4 ms·

Parliamentary sovereignty as a principle was fundamentally weakened in the tussle over the Brexit leave date: the government lost the battle but won the war. Th

• simonh 5y ago
  Well, as a confirmed remainer and someone who will never forgive Johnson for stabbing us in the back, eh. The act required him to send a letter, which he did. Frankly, it's a silly and spurious requirement. It didn't require him to want an extension, or bar him for saying he didn't think it was a good idea. Parliament can't directly negotiate treaties with foreign powers. It's just not possible, that's a function of the executive. Parliament can approve or disapprove of such treaties but can't determine what the executive wants to do. The same goes for the referendum and is why it was a stupid idea. No referendum can require parliament or the government to want to do something, or specify exactly and unambiguously how they should go about doing something they don't want to do.
  • chalst 5y ago
    The purpose of the extension was to reduce the risk of a no deal Brexit, which Johnson didn't want but was at risk of stumbling into in his efforts to please ultras. Parliament succeeded in its goal, which did not require any of the things you claim. With the benefit of hindsight, it all worked out well for Johnson: he cowed the party, could renegotiate without much fear of the ultras, and could choose the circumstance of the next election to his best advantage. The methods he chose to achieve this, though, greatly weakened parliamentary sovereignty.