,
9 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
Michael Detmold, Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Adelaide argues that the European Union (Withdrawal)(No. 2) Act is unconstitutional in its requirement for the PM to write a wholly dictated letter seeking an Article 50 extension: ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/09/20/mic… 
He doubts whether the 'supposed law' is an Act of Parliament at all. What if a law was passed requiring Smith to write a love letter to a stranger Jones? Would this be a valid law?
The dictated letter breaks the common law principle of responsible government, because it bespeaks a loss of confidence in the Prime Minister: he cannot be trusted and so must be directed.
It should be open to the Supreme Court to hold this kind of law - 'manacles never before dreamed of' - unconstitutional on the grounds that it is so alien to fundamental principle that it cannot be recognised as law:
What if the hypothetical Smith-Jones law went further and declared them married? Would they then be married? Of course not, since their wills would not have gone with it. In the same way there was no real letter between them.
Likewise the executive will does not accompany the dictated letter. What if the EU ask the Prime Minister if it was his will to send the letter. Would he be breaking the law by answering truthfully? Of course not.
In fact, the Prime Minister's constitutional obligation is to send a second letter declaring that his will is not in the first.
The life of the nation should not be founded on an abstract trick.
The life of the nation should not be founded on an abstract trick.
Does the Diceyan rule that Parliament can enact any law it likes, even as far as executing all blue-eyed babies, extend from dastardly acts to abstract tricks? Why should it?
In conclusion, the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 cannot be recognised as constitutional:
