Boris Johnson to agree to Brexit extension or the court will intervene directly

Boris Johnson
Support us and go ad-free

UK prime minister Boris Johnson is obliged to seek an extension to Article 50 if a Brexit deal fails, as stipulated by the Benn Act. And a Scottish court was asked to examine ways to enforce that obligation further. The court decided to defer a ruling until after the EU summit, to see if Johnson complied. But there is plentiful evidence that Johnson intends to avoid an extension.

Meanwhile, Brexit negotiations are at an impasse and possibly collapsing, leaving no-deal disaster likely. So it was perhaps not surprising that European Council president Donald Tusk didn’t mince his words on this:

The ruling

The appeal went ahead to the Inner House of the Scottish Court of Session. It considered the submissions, but decided that it would reconvene on 21 October (after the EU summit) and at that point may take further action if Johnson has not carried out parliament’s instructions.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

Jo Maugham QC, one of the petitioners to the appeal, argues that this means if Johnson:

breaks that promise [to the court] he will face the music – including possible contempt proceedings. And the Courts are likely to make good any failure on his part, including signing the Benn Act letter.

Or as one retired lawyer put it:


The appeal followed a hearing of the Outer House. At that hearing, the petitioners – Maugham, the Scottish National Party’s Joanna Cherry, and businessman Dale Vince – asked the court to pin down the prime minister as follows:

To interdict the Prime Minister and any other minister of the Crown in right of the United Kingdom and anybody acting on their behalf or at their request from withdrawing, cancelling or otherwise undermining the effect of any letter sent in accordance with section 1 (4) for the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.2) Act 2019;

In the event that the Prime Minister fails, delays or refuses to sign the letter required of him by the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.2)) Act 2019 and in accordance with this court’s order for the specific performance of the Prime Minister’s statutory duties to make orders to the following effect in the exercise of this court’s nobile officium; a) ordaining that a letter in the form set out in the schedule to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 to be drawn up and signed by the clerk of court on behalf of the Prime Minister b) ordaining that a letter so signed be sent to the President of the European Council.

To impose such other conditions and other penalties including fine and imprisonment, where consistent with the European Union (Withdrawal) no.2 Act 2019 as to the court shall in all the circumstances seem proper and appropriate in the event of the order not being implemented.

In response, a government spokesperson declared to the court that Johnson accepts he “will send a letter in the form set out” by the Benn Act, requesting a delay to 31 January should parliament reject his Brexit plan.


However, the petitioners also made it clear that Johnson should not be allowed to undermine the contents of that letter; for example, if Johnson or his associates attempted to ensure an extension is rejected by lobbying one or more countries in the EU. In this regard, suspicion has already fallen on Hungary, as two of its senior ministers were recently seen leaving the cabinet office:

Maugham commented:

Government ministers Michael Gove, Stephen Barclay, and Dominic Raab were also identified as having met with the delegation:

It seems Downing Street may be trying to wreck EU unity, regardless of long-term repercussions:

VONC fallout

Johnson also stated that should a vote of no-confidence (VONC) go against his government, he would refuse to leave 10 Downing Street.

Maugham commented:

Then there was this bombshell:

Outer House ruling

Nevertheless, in its judgement the court concluded that Johnson could be trusted to keep to his word and no further constraints on him were currently needed. It stated:

[Johnson] is subject to the obligations of the [Benn] Act; (b) in the event of neither of the conditions in section 1(1) or (2) being satisfied, the first respondent will comply with section 1(4) no later than 19 October 2019; and (c) that he will not frustrate the purpose of the [Benn] Act or the purpose of any of its provisions. In other words, there can be no doubt that the first respondent now accepts that he must comply with the requirements of the [Benn] Act and has affirmed that he intends to do so.

After that ruling, Maugham expressed his concerns:

The court said it has promises from the Government that the Government will send the letter mandated by Parliament and will act in a way as not to frustrate Parliament’s intention in enacting the so-called Benn Act.

For myself, I very much hope the court is right and the Government will, as it has promised to do, abide by the law.

But there is very real doubt in my mind that the Government will act in accordance with the law and so tomorrow we will pursue our appeal against the decision of the Outer House to the Inner House of the Court of Session.

In a brief interview, Maugham explained why the appeal was necessary:


Recent polls, meanwhile, suggest that a majority of voters may now be in favour of remaining in the EU:

As for parliament, after another prorogation, it will reconvene on 14 October and then have a special session on Saturday 19 October. That day happens to coincide with a planned march through London for a people’s vote.

The special sitting of parliament may also result in a VONC. And if that is passed, a caretaker government could be installed to arrange an extension for Brexit and a general election or a confirmatory referendum.

Featured image via YouTube – The Telegraph

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us