Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
the sections you link to, of the Act and the Bill (enacted yesterday). I can't see what motivates your peremptory judgements. I don't see why you qualify a number of things as horseshit. In fact, I don't know what you mean to say. How about trying to say things simply, you know, like for dummies?

On a point of vocabulary: yella sheets to me means criminal records. What do you mean by it? Are you referring to the yellow press, that in Britain is generally called tabloid?

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 Tue Sep 10th, 2019 at 08:12:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Good. I offered the index and pertinent citations of legislation at issue in press reporting.

What I quoted are from the DW article posted in the prompt above --which you've also read-- except for the Hansard transcript lede, which I linked in my comment. horshit signifies my informed observation: Reportage alleging "rule of law," procedural or criminal conduct, does not demonstrably rely on relevant code as enacted by HoC. Much of current and past reportage contradicts specific code as enacted by HoC, a most conspicuous example being, legal prohibition of barriers established by UK gov at NI border with IE.

Another being the FORM LETTER, "and other purposes," prescribed by the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill (HC Bill 433) which contravenes as written, prima facie, EU stipulated merits of a successful petition by UK gov of A.50 extension pursuant to "exit day". UK yella sheet amateur and expert opinion, however, proceeds to "criminalize" any amendment to that instrument before any has been proffered by either Minister of the Crown or HoC "debate" stenographers. Such events have not occurred.

Consider before proceeding a recent, scarcely earnest disclaimer or correction of "myths", published by the Guardian.

Of course, I preempt suspicion, rumor, and "plain bullshit."  I have reason to distrust journalism purporting to report facts--especially in this "high tech" period--that are self-referential. There really is no good excuse to omit a hyperlink to public source material, namely the bill or law disputed.

Although I have been informed that I have "no right to be read," I nonetheless encourage everyone to familiarize themselves--republican or democrat--with the construction and language of of legislative acts (law) in the jurisdiction where they domicile. I, reading for you, would defeat the purpose of you practicing how not to be led by the nose of UNCERTAINTY of TRUTH, TRADITION, and JUSTICE prportedly thought by a populus, ironically, to distinguish "rule of law" from primitive civilizations.

DICTION CORNER
yella sheet (US-Eng., idiom) a pejorative specification for a daily publication given to "yellow journalism"; publicizing sensational, likely defamatory, and gruesome narratives of events which may or may not be true, eg. the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, *Telegraph(s), possibly related to yella dog Democratic Party members

[MASTHEAD] blotter (US-Eng., colloquial) a daily newspaper given to publicizing records of local police activities.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Sep 10th, 2019 at 04:54:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Did you make an attempt at writing for dummies yet?

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 Tue Sep 10th, 2019 at 05:54:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
as I am replying to you.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Sep 10th, 2019 at 06:02:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We all have our inner dummy...

Sincerely, the combination of legal-instrument technicality with repetitive idiomatic expressions which characterises your diction is, to say the least, disconcerting. I find myself thinking wut? (sorry, what?) as in, what does this mean, what is Cat driving at?

An example that I think (could be wrong) is central to what you're saying here is this:

Reportage alleging "rule of law," procedural or criminal conduct, does not demonstrably rely on relevant code as enacted by HoC...

UK yella sheet amateur and expert opinion, however, proceeds to "criminalize"...

Does this (my comment here) fall under those headings:

A former Supreme Court justice has also said it would not be legal for Boris Johnson to apply for a Brexit extension while simultaneously trying to get the EU to reject it in a second letter.

Lord Sumption was asked if it would be legal for the PM to do so.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "No, of course it wouldn't. The Bill, or Act as it's about to become, says that he's got to apply for an extension. Not only has he got to send the letter, he's got to apply for an extension.

"To send the letter and then try to neutralise it seems to me, plainly, a breach of the Act. What you've got to realise is the courts are not very fond of loopholes."

That's verbatim commentary, unsullied by journalism yellow or otherwise,  from one of Britain's highest authorities on the law. The form letter is presumably there to prevent any chicanery in the expression of the application, but the essential point is that the PM must apply for an extension.

As for the legitimacy of a law that lays an obligation on the executive, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, that you so rightly draw our attention to, abounds in instances of obligation: "a Minister of the Crown must... A Minister of the Crown must... A Minister of the Crown must...". In the case of the newly enacted law, we have

"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an
extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union
ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the
European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act
requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020."

What exactly is wrong with suggestions that the PM would be breaking the law if he (as he has publicly stated he will) refused to comply with this obligation? Is the Act itself corrupt and incapable of withstanding scrutiny in the courts, or does the PM, in your reading, simply have the power to do as he wishes without consequences? If you see a weakness or loophole in the Act, please share!

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 Tue Sep 10th, 2019 at 07:30:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What exactly is wrong with suggestions that the PM would be breaking the law if ...?

I will reply with reference to relevant facts, law, and scrutiny of BoJo's hypothetical offense in a diary entry.

Because even I couldn't easily re-locate this comment!

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Sep 10th, 2019 at 10:50:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If it's this comment, here's a different link.

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 Sep 11th, 2019 at 05:56:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series