Will The Toilet Be Returned?

Britain continues to be held hostage.

By around 300 MP's who attempting the block the nation's exit from the European Union (EU).

And yes, those 300 have taken to referring to themselves as; "The Spartans." From the 2006 movie; "300."

Which isn't ideal. Given the current tensions with Iran.

Fortunately they don't have 8,300 Greeks, Helots and Thebans to defend them. Although, judging by the news coverage, they do seem to have the backing of at least 900 Thespians.

The latest effort to block Britain's exit from the EU has been The European Union (Withdrawal) (No 6) Bill. Authored by Labour MP Hilary Benn.

Benn's Bill  forces the British government to seek a delay on Leaving the EU from October 31st 2019 (31/10/19) until January 31st 2020 (31/1/20).

If the EU offers an extension to a date other than 31/1/20 Benn's Bill then automatically signs Britain up to that delay. Regardless of what it may entail or how long it will be for.
 
Benn's Bill was introduced to the lower, elected house - the House of Commons - under a piece of procedure known as Standing Order 24 (SO24). This allows for emergency debates.

However the Commons had already declared that Britain's exit from the EU does not constitute an emergency.

That Britain would Leave the EU on October 31st 2019 (31/10/19) is something that has been known about since April 2019. The Commons' reaction was to declare that it did not require emergency attention. Instead voting to send themselves off on a long holiday.

Furthermore Standing Order 24 only allows for debate. It does not allow for the introduction of bills of any type.

In order to become law a bill be must introduced at the proper time and pass through five stages in the Commons;

First Reading. Second Reading. Committee. Reporting. Third Reading.

All of these stages are independent of each other. They can only be held on five separate days.

Benn's Bill received its first reading on September 3rd (3/9/19). It then rushed through the remaining four stages in just three hours on the evening of September 4th (4/9/19).

Rather than maintaining the status quo Benn's Bill serves to massively increase the amount of power the EU exerts over Britain.

For example it forces Britain to be bound by EU laws while at the same time giving up its EU Council (EUCO) veto over new EU laws. It of course also gives up the ultimate way that Britain can free itself from EU laws. Leaving the EU.

It would be tempting to describe it as a power grab. However the EU isn't trying to grab power. British MP's are simply trying to throw away power faster than anyone can pick it up.

I don't think there is a term for that. It's something so stupid I doubt any nation has ever attempted it before.

Britain famously doesn't have a single, codified Constitution. Instead its Constitution is made up of an ad hoc series of precedents, effectively scribbled on Post It Notes dotted around the place.

When a bill can be introduced to the Commons. That it must go through five separate stages on five separate days. The nation's ability to enter into and withdraw from international treaties.

These, along with other such precedents, are the Articles of the British Constitution.

The US' written Constitution is really a direct rejection of the British system. Meaning that the two systems are almost polar opposites. Making it difficult to directly compare them.

However the passage of Benn's Bill is a bit like the US House of Representatives meeting for three hours. Then declaring that the 2nd, 5th and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution no longer exist.

In those circumstances I don't think anyone would be at all surprised if the US President then vetoed the bill passed by the House of Representatives. Preventing it from becoming law.

The manner in which Benn's Bill was introduced. How it made its way through the Commons. Its efforts to massively cede power to the EU.

Any one of these provided ample reason for Benn's Bill to fall foul of the UK equivalent of a Presidential veto. The refusal of the Royal Assent required for it to become law.

Although it invokes the sort of Divine Right enjoyed by Medieval Kings and Queen's Royal Assent is far from an arcane concept.

It is something that is shared amongst almost all modern Parliamentary Republics. That the Head of State, the President, can refuse to sign into law bills passed by the legislative branch.

Aside from protecting the Constitution the refusal of Royal Assent for Benn's Bill would also have sent a timely message to Britain's MP's.

That they need to stop taking the p*as and give up on this deeply anti-democratic belief they can stop Britain Leaving the EU.

Instead they need to focus on saving face. As they prepare to adopt the Withdrawal Agreement they have lied to voters about so relentlessly.

However Benn's Bill did receive Royal Assent. On September 9th (9/9/19). Having passed through the unelected, upper house - the House of Lords.

Although it was wholly unlawful prior to receiving Royal Assent the simple fact that Benn's Bill has been signed by the Monarch makes it lawful.

