Judge Dismisses No-Deal Brexit Court Move

AScottish judge has dismissed a move to force Boris Johnson to comply with a law aimed at avoiding a no-deal Brexit. Campaigners had wanted to ensure that the prime minister would write to the EU to request an extension if no deal is in place by October 19.

They argued that statements made by the government showed that it could not be trusted. But Lord Pentland said there could be “no doubt” that the prime minister had agreed to abide by the law.

As a result, he said there was no need for “coercive orders” against the UK government or against the prime minister.

And he said it would be “destructive of one of the core principles of constitutional propriety and of the mutual trust that is the bedrock of the relationship between the court and the Crown” if Mr Johnson reneged on his assurances to the court.

What was the case about?

The Scottish legal action was initiated by businessman Dale Vince, QC Jo Maugham and SNP MP Joanna Cherry.

They wanted the Court of Session, Scotland’s highest court, to rule on the extent to which Mr Johnson was bound by the so-called Benn Act. The legislation was passed by MPs with the intention of preventing the UK leaving the European Union without a deal on 31 October.

It requires the prime minister to send a letter to the EU formally requesting an extension to the Brexit timetable if no deal is signed off by Parliament by 19 October - unless MPs agree to a no-deal Brexit.

The petitioners had argued that a series of public statements by the prime minster indicated that he was planning to break the law by refusing to ask for an extension.

Mr Johnson has said he would rather be “dead in a ditch” than ask for a delay. However, government papers submitted to the court said that Mr Johnson would send a letter to the EU if a deal was not agreed by the deadline.

What did the court decide?

In his ruling, Lord Pentland said the UK government had accepted it must “comply fully” with the act and would not seek to “frustrate its purpose”.

As a result, he said there was “no proper basis” on which the court could decide that the government would fail to deliver on that undertaking.

The Department of Defense made it clear to Turkey - as did the president that we do not endorse a Turkish operation in Northern Syria