The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 19/08/2019 17:02, nightjar wrote:
On 19/08/2019 10:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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...youtu.be&fbcli
d=IwAR1CC89xEwcO58kTcw3ZtXBWoFjV3KmIjIxTLG QrARiBjLE5bngutCBhjpc



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.

Which is not a problem, as the matter before the Court has nothing to do
with international law. The question before the Court is whether or not
the government acted lawfully in seeking an extension to the Article 50
period and in subsequently amending the exit date. That is a purely
domestic question and in no way impinges upon whether or not the EU
acted lawfully in granting the extension. That, as you say, would be a
matter for the ECJ.

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!

On the contrary, it is you who has missed the point. It is that
legislation that allows EU law to have any effect on the UK.

If that Act is repealed, EU law will cease to have any effect in the UK,
except as permitted by other, later, legislation. Hence, UK law is and
always has been supreme, even if if has granted permission to the EU to
create legislation that it will follow.

THst is where the international law of treaties overrules domestic law,
and where the legal minefield begins

As a soveriegn country the UK has the right to sign international
treaies and ve bound by them irrevocably irrespective of deomestic law
which may seek to oveertride them

No British Parliament has the power to bind the country irrevocably.
That is orthogonal to whether they can sign up for some pretty stiff
penalties potentially enforceable under international law (i.e. the will
of a significant number of important countries to enforce them) if a
future Parlament changes their mind.

Therefore they cannot cede sovereignty, only agree to follow another
party's decisions unless they later decide not to.






It also has te pwoer to unilaterally withdraw from them.

However if a treaty cedes sovereignty, the position is as muddy as hell.

on the one hand, as no longer a sovereign nation, the treaty cannot be
held to be valid. On the other hand as no longer a soverign nation, no
unilteral withdrawal is possible.



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.

If you wish to be pointlessly pedantic, it allows us to leave at any
time of our choosing, provided that is within two years of the date of
the notification or no later than any later date agreed by unanimous
vote of the other EU member states.

No.

This is the text
"
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the
*date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement* or, failing that,
two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the
European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned,
unanimously decides to extend this period."


No withdrawal agreement, no leave.


--

Roger Hayter