,
10 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
There’s some rather odd “law” in this piece.
1. There’s a hopeless attempt to distinguish between an international agreement and “surrender” or “appeasement”.
Grant, for the moment, the dubious premise that the UK’s agreeing the EU27’s response to the UK’s own request for an extension is, in any sense beyond cheap rhetoric, a “surrender”.
The answer to Cash’s rhetorical question “Since when has a forced and humiliating surrender ever [in international law] been an ‘Agreement’?” is “plenty of occasions: just ask China about the Treaty of Nanking and Hong Kong.”
And Cash goes on to concede that the U.K. did agree to the EU27’s date, albeit “on bended knee”: so the only argument he has against there being an agreement is the hopeless “surrender” point.
2. There is no rule that commencement has to be within a reasonable time of Royal Assent. See eg the Easter Act 1926 (still not commenced).
There is a rule of uncertain scope (the Fire Brigades Union) about devising a replacement legislative scheme to replace an uncommenced Act of Parliament.
But since the Withdrawal Act itself, in s.20, plainly contemplates delays to exit day, it’s hard to get that argument off the ground.
3. There is a complex argument that the Royal Prerogative to enter into an extension agreement was somehow displaced by a combination of the Withdrawal Act and Miller. But IMO it’s wrong, for reasons explained by @RobertCraig3 here ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/01/09/rob….
So the “law” is dubious, at best. As for the rhetoric, @BillCashMP might care to study C20 precedents for the careless use of “surrender” and “humiliation” rhetoric. They aren’t good.
