>>5909263

There are at least 2 issues here.

Firstly, in the case brought by Gina Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not rely on Royal Prerogative and needed an Act of Parliament to actually withdraw from the EU. Clearly the government did not have the authority to revise the leaving date without going back to the HoC. It is technically 'illegal' in the sense that the government is doing it the wrong way around: they have already requested the deferment and will now place the Statutory Instrument in front of the HoC (tomorrow) for approval to validate what the government has already done.

But as you point out EU law trumps UK law and the EU has already turned the deferment into EU law… so the UK cannot now leave on 29 March! Because EU law says so!

Thus even if the HoC were to vote aginst the SI tomorrow, it would have no effect… the UK is bound by EU law.

What now happens if the EU decides it needs more time to prepare for Brexit and the other 27 agree that the leave date should be further deferred until… say, 25 August 2035… or any other date. They have already changed the date on the basis of an illegal act by HMG… so quite clealy there was no procedure they had to compy with before changing the date for the first time.

>>5911567

"Michael Steele"??? Surely 'Christopher Steele'!

Spying on Trump signed off by Boris and Treasonous May!

>>5911681

I have seen that and it deals with the question of whether HMG has acted properly (it hasnt!) but how could the EU change EU law on the basis of an ilegal request from HMG?

Jacob-Rees Mogg, writing in the Daily Mail, has confirmed that he has lost his bottle!

"I apologise for changing my mind. Theresa May’s deal is a bad one, it does not deliver on the promises made in the Tory Party manifesto and its negotiation was a failure of statesmanship.

A £39 billion bill for nothing, a minimum of 21 months of vassalage, the continued involvement of the European Court and, worst of all, a backstop with no end date.

Yet, I am now willing to support it if the Democratic Unionist Party does, and by doing so will be accused of infirmity of purpose by some and treachery by others."

I accuse him of both!

>>5912197

It would be nice to think so but I don't buy it - she has done too many things that say otherwise. Why did she seek an extension last week? Without that we would now be only 72 hours away from exit with no deal.

I fear that she is so incompetent that her incompetence has been seen as some as tactical… I really think she is just incompetent.

>>5912560

Sadly not. The EU law has already been changed and the new dates inserted. In international law, EU law takes precedence over UK law, we cannnot leave until 12 April at the earliest, whatever the HoC does.

>>5918957

In the HoC today:

7.30pm: MPs debate the statutory instrument changing the date of Brexit set out in the EU Withdrawal Act.

No doubt the legality of what May did will be raised but if the HoC approves the SI then, even though it might not have been done correctly, MPs will have approved the revised date(s).

>>5919381

I am not sure that is right. I think the Withdrawl Act was drafted so that the HoC could change the exit date just by approving the SI. In which case the HoL does not get involved.

On a cheerier note, Reuters is reporting:

UK CONSERVATIVE LAWMAKER SAYS DOZENS OF CONSERVATIVES ARE STILL OPPOSED TO PM MAY'S BREXIT DEAL (NOT SUPPORTING IT)

>>5919791

The law already had gone through the HoL and received Royal Assent - it is the Withdrawl Act. Changing the date is an administrative detail, it is not a new law.

>>5919791

Just said in the HoC:

Sir Bill Cash, the Tory Brexiter, says lawyers are convinced that May’s deal with the EU extending article 50 is unlawful. Did May get legal advice before agreeing that? And will May publish it? And will she withdraw this evening’s motion changing Brexit date?

May says Brexit date has already changed under international law. She says the Commons voted to seek an extension to article 50. She says, if the statutory instrument being voted on tonight is not passed, that will cause legal confusion.

Bercow just kicked over May's sandcastles!

Not only did he repeat that he would not allow the same motion to be brought again, he went further:

"Therefore, in order that there should be no misunderstanding, I wish to make clear that I do expect the government to meet the test of change. They should not seek to circumvent my ruling by means of tabling either a notwithstanding motion or a tabling motion. The table office has been instructed that no such motions will be accepted."

In other words, May cannot get round Bercow’s earlier ruling, by having a vote on a motion to disapply the rule in this case… Bercow just slammed the door on that option.

Extraordinary stuff!

DUP says "NO" - May's 'deal' is dead!

https://twitter.com/duponline/status/1111006461562441730

>>5926360

>>5926358

DUP confirms it will vote AGAINST the deal (i.e. not abstain)

>>5926809

Anon, We have to save ourselves! Get your yellow jacket before stocks run out!

>>5926902

Yellow jacket protests are going global. Several European countries but also in Oz and elsewhere.

>>5927001

Is a 'yellow vest' movement growing in Australia?

https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/is-a-yellow-vest-movement-growing-in-australia/10686894