The Graun takes the opposing view, as expected. Briefly flusterd by news that Johnson was planning to undermine, subvert or just refuse to accept the Act:
[R Stewart] dismissed reported ideas that Johnson – who has pledged to never seek a delay – could seek to get round the law, for example by adding a second letter to the mandated approach to the EU over an extension spelling out that he does not actually want this.
“I remain very, very confident we can stop no deal. Because in the end parliament is sovereign, and we are making a positive case for a moderate, pragmatic solution to the problem,” he said. [Gauke added] a separate letter would be pointless given the EU would know it was not the will of parliament...Statute will say that the position is that the prime minister is writing to the European Union seeking an extension. Now, of course, the European Union can refuse that extension. I personally think that they wouldn’t want to be blamed for a no-deal Brexit and they will agree to an extension.”
And with pound signs in his eyes ( for his former colleagues),
Also speaking on Monday, the former supreme court justice Lord Sumption said it would not be legal for Johnson to apply for a Brexit extension while simultaneously trying to get the EU to reject it...“No, of course it wouldn’t,” he told Today. “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.”
Convenient claims about the will of various bodies again. Would the EU go against the will of the Government though? The will of Parliament is indicated by a simple majority but not the will of the people? Could be problems eg in Spain/Barcelona if they did
No comments:
Post a Comment