On 18/08/2019 22:34, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 18/08/2019 19:45, nightjar wrote:
On 18/08/2019 16:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/08/2019 16:48, nightjar wrote:
On 17/08/2019 19:19, harry wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpnU...&fbclid=IwAR1C

C89xEwcO58kTcw3ZtXBWoFjV3KmIjIxTLGQrARiBjLE5bngutC Bhjpc

AIUI the Court is being asked to decide a point of law. If so, the
government is not on trial and does not need to mount a defence.
What it has done is to present a case to the Court. However,
withdrawing that case does not necessarily affect the decision of
the Court. Either the extension was lawful or it was unlawful and
that is what it will rule on.

It is a British court. It has no power to judge on the extension
which comes under international law, ...

You seem to be confusing the extension granted by the EU with the
change of date of leaving under UK law. The latter is the extension
being challenged.

There is no 'date of leaving under UK law'

If UK law is supreme, we never joined the EU in the first place!

We signed a treaty. By the terms of that treaty which supercedes UK
law, we havent left.

But we will have done on 31st Oct.


Yes, as faras that treaty is concerned *unless* Boris asks for an
extension (and gets it) *or* a motion to revoke article 50 is successful.

I see no chance of either, frankly.



--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell