Please Answer No One Is Answering
Family & Relationships1 min ago
Why Is It The Scottish Courts They Run To First?
Why is it the Scottish courts the remainers run to first when they want to stamp their feet?
Why not the English high court? Is there a benefit to go north? And if so why don’t we abolish the English courts and just rely on the Scottish?
I’m not anti Scottish or anything but just wonder why they go there?
Why not the English high court? Is there a benefit to go north? And if so why don’t we abolish the English courts and just rely on the Scottish?
I’m not anti Scottish or anything but just wonder why they go there?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cassa333. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
As TCL says: if the EU specifically said that Johnson's second letter was taken to override the one the Act obliged him to send, then Johnson has acted unlawfully by deliberately and intentionally frustrating the will of Parliament.
In practice I doubt the EU would either refuse an extension or, if they did, would be so stupid as to cite Johnson's second letter as their chief reason. But in theory that would be a clear breach of the common law.
As I say, though, the correct thing for the courts to do is to allow political events to play out for the time being.
In practice I doubt the EU would either refuse an extension or, if they did, would be so stupid as to cite Johnson's second letter as their chief reason. But in theory that would be a clear breach of the common law.
As I say, though, the correct thing for the courts to do is to allow political events to play out for the time being.
// Are you seriously implying that a letter has [the EU Council] so concerned it forces their hand ? //
No, not at all. But the EU Council negotiates with the UK Government, rather than the UK Parliament, and they would be well within their rights to argue that, from their point of view, our Government has decided not to pursue an extension. But at the same time, the UK Government is answerable to UK law and the UK Parliament, and in treating both with contempt, they (ie, Johnson) would be breaking UK law.
No, not at all. But the EU Council negotiates with the UK Government, rather than the UK Parliament, and they would be well within their rights to argue that, from their point of view, our Government has decided not to pursue an extension. But at the same time, the UK Government is answerable to UK law and the UK Parliament, and in treating both with contempt, they (ie, Johnson) would be breaking UK law.
even before this weekend several sources were saying they'd not agree to an extension. Tusk even said he cannot see a case for one. So if the EUSSR refuse, it would be pretty well expected. If they cite the PM's other letter as a reason, then maybe it will be termed unlawful. None of that stops us leaving on 31st of Oct.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.