Did we leave the EU on the 11th April 2019?

[Tentill4]

It seems that the SC may, may have inadvertently allowed the UK to leave the EU on the 11th April thanks to their ruling.
I suppose we will have to wait to see what the EU have got to say. Attachment 190674

[salus.populi]

Yes, OK we've left.
Now can we forget about all this and get on with life?

[Tentill4]

Yes, OK we've left.
Now can we forget about all this and get on with life?

Now that's a strange comment....

Due to the ruling by the SC, it could mean that if it's used retrospectively, then TM extension might be null and void and the UK may have already left.

It will be interesting to see how the EU replies..

[Ceam]

Hey, I guess any things worth a try at this stage...

[seivad]

I immediately saw one error in his letter. Bills are not automatically given royal assent when Parliament is prorogued. They are either killed, or carried forward to the next session. I checked the bill in question, and it's still awaiting royal assent.

You would think that Lowe would know the Parliamentary procedure for bills that are still in passage. If not, surely he should have checked beforehand, rather than ending up with egg on his face.

I'm confused as to why Parliament were unable to legislate during the 6 month extension period. I can't claim to have any knowledge in this particular area, but in my eyes, Lowe has blown his credibility. This wasn't the first extension to Article 50. I was under the impression that Parliamentary life went on as usual.

Given Lowe's first mistake, it's obvious that he didn't consult an expert, or a constitutional lawyer, so I would take his letter with a pinch of salt. I stand to be corrected if anyone does have irrefutable information to support his claim.

[seivad]

Fault number 2!

I've nothing better to do, so checked something out. Article 50 is extended under the EU (Withdrawal) Act. The Prime Minister can use prerogative to change the exit date, but Schedule 7 of the EUWA states that any change in the exit date must first be approved in the House of Commons.

In regards to the October 31st extension, the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2019 was passed by both houses, and received Royal Assent on 8th April. Theresa May did not prevent Parliament from doing anything. Parliament passed statutory authorisation for the government to extend Article 50.

[Alikado]

Now that's a strange comment....

Due to the ruling by the SC, it could mean that if it's used retrospectively, then TM extension might be null and void and the UK may have already left.

It will be interesting to see how the EU replies..

Why would the EU be interested in a point of British Law?

[Desert Region]

Why would the EU be interested in a point of British Law?

Indeed.

[local]

Someone "musing" on the possible effects of the Supreme Court judgement and putting those thoughts into print is surely just asking questions.
In these febrile days anything is pounced upon.

He does start the letter with "a possible unintended consequence"

If he thinks he has a point the Courts await him and I am sure Gina will join his action

[Tentill4]

Why would the EU be interested in a point of British Law?

They may not and as seivad pointed out, they may be a couple of dependencies in his argument, but without holding my breath, it will be interesting to see if the do reply.

[seivad]

Someone "musing" on the possible effects of the Supreme Court judgement and putting those thoughts into print is surely just asking questions.

And directing those questions to the wrong person. Why would anyone ask the EU Chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Committee questions about domestic constitutional law?

Given the error he made in believing that bills in passage automatically gained royal assent when Parliament is prorogued, it's obvious he didn't make an effort to establish domestic parliamentary procedure. Ignorance of the fact that statutory authorisation is required before the PM requests an extension to Article 50, also demonstrates he's not even bothered to check this procedure. The information is readily available to anyone. It would have behoved Lowe to ascertain the relevant laws before writing the letter.

If he thinks he has a point the Courts await him and I am sure Gina will join his action

I'm sure that Gina (she of the sewn up lips) would be delighted to join a Brexit Party MEP in his legal challenge.

[Alikado]

And directing those questions to the wrong person. Why would anyone ask the EU Chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Committee questions about domestic constitutional law?

Given the error he made in believing that bills in passage automatically gained royal assent when Parliament is prorogued, it's obvious he didn't make an effort to establish domestic parliamentary procedure. Ignorance of the fact that statutory authorisation is required before the PM requests an extension to Article 50, also demonstrates he's not even bothered to check this procedure. The information is readily available to anyone. It would have behoved Lowe to ascertain the relevant laws before writing the letter.


I'm sure that Gina (she of the sewn up lips) would be delighted to join a Brexit Party MEP in his legal challenge.

So we have an MP who doesn't know what he's doing or what is going on!

[local]

So we have an MP who doesn't know what he's doing or what is going on!

Not totally he is an MEP questioning the effect of the Supreme court ruling on us and the EU.
He is out of his depth on the legal question and where to place his thoughts which is not a great surprise as few expected the outcome which will have ramifications for years.

Don't be surprised if Governments in the future on either side don't look at changing things.

The Judiciary walking the line into politics is always a risky enterprise and on the ruling John Major would have been found to have acted unlawfully.

How quickly "cash for questions" has been forgotten the very reason Major prorogued

[Alikado]

Not totally he is an MEP questioning the effect of the Supreme court ruling on us and the EU.
He is out of his depth on the legal question and where to place his thoughts which is not a great surprise as few expected the outcome which will have ramifications for years.

Don't be surprised if Governments in the future on either side don't look at changing things.

The Judiciary walking the line into politics is always a risky enterprise and on the ruling John Major would have been found to have acted unlawfully.

How quickly "cash for questions" has been forgotten the very reason Major prorogued

The Supreme Court was set up to to replace the Law Lords who were allegedly thwarting Government.

[silver fox]

Not totally he is an MEP questioning the effect of the Supreme court ruling on us and the EU.
He is out of his depth on the legal question and where to place his thoughts which is not a great surprise as few expected the outcome which will have ramifications for years.

Don't be surprised if Governments in the future on either side don't look at changing things.

The Judiciary walking the line into politics is always a risky enterprise and on the ruling John Major would have been found to have acted unlawfully.

How quickly "cash for questions" has been forgotten the very reason Major prorogued

Something is needed to keep potential tin pot dictators in line, you may not like it, but Johnson isn't above the law no matter what he thinks.