Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To wonder whether Johnson has broken the law with his ridiculous three letters to the EU, and to wonder what will happen now

84 replies

namechange122222 · 20/10/2019 08:36

apple.news/Az8_qgHymTWqRpi5nS4Oxcw

Johnson has sent a letter to the EU, three letters in fact, asking for an extension. One saying he is complying with the law, one reproducing part of the Benn Act but not signing it as he is supposed to, and one telling the EU that he doesn’t actually want an extension or words to that effect.

Childish, arrogant and idiotic - IMO yes. Has he broken the law and WTF will the rest of the EU make of this?

OP posts:
FreshwaterBay · 20/10/2019 11:37

It is perfectly possible for two things to happen :-

  1. BJ to be in breach and get prosecuted.
  1. The EU accept the substance of what has been presented and grant an extension beyond 31 October.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Now that is sovereignty.

noblegiraffe · 20/10/2019 11:38

Wish they’d bloody hurry up and prosecute him for misuse of power and public funds.

MaMaMaMySharona · 20/10/2019 11:42

Wish they’d bloody hurry up and prosecute him for misuse of power and public funds.

^^

I can’t understand how he’s being allowed to get away with being such a twat. Earlier PP raised a good point about him being a leader in the EU and potentially having to give the thumbs up on an extension too - does anyone have more understanding on this?

I voted remain and will never EVER support leaving, in any capacity. I’m very grateful that our parliament are blocking it at every opportunity and if I’m honest, couldn’t give a single shit about “the will of the people” as I don’t respect the result or think it was legally gained.

ForalltheSaints · 20/10/2019 11:42

Mr Johnson was childish I agree.

I think the second reading of the Bill to put the deal into law will be passed, so we will leave more or less on the basis of the deal agreed last week. I don't know if it will be on October 31st though.

How unionists in Northern Ireland will react when this happens I do not know.

SesameOil · 20/10/2019 11:45

I know I mentioned contract law but actually on reflection I don't think that's going to be the basis of the decision here. It's whether his actions are in compliance with the Benn Act and Padfield or not. I'd agree an extension and Johnson being sanctioned aren't mutually exclusive, just don't see the latter happening. I am only one lawyer but I'm cheered to see my approach is the same as David Allen Green.

Roussette · 20/10/2019 11:45

I voted remain and will never EVER support leaving, in any capacity. I’m very grateful that our parliament are blocking it at every opportunity and if I’m honest, couldn’t give a single shit about “the will of the people” as I don’t respect the result or think it was legally gained

Ditto.

Ellapaella · 20/10/2019 11:46

I agree with @ChickenyChick

smemorata · 20/10/2019 12:02

I voted remain and ....... I don’t respect the result or think it was legally gained
I agree. As for people bleating on about respecting democracy, I think it would be far more damaging to our democracy if we implemented the results of a referendum which we know was won thanks to lies in the campaign, manipulation of the electorate and disenfranchisement of thousands of citizens.

everythingisginandroses · 20/10/2019 12:08

Since we live in a parliamentary democracy and not a dictatorship, his stupid 2nd letter will rightly be ignored. SesameOil "a quick tickle to the clits of the ignorant" is the best summary EVER Grin

PerkingFaintly · 20/10/2019 12:17

I've just been watching "Tories At War", the documentary following the party for much of this year.

Among others, it features Andrew Bridgen (Farage-friendly Tory Brexiter) and Crispin Odey (billionaire hedge fund manager who funded Johnson's leadership bid and profited from shorting the pound). They've kinda blended in my memory and I can't remember which said which.

But one talked of Johnson of being a favoured candidate for the Tory leadership because his behaviour is to thrash around and break things when he doesn't get his way just by being charming.

And one talking about finding a way to stop parliament doing its job, and also about having Johnson do undemocratic things like creating hundreds of instant peers in order to pack the Lords.

I hope I've remembered those details correctly.

I was too busy being shocked that anyone would talk so openly about their plans to break our parliamentary democracy. They didn't seem to imagine anyone would judge their intentions to be Not A Good Idea.

