The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
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.
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.
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.
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 Frank Schnittger - Apr 3 60 comments
by IdiotSavant - Apr 1 7 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 31 48 comments
by gmoke - Apr 6
by gmoke - Mar 28 9 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 29 8 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 30 9 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 28 19 comments
by Oui - Apr 6
by gmoke - Apr 6
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 45 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 360 comments
by gmoke - Apr 3
by IdiotSavant - Apr 17 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 3148 comments
by Oui - Mar 3054 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 309 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 298 comments
by Oui - Mar 2945 comments
by gmoke - Mar 289 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 2819 comments
by Oui - Mar 282 comments
by gmoke - Mar 27
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 2630 comments
by Oui - Mar 2610 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 2430 comments
by Oui - Mar 2445 comments
by gmoke - Mar 233 comments