The mere act of the Queen signing it scraps the existing Articles of the Constitution, replacing them with new ones.

This means that Benn's Bill creates serious Constitutional problems for Britain moving forward. Far beyond its relationship with the EU.

The Labour Party continue to command a majority in the House of Lords. It is possible that they could, in the future, command a majority in the House of Commons.

There is now nothing to prevent such a government meeting for three hours and then declaring Britain to be part of China. Or that Britain had suddenly become America's 51st State.

Of course the advantage of the British system is that such a bill could be refused Royal Assent. Scrapping the existing Articles of the Constitution, replacing them with new ones.

However the precedent set by Benn's Bill makes that much harder.

In terms of delaying Britain's exit from the EU beyond October 31st (31/10/19) Benn's Bill is almost ridiculously ineffective.

You can immediately disregard its provision to force Britain to accept any extension offered by the EU. It is entirely unlawful for the EU to offer or impose an extension. It is something that can only be sought by the nation seeking to Leave.

It's almost as if Britain has adopted a law forcing it to accept the EU's gift of a Unicorn. That's all well and good. However there is still absolutely no way for the EU to make a gift of a Unicorn.

Previous delays have involved Britain seeking an extension. With a suggested date but with the ultimate decision left up to the EU. Benn's Bill obligates Britain to seek an extension until January 31st 2020 (31/1/20). And only up until January 31st (31/1/20). The EU has to take it or leave it.

Benn's Bill also cedes significant power to the EU. So it would be very hard to justify Britain seeking an extension until January 31st (31/1/19) without demanding concessions from the EU in order to protect its interests.

For example the date of October 31st (31/10/19) was chosen for a very specific purpose. It is the date when the terms of office of the current EU Commissioners ends. On November 1st (1/11/19) they are replaced by new EU Commissioners.

Britain has had no say in who these new EU Commissioners are. The thinking was that Britain and the EU would part ways before they took up office.

If Britain is going to Remain in the EU until January 31st (31/1/19) it would be a dereliction of duty for the British government not to demand its say over these new EU Commissioners. Such as through the reinstatement of its EU Council veto.

Normally in requesting such concessions Britain would be limited in only those which can be shown to serve a specific purpose. Otherwise it could be argued that the demands were unreasonable. Simply being made to force the EU to deny the extension request. Violating the spirit of the law.

However on September 10th (10/9/19) the Commons gave a very specific instruction of how Courts should interpret Benn's Bill. They clearly stated that Britain's needs only follow the letter, rather than the spirit, of the law.

So freed from the reasonableness requirement Britain is able to demand any concession it likes from the EU.

Britain is of course the nation which brought the World Monty Python and Boaty McBoatface.

Britain's exit from the EU is something which is being closely watched the World over. This meant that officials in similar democracies looked at Benn's Bill and immediately spotted its myriad of problems.

They suggested then that is would be sensible for it to be refused Royal Assent. As is often the case one of the loudest voices was America.

By granted Royal Assent Britain rejected all that advice. In a manner that seemed a rather rude response to what were just friendly observations.

The granting of Royal Assent to Benn's Bill is particularly offensive to the 27 members of the EU.

Prior to Benn's Bill Britain would have left the EU on October 31st (31/10/19).

Thanks to Benn's Bill it seems that Britain will still Leave the EU on October 31st (31/10/19).

The only discernible difference is that first the EU 27 will have to go through a series of brutal meetings in which they'll discuss whatever concessions Britain demands.

Given the obvious problems they might get the impression that the only reason for granting Royal Assent to Benn's Bill was to torture them.

As a result Britain has been on something of a massive apology tour over Benn's Bill.

There is even the possibility that it might seek to dig itself into a deeper hole. By overturning the prorogation of Parliament.

In order to give Benn the opportunity to repeal what is now The European Union (Withdrawal) (No 6) Act. And then try to replace it with something which might actually work.

After all his first attempt is really only fit for wiping one's a*se upon.

That said the Monarch hasn't actually signed a bill into law in about 200 years. Instead they're physically signed by a delegated proxy known as a Royal Commissioner in the House of Lords.

So a better gesture of apology may well be to dismiss the current Royal Commissioners.

After all in the passage of the similar Letwin-Cooper Bill they seemed far too chummy with the Commons Speaker.

Suggesting they don't really understand their constitutional role.I


18:30 on 17/9/19 (UK Date).