FabSwingers.com forum: Court asked to declare Withdrawal Agreement illegal

By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Who'd have thunk it?

Jacob Rees-Mogg, Johnson's puppet-master in the Commons, successfully amended section 55 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018.

It states that it is “unlawful for Her Majesty’s government to enter into arrangements under which Northern Ireland forms part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain”.

The Court of Session is being ask to rule that the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement are illegal.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *estivalMan
over a year ago

borehamwood

"Who'd have thunk it?

Jacob Rees-Mogg, Johnson's puppet-master in the Commons, successfully amended section 55 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018.

It states that it is “unlawful for Her Majesty’s government to enter into arrangements under which Northern Ireland forms part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain”.

The Court of Session is being ask to rule that the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement are illegal.

ah so they gona drag the eu 27 thtough the courts.they the ones who okd the WA. thats gona make the eu wana give a further extension

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

No, in a legal sense, it's nothing to do with the EU.

The UK Parliament has legislated to prohibit a different customs arrangement in Northern Ireland, at the instigation of Rees Mogg.

Which would make in it unlawful for the UK to ratify the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement, according to the petition.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The DUP will be chucking a big spanner in tomorrow anyway. If they do does that mean a delay or a no deal disaster?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

What are the options?

- The WA is ratified

- The WA is passed, subject to a confirmatory referendum

- The WA is rejected, as is referendum amendment.

You'd have to say the odds might be in favour of the last one, but who knows.

Will Johnson then argue that the Benn Act no longer applies, and UK leaves on Oct 31 without an agreement?

I imagine he would.

I imagine, too, the courts will be busy on Monday morning.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral

I hope we get out, you remoaners can stop whinging and get on with our lives.Try to be democratic and decent human beings and not spoilt little brats who should allways get there own way

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iltsguy200Man
over a year ago

Warminster

The courts won’t be busy on Monday, the judge threw the case out today.

Analysis and decision

[21] The issues which the court must address at this stage are (i) whether the petitioner has a prima facie case and (ii) where the balance of convenience lies.

[22] In my opinion, the petitioner does not have a prima facie case. In the first place, the petition is of very doubtful competency. The orders sought would unquestionably interfere to a major extent with the proposed proceedings in Parliament. Suspension of the draft withdrawal agreement would mean that the motion for its approval could not realistically or properly go ahead as planned. I cannot see that it would be right for Parliament to be invited to consider a draft treaty which the court had suspended on the basis that it was unlawful. It is a cardinal principle of constitutional law that the courts should not intrude on the legitimate affairs and processes of Parliament. I consider that it should be left to Parliament to proceed in relation to the draft withdrawal agreement in the manner and according to the procedures that Parliament considers most appropriate in the circumstances.

[23] Secondly, I consider that the petitioner’s legal argument as to the incompatibility of the draft withdrawal agreement with section 55 of the 2018 Act is at best a weak one. The starting point, in my opinion, is the clear declaration in article 4 of the draft Protocol. That statement is closely aligned with the definition of a “customs territory” contained in Article

XXIV of GATT. The petitioner has placed nothing before the court by way of evidence, averment or oral submission to show that in future Northern Ireland’s trading and customs arrangements will not qualify and fall to be treated as amounting to a “customs territory” in the manner envisaged in the draft Protocol. The clear intention underlying the draft Protocol is that Northern Ireland will remain part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom. There is nothing to show that this will not play out as intended and work in a satisfactory manner. The fact that there will also be trade between Northern Ireland and the EU on which customs duties shall be payable does not necessarily infer that Northern Ireland cannot at the same time be part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom. A substantial part of Northern Ireland’s trade will still be with Great Britain and will not be subject to customs duties.

[24] Thirdly, the balance of convenience, in my view, strongly points towards it being right for the court to decline to grant the interim orders sought. The petitioner has not convinced me that there is any genuine urgency such as to justify the granting of interim orders. Mr O’Neill suggested that even if orders were granted, matters could nonetheless proceed in Parliament as currently planned, but Parliament would be able to have regard to the court’s view on the legality of the draft withdrawal agreement. This, to my mind, makes little sense. It is not for the court to provide Parliament with some kind of advance advisory guidance.

[25] Fourthly, the petitioner’s approach fails to take account of the fact that the withdrawal agreement is at present still at the stage of being merely a draft instrument. It requires to be ratified, both at UK and EU levels. These procedures should be allowed to be followed through in line with the appropriate processes in the UK Parliament and

elsewhere. It would be quite wrong and contrary to basic constitutional principles for the court to interfere with them in the way that the petitioner has proposed.

[26] For all these reasons, I conclude that the petitioner’s applications for interim orders are misconceived and unjustified. They have no or at best a weak prima facie case. The balance of convenience comes down firmly on the side of refusing to make the orders.

I shall accordingly refuse the petitioner’s motion insofar as it seeks interim orders.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Cool

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

"I hope we get out, you remoaners can stop whinging and get on with our lives.Try to be democratic and decent human beings and not spoilt little brats who should allways get there own way"

48% of the population UK wide do not want this.

You may live in an area, or a society, where it is overwhelming one way.

There are parts of the country where it is overwhelming another way.

This is what you voted for.

A struggle for the nation state, and what it means.

You cannot say this is a surprise.

Project Fear, which you now present as Project Fact, told you so.

So you knew what you were voting for in 2016.

Justice for the dispossessed

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iltsguy200Man
over a year ago

Warminster

48% of the population UK wide do not want this.

I think you mean 48% of those registered to vote in the referendum did not want this as the whole of the U.K. population cannot vote.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *estivalMan
over a year ago

borehamwood

"48% of the population UK wide do not want this.

I think you mean 48% of those registered to vote in the referendum did not want this as the whole of the U.K. population cannot vote. "

wasting ya breath mate if you didnt vote like i didnt by some peoples reasoning that means them non votes are remain votes.myself my non vote means i didnt care wether remain or leave won and im guessing that goes for a lot of people who didnt vote

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread