British lawmakers prepare court action to enforce Brexit delay

 

Anti-Brexit protestors take part in the "Stop the Coup" rally in Whitehall, London, Britain September 7, 2019. REUTERS/Simon Dawson

 

LONDON (Reuters) - British lawmakers are preparing legal action in case Prime Minister Boris Johnson tries to defy legislation compelling him to seek a further delay to Brexit, opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said on Saturday.

 

An opposition bill which would force Johnson to ask the European Union for an extension to Britain's departure to avoid an Oct. 31 exit without a transition deal was approved by parliament's appointed upper chamber, the House of Lords, on Friday.

 

Queen Elizabeth is expected to sign it into law on Monday.

 

The BBC reported earlier that lawmakers, including moderate Conservatives expelled this week from their party for backing the bill, have lined up a legal team and are willing to go to court to enforce the legislation if necessary.

 

Corbyn said Labour was not as a party taking legal action but was aware of lawmakers' manoeuvres on the matter.

 

The government had no immediate comment.

 

Johnson, a leader of the campaign to leave the EU during the 2016 Brexit referendum, took office in July after Conservative party predecessor Theresa May quit following three failed attempts to get a deal with Brussels through parliament.

 

Johnson has vowed to take Britain out of the EU on Oct. 31 with or without a deal with the bloc.

 

He has said he has no intention of seeking an extension and would rather "die in a ditch" than delay Brexit.

 

Saturday's Daily Telegraph newspaper reported that the prime minister is prepared to defy parliament's instruction to request an extension to the Brexit process if he fails to agree a new deal.

 

The newspaper quoted Johnson as saying he was only bound "in theory" by the new legislation.

 

"We're in quite extraordinary territory when the prime minister says he is above the law," Corbyn told Sky News.

 

'HAVING A TANTRUM'

 

Dominic Grieve, a former attorney general and one of 21 Conservative lawmakers ousted from the party this week, said Johnson was unfit for office.

 

"This is ridiculous, it's shaming, it's like a four-year old having a tantrum," he told Sky News.

 

A former UK director of public prosecutions (DPP) said Johnson could face prison if he refuses to delay Brexit in the face of court action.

 

"In conventional cases...individuals who are in contempt of court and fail to purge their contempt are liable to be committed to prison," Ken MacDonald, who served as DPP from 2003 to 2008 and now sits in the Lords, told Sky News.

 

David Lidington, who was deputy prime minister under May, said that obeying the rule of law was a fundamental principle of the ministerial code. "Defying any particular law sets a really, really dangerous precedent," he told BBC radio.

 

Lidington resigned just before Johnson took office.

 

Johnson has said the only solution to the Brexit deadlock is a new election, which he wants to take place on Oct. 15 and which could give him a new mandate to quit the EU on schedule.

 

Two-thirds of parliament's lawmakers need to back an early election, but opposition parties, including Labour, have said they would either vote against or abstain on this until the law to force Johnson to seek a Brexit delay is implemented.

 

Johnson failed to win enough support in a vote on Wednesday for an election. Another vote is scheduled for Monday.

 

An opinion poll on election voting intentions, carried out by Survation for the Daily Mail newspaper, put the Conservatives on 29%, down 2 percentage points from the previous poll, with Labour unchanged on 24%. The pro-EU Liberal Democrats were on 18% and the Brexit Party on 17%.

 

Separately on Saturday, the British Chambers of Commerce said a "concerningly high number" of firms were not ready for a no-deal Brexit.

 

Its survey of 1,500 firms found 41% had not even done a Brexit risk assessment. “Our evidence yet again reinforces the importance of averting a chaotic exit on Oct. 31," Director General Adam Marshall said.

 

(Reporting by James Davey; editing by Mark Heinrich and Jason Neely)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-09-08

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

Well Boris, it looks like you've run out of options. Best resign and be done with it. Just can't see you lasting more than a couple days in lockup.

Why does the Reuter’s headline say “Lawmakers prepare court action...” when its actually the anti-democratic treasonous forces which are usurping the existing law passed for us to Leave the EU?
MSM Remainerism at work again.
The whole thing has been a Remainer tantrum for the past three years. They are still trying to overthrow the law we have to Leave the EU. They are not Lawmakers, the are Lawbreakers.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

8 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Why does the Reuter’s headline say “Lawmakers prepare court action...” when its actually the anti-democratic treasonous forces which are usurping the existing law passed for us to Leave the EU?
MSM Remainerism at work again.
The whole thing has been a Remainer tantrum for the past three years. They are still trying to overthrow the law we have to Leave the EU. They are not Lawmakers, the are Lawbreakers.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Here, have some. 

