Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,356 Posts
Predicated on the assumption that someone has the courage to try their PM for contempt.
 

·
The best there is at what I do
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
He seems pretty confident, probably some sort of legal loophole that means he doesn't have to.

I wonder if the EU would even accept such a request for yet another extension, they may take the view that yet another extension is pointless as we just seem to be going round and round in circles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,671 Posts
Arguably, he's negotiated a deal and offered it to parliament which hasn't actually rejected it yet.
As a non lawyer, I tend to agree with this opinion. On one provision as below.

An on-line assessment of the Benn Act essentially states this of the Act :-

"It requires the Government to either reach a deal - or gain Parliament's approval for a no-deal Brexit by today, October 19. If the Government does not do either by that deadline, then the legislation would require the Prime Minister to write to the EU to request another extension."

Pretty loose wording there.

Clearly he has reached a deal, (one that has not yet been rejected) by that deadline - so the requirement to need to ask for an extension falls as he has complied with that loose wording.

However, if that opinion is wrong and the Benn Act is worded better to specifically state that he had to reach a deal - and that he had to also get it voted on and accepted by parliament by the 19th Oct - then a letter asking for an extension would be required because that has not happened.

As I am losing the will to live over the squirming and frankly embarrassing actions of the anti-democracy throng I have no intention of wasting time searching for a transcript of that Act.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,337 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
As I am losing the will to live over the squirming and frankly embarrassing actions of the anti-democracy throng I have no intention of wasting time searching for a transcript of that Act.
Much like no-one really wants to know if the democratic majority may have changed their minds on the whole thing?

Let’s just go with the answer they first thought of. Whatever they may have meant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
An 'argument' being put forward is that the electorate has changed over the last three years - some older voters who might have voted to leave will have died and people who were only 15-17 at time of first vote and who might now support remaining have become entitled to vote. But where do you stop with such an argument ? Maybe we should seek opinions from anyone able to read and hold a pencil ? Or even extend a little more for anyone whose parents think they might have a view ?

The real problem is that we weren't offered a vote on the Maastricht treaty even though most other Common Market countries were (although of course any that rejected it had to vote again !:LOL: )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,356 Posts
Do you think the PM is behaving like a spoiled child or is there a method to this madness?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,356 Posts
Is technical compliance sufficient, is an unsigned letter compliant, and is the PM bound by the spirit of the law?
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,350 Posts
You can go to jail if you commit an offence, and a custodial sentence is defined as one of the penalties.

AFAIK there is no such clause in the Act that failure to send the letter results in the committing of an offence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,356 Posts
My view is that failure to comply, technically or in spirit, could be found to be in contempt of Parliament - with the penalty determined by the House of Lords.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
As a non lawyer, I tend to agree with this opinion. On one provision as below.

An on-line assessment of the Benn Act essentially states this of the Act :-

"It requires the Government to either reach a deal - or gain Parliament's approval for a no-deal Brexit by today, October 19. If the Government does not do either by that deadline, then the legislation would require the Prime Minister to write to the EU to request another extension."

Pretty loose wording there.

Clearly he has reached a deal, (one that has not yet been rejected) by that deadline - so the requirement to need to ask for an extension falls as he has complied with that loose wording.

However, if that opinion is wrong and the Benn Act is worded better to specifically state that he had to reach a deal - and that he had to also get it voted on and accepted by parliament by the 19th Oct - then a letter asking for an extension would be required because that has not happened.

As I am losing the will to live over the squirming and frankly embarrassing actions of the anti-democracy throng I have no intention of wasting time searching for a transcript of that Act.
Surely the only thing that is happening is that the majority in Parliament don't trust the PM (or the ERG) not to scupper any of the legislation that needs passing for the deal to actually be enacted. It would only take a couple to change their mind, and it's no deal again. The extension will only be offered if needed, so everyone can concentrate on getting this through for the next 2 weeks. IF it then needs a short extension to finish stuff off in Parliament, who actually cares if we leave on (say) the 10th November rather than the 31st October. Boris could, of course, accept that and explain it to everyone, at which point it would be clear and only leave Nige fuming on the sidelines. Instead he choses to act like a schoolboy with the unsigned letter and carry on with the people vs. Parliament nonsense.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,350 Posts
My view is that failure to comply, technically or in spirit, could be found to be in contempt of Parliament - with the penalty determined by the House of Lords.
But it is a long held principle to separate legislature from executive from judicial. We have separation of these powers and it is not for Parliament to apply its own laws.

The HoL no longer holds supreme judicial authority, AFAIK. The Houses of Parliament cannot enforce laws against itself, in the absence of the judiciary, and the judiciary have to follow the law, which specifies no tariff for this 'claimed offence'.

I think we can safely conclude any senior judge would formally declare this situation to be "a bugger's muddle", correct me if I am wrong but I believe that is the correct Latin phrase for it.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,350 Posts
Clearly he has reached a deal, (one that has not yet been rejected) by that deadline - so the requirement to need to ask for an extension falls as he has complied with that loose wording.

However, if that opinion is wrong....
That is what it says. I concur, with all due qualified experience in mathematical semantics. (Not that that means a damn in court.)

The idea that the law can have 'an opinion' about what it means, rather than be precise, is a fopp to idiots because they want to run the world. An Idiocricy.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,350 Posts
In fact, further to my last, I think it couldn't have said anything different; 'Parliament makes a deal' or 'Parliament agrees with the Government deal', just think about it! 3 years later and still no-one really knows what they want. Parliament is also NOT the authority that can negotiate. The hard Brexiteers want to scupper every deal because they think that'll give them what they want, while the hard remainers want to scupper every attempt, thinking that Joe Public will change their "minds" (the meaning of "minds" somewhat dependent on the individuals in question).

Boris is off scott-free, he has done a deal. No extension required. It is Parliament that failed here. That 'Act' is quite clear, and there was no realistic alternative demand that could have been put on the Gov.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,209 Posts
They could easily do that. It has always amazed me how the EU manage to get a unanimous decision of 27 separate states on things like the latest Brexit deal overnight.

Meanwhile our ancient revered processes seem to guarantee no decision in our parliament no matter how long they talk about this.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top