In article , Swer
writes


"nightjar" wrote in message
...
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=IwAR1CC89xEwcO58kTcw3ZtXBWoFjV3KmIjIxTLGQ rARiBjLE5bngutCBhjpc


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.

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.

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,

Yes.

which allows us to withdraw on a date of our choosing, subject to UK
legislation.

Only if that is before 29-Mar-2019
And any extension is by mutual agreement. A50 does emphasise that
matters should be conducted in accordance to the constitutional
procedures of the member state. It may be that May fails this test and
so the extension was invalid.
--
bert