5 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Here, have some. 

You have got my vote for the post of the day award. Just need a few dummies now for the child like Brexiteers to quieten their babbling do we not ?

Why does the Reuter’s headline say “Lawmakers prepare court action...” when its actually the anti-democratic treasonous forces which are usurping the existing law passed for us to Leave the EU?
MSM Remainerism at work again.
The whole thing has been a Remainer tantrum for the past three years. They are still trying to overthrow the law we have to Leave the EU. They are not Lawmakers, the are Lawbreakers.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Hard Brexiteers just love making things up.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

If one strips away the commentary from the likes of Dominic Grieve and David Liddington - who were we must remember opponents of Johnson's candidacy to lead the Conservative Party, and lost in both the Parliamentary Party selection and the vote amongst the membership (a familiar theme there?) -  one is left with a rather simple situation.

 

The UK has voted to leave the EU, in a referendum confirmed (please note those who dismiss it as "only advisory") by a subsequent General Election. The parliament produced by that election has voted on, and passed into law an act which says that the UK will leave them EU, the date fixed (after one fruitless delay) is the 31st of October.

 

There is no deal to leave, because although Mrs May and the EU came up with a deal, it was rejected three times by parliament. The current Prime Minister has said that he intends therefore to take us out on the 31st. Parliament has said no. Mr Johnson therefore proposes a general election, to be held before the 31st of October. That election will either give him a mandate to take us out of the EU or will give those who wish to remain (under the guise of further extensions of the leaving date) a mandate to do so.  

 

However it would appear that parliament is essentially unwilling to allow this general election. Preferring instead to leave the government in place, yet prevent them from governing. The opposition don't want an election because they think they will lose it. Having called almost weekly for an election they now want to delay one! The Tory rebels (Grieve, Liddington and others) don't want an election because they know that they will lose their seats if there is one. Neither party has given any thought to what the people want. If they had they would ask them as soon as possible. The whole situation is being propped up by a deliberate misuse of The Fixed Term Parliament Act. An appropriate analogy would be a bank saying they will lend money to you to buy a car, but only if you buy a blue saloon rather than a white SUV!

 

The EU of course is quite happy, one of their biggest contributing nation's, having decided to leave, I'd being kept in, arguably against the will of it's people, by it's parliament. Meanwhile they continue to pay in, but conveniently no longer have any influence upon its decisions and policies.

 

Now some of these "parliamentarians" are suggesting using the courts to back up what they are trying to do (frustrate an election). A by product is some licking of the lips by those whom he has upset at the thought being able to arrange for the upstart Boris being hauled off to Jail!

 

Well further delay is inevitable. Boris Johnson has no choice, and he can truthfully say it was not of his making. There will have to be an election, and as I said, it will give one side or another a mandate. The courts, if they are dragged into it ( I would bet they don't want to be) might just say to the complainants "go away and have an election to settle the matter."

 

This is what happens when a parliament, or elements within it, choose to ignore the expressed intentions of their electorate, and manipulate parliamentary processes to allow them to do so.

 

Incidentally, Mr Speaker Bercow, a man so self obsessed that it has been suggested that he would have been in the first lifeboat off the Titanic, has deliberately been party to that manipulation.

Edited September 8, 20196 yr by JAG

it is not game over yet

And British Lawmakers seek the EUs approval for an extension before passing the bill in Parliament, anybody living in the real world would be able to see that these MPs are more accountable to Brussels than their own country or citizens. It stinks high heaven. 

And remainers would have us believe that the EU has no influence over our parliament when we have to confide in them before we pass a bill in our own parliament.

And how about all those great British restaurants in Europe?? Will they stay? Where else can i eat my green pea's?

11 minutes ago, vogie said:

And British Lawmakers seek the EUs approval for an extension before passing the bill in Parliament, anybody living in the real world would be able to see that these MPs are more accountable to Brussels than their own country or citizens. It stinks high heaven. 

And remainers would have us believe that the EU has no influence over our parliament when we have to confide in them before we pass a bill in our own parliament.

Well the EU is delighted - Westminster is doing it's bidding. I believe that it is called a transfer of sovereignty - wherever possible done without having to resort to actually asking the people.

 

Exactly what it wants!

