The Benn Act is illegal and can be ignored

By specifying that an agreement must be made with the EU before withdrawal on October 31st, the Benn Act is demanding that the EU agrees to terms in the timescale.  This is in effect passing away sovereignty to the EU from Parliament, as the EU can refuse to agree as long as it wishes, and thereby tie the hands of Parliament.   The Benn Act should be challenged in the courts, and meantime ignored.  Any case brought under it defended as the supposed Law is illegal.

The Supreme Court specified in its recent decision on the prorogation that the Executive must take the final decisions as to how Britain negotiates with the EU.

‘Prime Minister…the call is yours’

John Redwood summarises his approach below –

The Prime Minister has made an offer to the EU to get talks started to allow us to leave with their blessing on October 31. The EU has responded in their time honoured way by rubbishing any feature of the proposal that is better for the UK than the unacceptable Withdrawal Agreement which perished in Parliament and got under 9% support in the  last European elections. It is most important now that the UK does not do what it always did under Mrs May and make further concessions. The EU has found it all too easy to refuse to budge and watch as the UK negotiates with itself and against itself.

I voted for Boris Johnson as leader because he promised to take us out by 31 October, and he confirmed the Withdrawal Agreement was dead. He must learn from the bitter experiences of Mr Cameron and Mrs May that the EU does usually overplay its hand and radicalises many UK voters against it by its conduct.

Mr Cameron asked for too little in his attempted renegotiation and was offered even less as a result. That led directly to the referendum defeat, as he did not even secure the return of UK control over benefits when we had often be assured by UK governments that social security remained under our control.

Mrs May always refused to dig in or to cease making concessions. Every tine the EU dug in she gave more ground. The result was a disastrous Withdrawal Treaty which united Leave and Remain in opposition to it.

The present PM needs to tell the EU that his Irish border proposals to get talks going are neither an invitation to assume the text of the rest of the Withdrawal treaty is fine, nor an invitation to get rid of all the best bits of the border fix from the UK point of view in subsequent one sided compromises.. The press when the PM launched the ideas said it was take it or leave it. To change that approach now would be seen as weakness in Brussels.

The best way forward now is to offer a Free Trade Agreement and no Withdrawal Agreement.

Brexit law ‘could be challenged’, lawyers tell Shrewsbury MP

By Mark Andrews | Shrewsbury | Politics | Published: | Last Updated:

Shrewsbury MP Daniel Kawczynski is in talks with cabinet ministers about mounting a legal challenge to the law aimed at delaying Brexit if a deal cannot be reached.Sign Up

Daniel Kawczynski

Mr Kawczynski said he spent the weekend talking to two senior cabinet ministers after meeting a team of top London barristers on Friday.

Mr Kawczynski said the meeting with four leading lawyers was also attended by a fellow Conservative MP who has worked as a barrister. He had received legal written advice suggesting a number of ways the so-called Benn Law could be challenged using either British or European legislation.

“We had an extensive two-and-a-half-hour discussion, they said there would definitely be a case that would be considered by the High Court or the Supreme Court,” he said.

“I don’t want to tread on the Government’s toes, I am sure they are looking at all the loopholes, but would be interested in pursuing a citizen’s challenge to the Act.

“I have sent my legal opinion through, and won’t be doing anything until I have heard from the Government.”


The European (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act, sponsored by Hilary Benn, requires the Prime Minister to write to the EU asking for a further delay to Brexit by October 19 unless parliament has approved either a deal or a no-deal Brexit. Given that there is not a parliamentary majority for leaving without a deal, it would mean that Britain could not leave unless MPs back a deal.

It was revealed in a Scottish court hearing on Friday that Prime Minister Boris Johnson had admitted he would ask for an extension if he was legally obliged to do so.

But since then Mr Johnson has insisted that Britain will leave the EU on October 31.

Mr Kawczynski said he decided to pursue legal advice after Remain supporters overturned the Prime Minister’s suspension of Parliament.

“We are getting our ducks in a row at how we can protect the rights of 17.4 million people through the courts, because they are not being protected by the House of Commons,” he said.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.