Typical.

May, Johnson, and MPs can't keep their lies straight. The principle lie is unilateral powers inherent to UK state "constitution". Secondarily, that negotiation with EU to modify any and all treaties continues, whether by executive fiat d/b/a royal prerogative or STYMIED parliamentary legislation.

I've read the three cases' opinions. I did some background at legislation.gov.uk on cur statute and historical "convention" (non-statutory authority of executive and parliament). The questions for the baby SCOTUK all concern defining baby separation of powers: Under which conditions may a PM invoke the royal prerogative? (Parliament forgot to revoke hahaha royal prerogative with statute.)

That is to say, the current "exit date" is of no interest to UK "constitution". It appears sort of, kind of, in litigants' pleadings only in relation to A.50(3) extension faits accomplis and to the PM's nefarious motive to STYMY assembly of parliament IF and WHEN it wants to. Quite conspicuously, STYMIED proceedings of parliament do not include approval or disapproval of the withdrawal agreement (non-negotiable "deal") concluded by a PM and the EU. Mention of past, current, and future proceedings of parliament barely acknowledges "proper consideration" of "no deal" (and pro forma reports scheduled "under NIEFA 2019") :

therefore irrespective of the making of a withdrawal agreement with the European Union with a view to ameliorating some of the adverse effects of withdrawal (that there will be adverse effects would seem to be accepted by the Prime Minister, given his expressed wish to negotiate [sic] an agreement). If withdrawal by 31 October 2019 means a no deal Brexit then the Prime Minister is prepared to accept that. He would prefer to be "dead in a ditch" to not achieving that objective. [Cherry:46]

As in the beginning so it is in the end: EU gov-- its "sovereignty" and autonomy-- does not exist in the imaginations of UK "public officers." Communicating with people who are unwilling and unable to comprehend their own enacted "constitution" is futile. There isn't a bin big enough for all of them.


Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

Has anyone given a single thought to "leaking" Johnson's so-called legislative agenda in the Queen's Speech? After all, the mooooood seems to be that a PM cannot compel parliament to sit at any time and legislate anything. And parliament has not published a negotiable instrument theoretically to replace "May's deal."

I idly wonder, Why?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.