Edited September 8, 20196 yr by JAG

This parliament passed legislation that clearly permitted a referendum (Cameron: "said he wanted to renegotiate the UK's relationship with the EU and then give people the "simple choice" between staying in under those new terms, or leaving the EU". 

This parliament (including many that have no turned into Remainers) also agreed to European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. 

There was no "with or without a deal" clause, either in the referendum or in the act of parliament, and voters knew very well what they were voting for.

I think Boris would be ready to go to jail rather than ask the EU for something neither he nor the UK (outside of London and Scotland) doesn't want. 

The EU refuses to negotiate, Merkel and Makron have said no more extensions, remaining under the Tersa May deal would make the UK worse off than before.

 

Oliver Cromwell: 'In the name of God, go!' speech dismissing Rump Parliament - 1653

20 April 1653, London, England

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place,

which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.

Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government.

Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?

Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?

Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.

Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God's help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do.

I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place.

Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

In the name of God, go!

 

 

8 minutes ago, JAG said:

Well the EU is delighted - Westminster is doing it's bidding. Exactly what it wants!

I'm sure a few of those treacherous MPs are enjoying their offshore accounts being filled up

6 minutes ago, cooked said:

There was no "with or without a deal" clause, either in the referendum or in the act of parliament, and voters knew very well what they were voting for.

 

 

Really ?  I heard a lot of lies, especially from Brexiteers.

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, dimitriv said:

 

Really ?  I heard a lot of lies, especially from Brexiteers.

 

 

 

 

What is factually incorrect about that?

It's a suggestion of what the money could be used for.

Is that difficult to comprehend?

Edited September 8, 20196 yr by Sticky Wicket

1 minute ago, Sticky Wicket said:

What is factually incorrect about that?

I saw at least a dozen articles proving that this is wrong, and nothing more than populist talk.

 

24 minutes ago, JAG said:

The UK has voted to leave the EU, in a referendum confirmed (please note those who dismiss it as "only advisory") by a subsequent General Election. The parliament produced by that election has voted on, and passed into law an act which says that the UK will leave them EU, the date fixed (after one fruitless delay) is the 31st of October.

Under the UK’s laws, the referendum was advisory only. 

Under the UK’s laws, a PM alone could not declare it binding. 

Under the UK’s laws, parliament can enact legislation making the UK leave on a certain date. 

Under the UK’s laws, parliament can equally enact legislation saying the UK shall not leave without a deal. 

Under the UK’s laws, general elections  are held every x years. 

Under the UK’s laws, a PM may ask parliament for an earlier election. 

Under the UK’s laws, parliament may refuse auch request. 

 

If you don’t like the laws, emigrate to another country or rally for a change of laws. Until then, I’m afraid you have to abide the laws. 

 

 

24 minutes ago, JAG said:

Preferring instead to leave the government in place, yet prevent them from governing.

The government is not being prevented from governing. The government has to govern within the sovereignty of parliament but apparently is unwilling to do so. 

 

24 minutes ago, JAG said:

Now some of these "parliamentarians" are suggesting using the courts to back up what they are trying to do (frustrate an election).

When law is being broken, the standard procedure is to call a court. Again, if you don’t like the rule of law, I’m pretty sure there are some authoritarian regimes in this world where things are being handled differently. 

 

24 minutes ago, JAG said:

Boris Johnson has no choice,

He has a choice: he can govern within the sovereignty of parliament, or he can resign if he doesn’t want to respect parliament. 

 

24 minutes ago, JAG said:

and he can truthfully say it was not of his making.

Everyone told him so. Only the most delusional Brexiteers would believe that replacing the dancing queen with the buffoon Boris and his little propaganda minister could overturn parliamentary sovereign. 

 

24 minutes ago, JAG said:

The courts, if they are dragged into it ( I would bet they don't want to be) might just say to the complainants "go away and have an election to settle the matter."

That must be the same courts that are answering the question of the armchair lawyers whether the U.K. has already left the EU. I’m pretty sure user @evadgib is still excited. 

 

24 minutes ago, JAG said:

This is what happens when a parliament, or elements within it, choose to ignore the expressed intentions of their electorate, and manipulate parliamentary processes to allow them to do so.

This is what happens when parliamentary representative democracy is working, but part of the electorate feel it may be ignored.

 

24 minutes ago, JAG said:

Incidentally, Mr Speaker Bercow, a man so self obsessed that it has been suggested that he would have been in the first lifeboat off the Titanic, has deliberately been party to that manipulation.

