https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpnU...5bngutC Bhjpc

Thats easy for you to say, but my speech synth got its electronic voice in a
right mess.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"harry" wrote in message
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpnU...5bngutC Bhjpc

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.

--
Colin Bignell

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, where the court of the Hague is the
relevant authority. As does the whole treaty of Lisbon, except where
power is explicitly devolved to another legal institution.

Even if the court judges that the extension is not conformant to UK law,
it doesn't matter. It is conformant to international law in the terms of
the treaty.



--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

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, where the court of the Hague is the
relevant authority. As does the whole treaty of Lisbon, except where
power is explicitly devolved to another legal institution.

Even if the court judges that the extension is not conformant to UK law,
it doesn't matter. It is conformant to international law in the terms of
the treaty.

There's no such thing as international law. Just treaties by sovereign
nations.

--
Max Demian

On 18/08/2019 17:22, Max Demian 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, where the court of the Hague is the
relevant authority. As does the whole treaty of Lisbon, except where
power is explicitly devolved to another legal institution.

Even if the court judges that the extension is not conformant to UK
law, it doesn't matter. It is conformant to international law in the
terms of the treaty.

There's no such thing as international law. Just treaties by sovereign
nations.

There is.

Google it


--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."

- Leo Tolstoy

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.



--
Colin Bignell

On 18/08/2019 19:41, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 18/08/2019 17:22, Max Demian wrote:

There's no such thing as international law. Just treaties by
sovereign nations.

There is.

Google it

I'm not convinced. I recall that Clive Anderson saying as much on his
Unreliable Evidence programme, where he started by describing
International Law as the collections of Treaties and norms[*] that
countries abide by. Or agree to be bound by.


Treaties are bound by the Vienna convention.

Whether you call it law or not is moot.

But treaties are not commonly breached unilaterally by teh givernment of
ine party deciding to. And certainly not without thee issue being raised
at the the UN.

Tratries are slippery things,.

Consider this extract from Wiki

"A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an
agent or body *without power to do so under that state's domestic laws*".

There is considerable precedent that ceding soverignty to the EU was
/ulta vires/ for HM government, and constituted an act of treason
against HM. And in fact we are teherore not, and never have been, a
member of the EU.


....

"According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source
of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under
international law, the act will not assume international legality even
if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with
domestic law, *international law will always prevail*".

e.g. that clearly states why the action to make the extension illegal
under UK law is pointless. The treaty we signed trumps UK law,


There's in any case no body with the required competence to "pass" such
laws.


The UN, and those who framed the Vienna conventions on international
traties.

[*] Or some such verbiage.


The more intersting part of te Vienna conmvention concerns this

"One significant part of treaty-making is that signing a treaty implies
recognition that the other side is a /sovereign state/ and that the
agreement being considered is enforceable under international law".

If a treaty cedes sovereignty, there is an argument that it is ipso
facto null and void the moment it is signed.

If the entity that is a counterparty - the EU - is NOT a sovereign
state, (and the EU is not), there is equally a legal question as to
whether its signature on a treaty is valid at all.

I can't remember whether or not Masstricht and Lisbon are a treaty
between the 28 members or between each member and the EU...

If it is an agreement betwen 28 sovereign states then any member can in
theory leave without invoking article 50, since their sovereignty to do
so unilaterally is preserved.

Another relevant point is that te GFA is frajmed as an international
treaty IIRC and is also subject to 'force majeure'

That is: should the EU insist on a stance that forces the ROI to violate
its terms, that would be /force majeure/ and the GFA would no longer apply.

Or possubly te EU would be in breach of the GFA and Lisbon would no
longer apply, and the ROI could leave the EU immediately.

Whaytever. The point is if the GFA and Lisbon are two pieces of
intertnational law laid down by treaty and they are incompatible, then
one or the other must be deemed to be inapplicable.


--
Of what good are dead warriors? €¦ Warriors are those who desire battle
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
battle dance and dream of glory €¦ The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 18/08/2019 17:22, Max Demian wrote:

There's no such thing as international law. Just treaties by sovereign
nations.

There is.

Google it

I'm not convinced. I recall that Clive Anderson saying as much on his
Unreliable Evidence programme, where he started by describing
International Law as the collections of Treaties and norms[*] that
countries abide by. Or agree to be bound by.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law

There's in any case no body with the required competence to "pass" such
laws.

There wasnt with the common law either.

[*] Or some such verbiage.

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'

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.




--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 06:17:57 +1000, jeikppkywk, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

International Law as the collections of Treaties and norms[*] that
countries abide by. Or agree to be bound by.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law

You can shove your link, like everything else, up your senile arse, senile
trolling arsehole!

--
Keema Nam addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You are now exposed as a liar, as well as an ignorant troll."
"MID: .com"

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.

And the power of the PM to have requested an extension from the EU.

SteveW

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

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.

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


--
Colin Bignell

"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...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.

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

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 19:07:12 +1000, Sewer, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

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

Only if that is before 29-Mar-2019

Brexit? NONE of yours, senile Ozzie pest!

--
Keema Nam addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You are now exposed as a liar, as well as an ignorant troll."
"MID: .com"

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

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...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.

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.

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.


--
Colin Bignell

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...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.

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.



--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

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

On 19/08/2019 20:12, Roger Hayter wrote:
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.

Perhaps

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

And yet they did. Yes, I agree that legally perhaps they were /ultra
vires/ to do that, and certainly a court action to that effect was
started but taken up by the public prosecutor and buried, but that is
what the Treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon *are*.

