SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261
Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Mr Johnson suspended - or prorogued - Parliament for five weeks earlier this month, but judges said it was wrong to stop MPs carrying out duties in the run-up to Brexit on 31 October.
Supreme Court president Lady Hale said "the effect on the fundamentals of democracy was extreme."
[...]Delivering its conclusions, the Supreme Court's president, Lady Hale, said: "The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."
Lady Hale said the unanimous decision of the 11 justices meant Parliament had effectively not been prorogued - the decision was null and of no effect.
She added that it was important to emphasise the case was "not about when and on what terms" the UK left the EU, but about the decision to suspend Parliament.
Speaker of the Commons John Bercow said MPs needed to return "in light of the explicit judgement", and he had "instructed the House of Commons authorities to prepare... for the resumption of business" from 11:30 BST on Wednesday.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:55PM (6 children)
It meant activating article 50, which was done on 29 March 2017.
That being the case, the UK appears to have legally ceased membership in the EU on 29 March 2019.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:34AM (5 children)
Except for the fact that all parties involved (UK and the other 27) agreed to extend the negociating period as specified in part 3 of article 50. Twice.
And the way things are going, a third extension looks likely too.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:45AM (4 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kazzie on Thursday September 26 2019, @01:31PM (3 children)
Legally, the extension is allowed by in part 3 of article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, which all the member states of the European Union (including the UK) have ratified:
There's nothing there that implies there needs to be a particular justification for doing so, only that everyone has to agree to it. As written, I'm sure that was a practical measure, to cover scenarios such as "we've almost finished this negotiation, but need a bit more time to dot the 'i's and cross the 't's". There's no sense in being forced to follow a particular deadline if everyone involved agrees to move it.
If your mention of "legal justification" is meant to echo the Supreme Court case, you'll have to help me join the dots together. The Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister couldn't use his prerogative powers (without the agreement of Parliament) to disrupt the workings of Parliament without reasonable cause. In the case of extensions to the negotiation period, if every country agrees to an extension (in the matter that they have all ratified into law), how could it be without legal justification?
(I will grant you that the reasons for a potential third extension probably weren't foreseen when the Lisbon Treaty was drawn up. But if there's a unanimous agreement to give one...)
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 26 2019, @03:46PM (2 children)
Under that provision the EC and the UK *could have* agreed to extend the time, but that doesn't appear to have happened.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Friday September 27 2019, @09:06AM (1 child)
Concentrating on the second extension (to October 2019) for the sake of simplicity, we have...
A letter requesting an extension [service.gov.uk] until June, sent by Theresa May
Conclusions of a special meeting of the European Council [europa.eu] held to discuss the above letter, when it was decided to offer a flexible extension until October
A letter in reply [www.gov.uk], accepting [service.gov.uk] the October extension offered
and then a series of letters [europa.eu] covering technical changes to the existing agreements to reflect the change of date (such as this one [legislation.gov.uk]).
It appears to me that this is documentary evidence of an agreement. Or were you expecting a big sheet of paper with 28 signatures on it?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday September 27 2019, @02:36PM
October is coming up quickly though.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?