Call the courts if you believe he acted against the law. 

2 minutes ago, dimitriv said:

I saw at least a dozen articles proving that this is wrong, and nothing more than populist talk.

 

We haven't left yet so how can it be proven to be wrong?

3 minutes ago, dimitriv said:

I saw at least a dozen articles proving that this is wrong, and nothing more than populist talk.

 

What is wrong?

4 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Under the UK’s laws, the referendum was advisory only. 

Under the UK’s laws, a PM alone could not declare it binding. 

Under the UK’s laws, parliament can enact legislation making the UK leave on a certain date. 

Under the UK’s laws, parliament can equally enact legislation saying the UK shall not leave without a deal. 

Under the UK’s laws, general elections  are held every x years. 

Under the UK’s laws, a PM may ask parliament for an earlier election. 

Under the UK’s laws, parliament may refuse auch request. 

 

If you don’t like the laws, emigrate to another country or rally for a change of laws. Until then, I’m afraid you have to abide the laws. 

 

 

The government is not being prevented from governing. The government has to govern within the sovereignty of parliament but apparently is unwilling to do so. 

 

When law is being broken, the standard procedure is to call a court. Again, if you don’t like the rule of law, I’m pretty sure there are some authoritarian regimes in this world where things are being handled differently. 

 

He has a choice: he can govern within the sovereignty of parliament, or he can resign if he doesn’t want to respect parliament. 

 

Everyone told him so. Only the most delusional Brexiteers would believe that replacing the dancing queen with the buffoon Boris and his little propaganda minister could overturn parliamentary sovereign. 

 

That must be the same courts that are answering the question of the armchair lawyers whether the U.K. has already left the EU. I’m pretty sure user @evadgib is still excited. 

 

This is what happens when parliamentary representative democracy is working, but part of the electorate feel it may be ignored.

 

Call the courts if you believe he acted against the law. 

so

can you explain the triggering of Art 50 by 498 MP's?

7 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

so

can you explain the triggering of Art 50 by 498 MP's?

Parliament voted to do so. Again, if this was against the law, call a court. 

16 minutes ago, dimitriv said:

 

Really ?  I heard a lot of lies, especially from Brexiteers.

 

 

 

 

There was recently a court case that proved that the actual sum was in excess of that. Where's the lie? 

The slogan doesn't say that ALL of it would be spent on the NHS either.

35 minutes ago, cooked said:

 

 

 

36 minutes ago, cooked said:

There was no "with or without a deal" clause, either in the referendum or in the act of parliament, and voters knew very well what they were voting for.

You don't see the contradiction in this quote?

40 minutes ago, cooked said:

This parliament passed legislation that clearly permitted a referendum

And advisory referendum. They could have passed legislation for a binding referendum but didn’t. 

 

40 minutes ago, cooked said:

This parliament (including many that have no turned into Remainers) also agreed to European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. 

Yes. And now they’re passing another law preventing a no-deal Brexit. 

 

40 minutes ago, cooked said:

There was no "with or without a deal" clause, either in the referendum or in the act of parliament, and voters knew very well what they were voting for.

How do you know what voters were voting for? 

 

40 minutes ago, cooked said:

I think Boris would be ready to go to jail

Cool, no problem with that. 

 

40 minutes ago, cooked said:

rather than ask the EU for something neither he nor the UK (outside of London and Scotland) doesn't want. 

You don’t know what “the UK” wants. 

 

 

Alex Deane cooking on gas, and what he says about the UK having a Logan Act just like the USA has.

 

 

Boris had better start looking for a suitable ditch.

33 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

And advisory referendum. They could have passed legislation for a binding referendum but didn’t.

and then

passed legislation to enact it!

1 hour ago, dimitriv said:

 

Really ?  I heard a lot of lies, especially from Brexiteers.

 

 

 

 

Oh dear God no. Not this again!

1 hour ago, Sticky Wicket said:

What is factually incorrect about that?

It's a suggestion of what the money could be used for.

Is that difficult to comprehend?

Please stop encouraging this foolishness. Before you know it, the 'Project Fear' fan club will chiming in.

1 hour ago, cooked said:

There was recently a court case that proved that the actual sum was in excess of that. Where's the lie? 

The slogan doesn't say that ALL of it would be spent on the NHS either.

 

Maybe this helps:  https://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/eu-membership-costs-us-a-fortune/