Whether or not we needed to invoke article 50 at all, or just repeal the
1972 act is also legally arguable. In the end we chose to be nice to the EU.

Who behaved as any common or garden psychopath does, rubbed their hands
in glee and took it as a sign of weakness.

As I said thee EU has always sidestepped direct rule by getting its
puppet governments to insitute legislation that accords with EU
directives, so they can say 'its a locally made law' and pretend to have
nothing to do with it.

This preserves the illusion of sovreignty.

And that is why we mirrored article 50 with other UK legilstaion so no
matter under which aegis, the result was the same. May slipped up a bit
with the extension and didn't precisely keep UK law in line with the
treaty obligations.

But that doesnt mean that international law is not sovereign over UK
law. It is. A treaty is always a bit of sovereignty ceded in some
sense.Ultimately you cede soverignty in terms of an international
treatuy but reserve the right to withdr\w from it.

Lisbon waa a treaaty where the right to withdraw was defined by article 50.


It is important that everyone is seen to follow the Law, no matter how
much skullduggery they are really up to.


--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

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

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

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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...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.

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.

In fact it actually says the exact opposite of that, that if
there has been no agreement within two years, and no
extension of time agreed, leave is completely automatic

"bert" wrote in message
...
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=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.

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.

That treaty gets no say on what has to be done
in accordance to the constitutional procedures

That stuff is just there so that the leaving country is
free to do things in accordance to the constitutional
procedures, its not saying that that must happen.

On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 12:03:43 +1000, Sewer, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

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.

That treaty

The treaty and all other things British (or Irish, or American, or Canadian)
are NONE of yours, senile Ozzie pest!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 10:16:03 +1000, jeikppkywk, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH another 109 !!! lines of the senile trolling Australian asshole's
latest troll****

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On 19/08/2019 17:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/08/2019 17:02, nightjar wrote:
....
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.

IOW, ultimately domestic law has precedence. It may not sit well with
the international community if a country does decide to withdraw from a
treaty but, as Donald Trump has demonstrated, it is quite possible to
withdraw by means of domestic legislation without any more serious
consequence than other countries condemning the action.

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....

It is not possible to cede sovereignty via a treaty. It is, however,
possible to delegate some of the responsibilities that way.

This has been done with EU in respect of secondary legislation. In that,
the EU is in the same position as any Secretary of State; They may issue
Regulations within the scope of enabling legislation, passed by the UK
parliament. If that enabling legislation is withdrawn, the Regulations
cease to have effect, unless they are enshrined into UK law by another
piece of legislation.

EU Directives OTOH do not automatically pass into the law of the member
states. They have to be implemented through national legislation in each
state. States may also choose to implement the Directive in different
ways, subject to keeping certain core elements. For example, when the
Working Hours Directive was introduced, the French made a 35 hour
working week a mandatory maximum for everybody. In the UK, we set 35
hours as the maximum that any employee could be required to work, but
allowed them to work voluntarily up to 48 hours a week.



--
Colin Bignell

"nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 19/08/2019 17:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/08/2019 17:02, nightjar wrote:
...
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.

IOW, ultimately domestic law has precedence. It may not sit well with the
international community if a country does decide to withdraw from a treaty
but, as Donald Trump has demonstrated, it is quite possible to withdraw by
means of domestic legislation without any more serious consequence than
other countries condemning the action.

He hasnt ever used domestic legislation, just presidential edicts.

Even the minimal changes to NAFTA havent even got Congressional endorsement
yet.

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....

It is not possible to cede sovereignty via a treaty.

Of course it is, particularly when the parliament signs off on that treaty.

It is, however, possible to delegate some of the responsibilities that
way.

That too.

This has been done with EU in respect of secondary legislation. In that,
the EU is in the same position as any Secretary of State; They may issue
Regulations within the scope of enabling legislation, passed by the UK
parliament. If that enabling legislation is withdrawn, the Regulations
cease to have effect, unless they are enshrined into UK law by another
piece of legislation.

EU Directives OTOH do not automatically pass into the law of the member
states.

Some do. Most obviously with the free movement of EU citizens.

They have to be implemented through national legislation in each state.

Utterly mangled all over again.

States may also choose to implement the Directive in different ways,
subject to keeping certain core elements. For example, when the Working
Hours Directive was introduced, the French made a 35 hour working week a
mandatory maximum for everybody. In the UK, we set 35 hours as the maximum
that any employee could be required to work, but allowed them to work
voluntarily up to 48 hours a week.

Pity about the free movement of EU citizens.

On 20/08/2019 01:16, jeikppkywk wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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...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.

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.

In fact it actually says the exact opposite of that, that if
there has been no agreement within two years, and no
extension of time agreed, leave is completely automatic
sigh alright
No withdrawal agreement, no leave *early*.

That is: an earlier date may be negotiated. Not unilaterally declared


--
€œIdeas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

- John K Galbraith

On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 19:31:41 +1000, Sewer, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH

Get back into the sewer you escaped from, Sewer!

--
Norman Wells addressing senile Rot:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

On 20/08/2019 10:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/08/2019 01:16, jeikppkywk wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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...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.

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.

In fact it actually says the exact opposite of that, that if
there has been no agreement within two years, and no
extension of time agreed, leave is completely automatic
sigh alright
No withdrawal agreement, no leave *early*.

That is: an earlier date may be negotiated. Not unilaterally declared

Well, it does say "in agreement with the Member State", so there is
nothing to stop the Member State withdrawing its agreement, thus
immediately cancelling the extension.

SteveW