On 19/08/2019 09:29, nightjar wrote:
On 18/08/2019 21:20, 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...5bngutC 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'

There is: exit day, as defined by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act
2018 and as amended by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019. It is
the latter Act that is being challenged.

Thoes acts have no legal power over international law.
They are there solely 'for the avoidabce of doubt'
..


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

That is covered by the European Communities Act 1972, even if the name
of the organisation we joined has changed.

Whoosh!


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

We also made a declaration under Article 50 of that treaty, which allows
us to withdraw on a date of our choosing, subject to UK legislation.

No, it does not.





--
"And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch".

Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14