In my previous post, Back-to-front Brexit - the basics, I set out some of the rationale for my view that the United Kingdom and the European Union (acting at 27) have, since March 2017, been conducting the Article 50 TEU negotiations in a manner contrary to that required by Article 50 TEU.
I conclude that the supposed Withdrawal Agreement approved by the European Council in November 2018 is unlawful, since it wasn't created by the process required by EU Law.
Similarly, the so-called Political Declaration is not the Framework for the Future Relationship as required in Article 50 TEU.
The logical conclusionm, if you accept the foregoing, is that the Attorney General (Sir Geoffrey Cox QC MP) misled the House of Commons on 3rd December 2018.
Nothing that Sir Geoffrey said on 3rd December disclosed this fundamental legal concern regarding the supposed Withdrawal Agreement and the supposed Framework for the Future Relationship which the House of Commons was to be asked to approve.
I conclude that if Sir Geoffrey had failed to identify this legal question he demonstrated a failure of competence.
Had Sir Geoffrey identified the legal question and withheld awareness of its existence from the House of Commons it seems to me that there was a failure of integrity on the part of the Attorney General.
Accordingly, in a letter dated 25th December 2018 I wrote to the Attorney General and asked him to consider whether he had misled the House of Commons on 3rd December 2018.
Given my view that the Attorney General had indeed misled the House of Commons, I asked Sir Geoffrey to resign as Attorney General, having first apologised to the House of Commons.
No comments:
Post a Comment