In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
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...e=youtu.be&fbc
lid=IwAR1CC89xEwcO58kTcw3ZtXBWoFjV3KmIjIx TLGQrARiBjLE5bngutCBhjpc


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If that Act is repealed, EU law will cease to have any effect in the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

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.



Also from Wiki
Invocation

Thus, once a member state has notified the European Council of its
intention to leave, a period begins during which a withdrawal agreement
is negotiated, setting out the arrangements for the withdrawal and
outlining the country's future relationship with the Union. Commencing
the process is up to the member state that intends to leave.

The article allows for a negotiated withdrawal, due to the complexities
of leaving the EU. However, it does include in it a strong implication
of a unilateral right to withdraw. This is through the fact that a state
would decide to withdraw "in accordance with its own constitutional
requirements" and that the end of the treaties' application in a member
state that intends to withdraw is not dependent on any agreement being
reached (it would occur after two years regardless).[9]

BTW it is by Qualified Majority Voting on the EU side.
--
bert