28:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, it wasn't aimed at current moderators/frontpagers, though I can see how it might be read that way. I don't think anyone has time these days (time's speeding up, folks!) to spend moderating. That's why it's important posters are self-disciplined, if they think the exchanges here are worthwhile.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen
by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 08:26:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I keep enough of an eye to make sure we're not going to be clearly sued into oblivion but beyond that ... there's little comment worth making on Brexit, which is mostly proceeding as I expected. Though I have absolutely no clue what the outcome will be.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 10:47:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Though I have absolutely no clue what the outcome will be.

Which proves your point that it's proceeding as expected.  A chaotic system with chaotic attractors.

by rifek on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 11:08:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

COVID19: Iceland

by gmoke - Apr 8
2 comments

PM Johnson Taken to ICU

by Oui - Apr 6
43 comments

Hurlers on the ditch

by Frank Schnittger - Apr 4
6 comments

Bordering on madness

by Frank Schnittger - Mar 31
49 comments

Occasional Series