There’s an international “treaty on treaties” to which the UK is a signatory. It has an article 51 of its own that says, in short, if the national representative assigned to deal with a treaty is being coerced, the law / stuff coercing him is null and void. The Benn Surrender Act coerces Boris. Therefore, under this Treaty (higher law) to which the UK IS a party, the Brenn Act is null and void.
Or so the argument goes.
Coercion of a representative of a State
The expression of a State’s consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of its representative through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.
There can be no doubt that Boris is the “representative of the State” as the Benn act says he is and tells him to send the letter. There can be little doubt that Boris is being coerced (Scottish court set to whack him, “Dead in a ditch” preference, lots and lots of hoopla about censure and jail).
So doesn’t that mean Boris is being coerced, is the “state representative”, the UK is a party to the Treaty On Treaties so is bound by this Article 51. Thus: The UK’s “expression of consent” to any extension request must be “without any legal effect”?
I’m not seeing the wiggle room out of this one…
Here’s the video where I ran into this. I’m sure the Parliament and Supremes are more than capable of finding some way to repudiate that set of Treaty Law, so I’m not all wound up in this. However, it IS an interesting twist in the already twisted plot…
5 short minutes: