I keep reading this Brexit Extension Surrender Bill and one part of it makes no sense at all to me. PLEASE SUPPORT MY YOUTUBE WORK ON PATREON:
OR ON SUBSCRIBESTAR:
My Youtube Community Page:
FACEBOOK: @JeffTaylorBrexit
LIKE THIS? PLEASE SHARE IT using the url -
*SUBSCRIBE* to Jeff Taylor Here:
How to *SUPERCHARGE* your YouTube videos - start for FREE:
PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING MAY NOT BE A FULL TRANSCRIPT!!
One section of this Surrender Bill to force Boris Johnson to go cap in hand to Brussels to beg for an Article 50 extension, seems to have a superfluous clause in it and I'm wondering if any legal beagles out there can explain this.
Section three of the Bill is split into four parts.
Part one says that if The EU Council agrees to give the UK an extension to 11pm on the 31st of January 2020, in accordance with the letter Boris is meant to send asking for it, then he must immediately accept it.
Part two says that if the EU Council agrees to give the UK an extension for any length of time other than until 11pm on the 31st of January 2020, then the PM must within a timeframe tell the EU that he accepts the extenion.
So, that surely covers every length of extension from one second to eternity?
Going on, part three of the section talks about what would happen if the House of Commons declined an extension under part two - as if.
But Part four interests me because it says:
"Nothing in this section shall prevent the Prime Minister from agreeing to an
extension of the period specified in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European
Union otherwise than in accordance with this section."
Now, given that the first two parts cover every time frame from a one second extension up to centuries and that they also say he must accept one specific timeframe and only MPs can prevent any other timeframe being accepted, what exactly is the legal and effective point of part four?
It's like being told you have to go to a car showroom and buy a car - you have to buy one.
But the instructions say, if they offer you a red car you must immediately buy it - you have no choice.
If they offer you any other colour of car you have to buy that car unless you are told by those instructing you, not to.
So, doesn't that instruction cover all cars of every conceivable colour.
So what would be the point of part of those instructions going on to say that you are still free to buy a car of any other colour not included in those instructions that actually cover all cars of all colours anyway?
Unless that clause was put in there, to pretend that the PM had some sort of freedom to operate and negotiate within the instructions.
Which I don't think he has.
I've left a link in the descriptions box below to one of the versions of the bill. Please bear in mind that Section 1 of that version does not reflect any House of Lords amendments. But I think Section three is correct.
I've got to say that it appears to be mere window dressing to me, so that lawyers can argue that Boris is negotiating, not just following instructions that the Queen is being forced to sign off.
I still say that in reality this Act turns any letter from the PM requesting an extension, into a letter from someone acting as an envoy on behalf of the head of state, Her Majesty. Not from the Prime Minister as head of government.
Anyway, what do you think about that section? - Please share and comment - and thank you for watching.
#Brexit
#BorisJohnson
#TakeUsOut
Sources:
0 Comments