SesameOil · 20/10/2019 12:19

Thanks! I was worried the imagery might be a bit much for Sunday morning. Honestly though, he has a legal department there. I would be astonished if he hadn't got their take on whether a second letter would have any impact.

And yes, there are some very serious anti-democratic implications to honouring the referendum result. Our democracy was attacked. Proceedings regardless is an invitation to be further attacked.

PerkingFaintly · 20/10/2019 12:39

I think unless there's an actual process declaring the referendum invalid (because of lying, campaign finance violations, foreign interference, etc), then I think we have to go with the result.

Even though Chris Wylie, who was involved in some of that fraud for the Brexit campaign, disagrees. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/27/brexit-groups-had-common-plan-to-avoid-election-spending-laws-says-wylie

But how else can we run a democracy?

A vote has to have a process of being declared null before we can treat it as such.

What wasn't necessary, was Theresa May leaping from "there's been a combined vote in favour of the conflicting versions of Leave," to "therefore I'll choose the actual Leave version, and the people won't get a further say."

The response to the referendum should always have been: now we thrash out the possible Leave versions, and we vote again (with Single Transferable Vote) to specify exactly what we DO want, not just what we don't want.

It's absolutely not the fault of (most of) Parliament that Cameron set up such a woolly referendum, nor that May made such bad decisions, nor that Johnson keeps lying and running around the country electioneering instead of working for a deal.

theunknownknown · 20/10/2019 12:51

I voted remain and will never EVER support leaving, in any capacity. I’m very grateful that our parliament are blocking it at every opportunity and if I’m honest, couldn’t give a single shit about “the will of the people” as I don’t respect the result or think it was legally gained
I wish there was a like/recommend button.
I couldn't agree with you more.

MaMaMaMySharona · 20/10/2019 12:58

Haha thanks! I was expecting to be torn to shreds for being undemocratic so I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks this is all a huge waste of time/money/energy.

TheGirlFromStoryville · 20/10/2019 13:06

I voted remain and will never EVER support leaving, in any capacity. I’m very grateful that our parliament are blocking it at every opportunity and if I’m honest, couldn’t give a single shit about “the will of the people” as I don’t respect the result or think it was legally gained

If leave wins another referendum, what then?

MereDintofPandiculation · 20/10/2019 13:07

We can’t keep having new votes just because we don’t like the result of the first one and it isn’t fair to keep delaying to avoid it. Even the smallest voluntary society has something in its constitution that says "major decisions that affect the fundamental principles of the Society require a 67% (or similar large value) majority". The referendum vote didn't have such a value set because it was advisory not mandatory hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-06-16/debates/15061658000001/europeanunionreferendumbill

With such a close result it is foolish to take an irrevocable step over the future of the UK.

We're now three years down the line, another 2-3 million younger voters have become eligible to vote, and a similar number have dropped off the top end. We need to check that we're still in line with "the will of the people".

noblegiraffe · 20/10/2019 13:12

I think unless there's an actual process declaring the referendum invalid (because of lying, campaign finance violations, foreign interference, etc), then I think we have to go with the result.

From what I understand it can’t be declared legally invalid because it was only advisory and not legally binding. If it was legally binding, it would have been ruled null and void due to the lies and malpractice.

So because we are allowed to ignore it, we are being told we have to abide by it.
If we were not allowed to ignore it, we would have been told to ignore it.

It’s a total mess.

PerkingFaintly · 20/10/2019 13:23

From what I understand it can’t be declared legally invalid because it was only advisory and not legally binding. If it was legally binding, it would have been ruled null and void due to the lies and malpractice.

So because we are allowed to ignore it, we are being told we have to abide by it.
If we were not allowed to ignore it, we would have been told to ignore it.

Shock
PerkingFaintly · 20/10/2019 13:30

You've put it very clearly, noblegiraffe. That must be exactly correct.Shock

The referendum didn't have the usual protections (from fraud, and the requirement for a 67% majority), because it was only advisory.

