Duplicity | 89 comments (89 topical, 0 editorial, 1 hidden)

Re: "a more insulting act " (4.00 / 3)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padfield_v_Minister_of_Agriculture

Johnson very clearly acted contrary to Padfield. The fact that it may - arguably - have made no difference is irrelevant, and the 1968 judgement makes it clear that this is a justiciable matter.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 09:50:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "a more insulting act " (none / 1)

The Padfield precedent may determine that the PM should have formally requested an A.50 extension in accordance with the Benn Act, but it gives us no guidance as to whether such a request, absent a signature, is valid in law. At the very least it creates an ambiguity all parties could do without; at worst it invalidates any extension granted and could result in the UK finding itself outside the EU, without a deal, against the clear will of Parliament and the laws it enacted.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 10:19:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "a more insulting act " (4.00 / 7)

It won't invalidate the extension, because Parliament is sovereign, and I'm sure the EU leaders understand that. It doesn't matter if the letter was handwritten by a toddler and decorated with dinosaurs or crocheted into a quilt.

If Johnson hadn't sent the letter it would have been sent by another Minister of the Crown, or by judges acting as same. Leaving the letter unsigned makes no difference whatsoever to the EU. The Benn Act made Parliament's intentions absolutely clear, and the EU leaders have responded to the intent, not the material form.

But it does affect Johnson's position. Because by flouting Padfield he wilfully attempted to undermine the wishes of Parliament. The judiciary are are constitutionally empowered to rule on this and possibly punish it.

It was a typical Johnson move - petulant, stupid, ineffectual, and potentially self-harming.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 11:37:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "a more insulting act " (none / 0)

In fact Sir Tim Barrow (UK Permanent Representative to the EU) delivered SCHEDULE FORM LETTER with a 1p cover letter.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 03:31:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "a more insulting act " (none / 1)

An unsigned letter is just so much toilet paper.
When one gets a US Security Clearance, one signs a form acknowledging that they understand that failure to comply is a felony. It's a felony regardless of the signature but you don't get the clearance without the signature. Because the felony is perjury becaus3e you signed an oath.
No one is bound by an unsigned letter that anyone could have written.

by StillInTheWilderness on Tue Oct 22nd, 2019 at 03:43:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "a more insulting act " (4.00 / 2)

I have no idea what relevance US security clearance - do you have that security clearance, by the way? - has to EU diplomacy.

I understand diplomatic letters are sent and delivered unsigned all the time. In this case the letter was handed over in person by the UK's diplomatic representative, and the text in the letter is part of the Benn Act, which can be read here:

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

There is absolutely no chance it could have been sent by "anyone" or that it isn't an official diplomatic communication.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Oct 22nd, 2019 at 08:09:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "a more insulting act " (none / 1)

I used to when I worked for the US Navy.

It was just an example. Not particularly relevant since the UK has an Official Secrets Act. The USA does not which is why they rely on perjury or espionage charges to punish breaches.

Again, I have no UK experience but in 11 years with the US Navy I never saw an unsigned comm7unication, even a memorandum. Even telgrams had the words "Signed by" and a name and title or the words "By order of" <military rank><name><title>. i.e. "By order of Rear Admiral Hugh Pixley COMSUBPAC"

But UK may be different.

by StillInTheWilderness on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 01:02:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "a more insulting act " (4.00 / 2)

Adding that the letter, delivered by diplomatic channels, is on the official notepaper of the Prime Minister of the UK.

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 08:19:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "a more insulting act " (4.00 / 2)

As is typical, this melodrama attempts to place UK parliament and government ahead of events over which it has no control. Namely determination of A.50 instruments, procedures, and status determination, recommended by the EC, decided by the EP and EU Council: HoC admits no attention to that actual business and its documents.

A.50(2) removed UK from Council deliberations.

European Union (Withdrawal)(No. 2) Act 2019 is defective as a matter of law, even in the peculiar UK sense of those authorities called jurisdiction and sovereignty. HoC "sovereignty" in diplomatic business and war are "constitutionally" limited to "government.

This Padfield case is inapplicable. Controversy in Sessions or High courts concerns international relations, conduct, and advice of government for consent of HoC to the Agreement.

Second, a Padfield pleading would claim PM frustrated acts of HoC to INTERDICT debate and litigation to enjoin THE WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT itself. Those acts obstruct consideration of the EU under the TEU, only parts of which UK is party. Which parts? Who cares? Better deal. Fuck the EU.

SCHEDULE FORM LETTER: No such instrument imposed by HoC on negotiation of A.50 action existed until 9 Sep 2019.

Three (3) prior PM requests for A.50(3) extension period were delivered in correspondence, a single multi-page letter, to the EU Council President explaining the HoC legislative "progress" toward ratification--regretful absence thereof--of the Withdrawal Agreement. This format was successful.

SCHEDULE FORM LETTER created 9 Sep 2019 plainly does not offer equivalent consideration to the EU Council. Nor do detailed instructions the act require signature of the PM affixed to SCHEDULE FORM LETTER. Why? The HoC is legally, literally, and institutionally incompetent in jurisdiction of international law.

That's how Bliar got away with murder.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 02:30:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "a more insulting act" (4.00 / 3)

Excellent review from link in Wikipedia ...

Brexit, Padfield and the Benn Act

by Oui on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 10:25:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Duplicity | 89 comments (89 topical, 0 editorial, 1 hidden)

Top Diaries

Protect Democracy, join the Fediverse!

Those whom the gods wish to destroy...

UK Disinformation and Propaganda The Consortium

Ben Gurion: Yemenite Jews and Stolen Babies

Astra Zeneca UK contract signed day after EU

Insight from Gina McCarthy

National Myths [Updated]

Irish economy disengages from Britain

Recent Diaries

More tyranny in the UK

Protect Democracy, join the Fediverse!

Casus Belli - Arab-Israeli Alliance Stirring the Pot

Ben Gurion: Yemenite Jews and Stolen Babies

Those whom the gods wish to destroy...

UK Disinformation and Propaganda The Consortium

Astra Zeneca UK contract signed day after EU

Drama In Netanyahu's Security Cabinet

National Myths [Updated]

BIG Pharma and Corona Profits

Frost Bite: Equivalence Tussle UK Power Politics

Major Policy Shift On Saudi Relations and MbS

No to Hostage Diplomacy: Time4FirmIsraelPo
licy

Irish economy disengages from Britain

Insight from Gina McCarthy

Submission on Irish Unification

U.S. Constitution of 1787 and A Patchwork Democracy

Reading the Tea Leaves In The White House

Oxford/AstraZenec
a Fails In South Africa

ICC Has Jurisdiction Over Occupied Palestine

Occasional Series