But neither Cameron nor May treated the result as only advisory... and here we are.

whyamidoingthis · 20/10/2019 13:34

And part of the reason he doesn’t want the deal excessively scrutinised is that it downgrades things like environmental, worker and food standard protection to the political declaration only.

Andrew Ridge was interviewed by Marian Finucane on RTE radio 1 this morning. He confirmed that the UK intends to diverge from EU standards. He tried to avoid the question and play it as UK standards are much higher than EU minimums, which they are in certain areas, so it would be a retrograde step to go for a level playing field. Marian forced an answer out of him to the question whether the UK would diverge, to which the answer was yes. Aside: Marian is a brilliant interviewer.

If I was living in the UK, I would be very worried about what that would mean under a tory government. It's not like the generally have the interests of the ordinary person at heart.

Wildorchidz · 20/10/2019 13:40

The Bank of England estimates that Brexit is costing the UK £440,000,000 per week in lost growth since the referendum. It’s heading towards £77 billion now.

TheNumberfaker · 20/10/2019 13:45

Not signing the letter and including another one is just another bloody dead cat to distract the media and general public from the fact that he has requested an extension in accordance with tthe Benn Act but is not “dead in a ditch” as he suggested when Benn became law.

smemorata · 20/10/2019 14:04

If leave wins another referendum, what then?
If the referendum is run fairly and is not advisory (so has the be run to a higher standard) then I would accept that. I expect most remainers would. It is ridiculous that we are expected to respect an advisory referendum which fell well below electoral standards. We should all be refusing to do this.

SesameOil · 20/10/2019 14:08

Then if this one doesn't break the law or involve another Cambridge Analytica situation, it might well be legitimate, and not threaten our democracy if we implement it. Unlike the 2016 version.

Venger · 20/10/2019 14:16

Earlier PP raised a good point about him being a leader in the EU and potentially having to give the thumbs up on an extension too - does anyone have more understanding on this?

He doesn't get a vote on whether the extension is granted or not, the other leaders do. Didn't May have to wait in a room on her own for their decision and they took pity and sent her some food?

Even the smallest voluntary society has something in its constitution that says "major decisions that affect the fundamental principles of the Society require a 67% (or similar large value) majority"

If only Cameron had set terms such as this to the referendum then we wouldn't be in this mess.

The results was 51.89% for Leave and 48.11% for Remain, a margin of 3.78% with a difference of only 1.2 million votes between the results. When Johnson and his gang are banging on about The Will Of The People™️ they seem to conveniently forget that it is only the will of 51.89% of the people and they risk massively alienating the other 48.11%. It was too close a result and the majority is not large enough for them to be able to say "this is what the country wants" when actually all it does show is that the country is deeply divided on what it wants.

What should have happened is that the result should have been advisory, delegates should have been sent to EU to discuss it, research should have begun into how a country could go about extracting itself and then information provided to the electorate on whether it was indeed possible to leave. If it was then Article 50 should have been trigger and not before.

What should happen now is that Article 50 is revoked in order to stop the clock, save the money being wasted, and kick the can massively down the road. General Election because one is needed. Time and money is then spent on healing the divisions in the country and addressing the issues that led to the Leave vote in the first place. A cross party delegation goes to Brussels whose sole job is to gradually unplug the UK from the EU over a period of several years so that the transition is as seamless as possible with minimal impact upon jobs, the economy, trade, travel, etc. Once everything is in place to leave then a confirmatory referendum followed by either remaining or Article 50 being re-triggered, depending on the result. As the groundwork to extract the UK would have already been put in place, the two years following this re-triggering would be spent implementing all of those steps already set up rather than two years of arguing.

That's what, IMO, should happen but it never will as it's all turned into a gigantic pissing contest where instead of a Brexit that will appease the majority - leave and remain alike - we have a 'do or die' vanity project Brexit that will only please the most hardline of leave voters.

And I'm calling it now that when it all turns to shit following Brexit, when jobs end and prices rise and we're all significantly more skint, the people who will complain the most are those who have been the loudest in shouting "will of the people" and "leave means leave".