Is this the way round the Brexit 'Surrender Act'?

I found this on Youtube and was hoping someone who knows international law and United Kingdom law could illuminate. This man in the video claims that the UK government to ask for a Brexit deadline extension is against EU law due to a certain condition being triggered already. When the Brexit extension occurred before this condition had not been triggered before. Thus, the recent legislation by the UK parliament to ask for an extension for Brexit is not legal. Watch and tell me what you think.

wasn't Parliament suspension ruled unlawful? would be nice if us could follow suit but apparently it likes shutting down the gov to keep us terrified, periodically during the budget dramas as if we're not already in debt by tens of trillions already.

anyways deal or no deal, boris br will exit by hallow's eve!

a reply to: tulsi

The man in the video is claiming that since the commencement date for Brexit has been set and "Commenced" that it is against international law to ask for a date change or extension without set commencement date. The parliamentary act has to be in agreement with international law to be binding. Is this true?

The extension game won't play if France vetoes it. Macron's already said he would.

originally posted by: Deplorable
The extension game won't play if France vetoes it. Macron's already said he would.

I don't believe he has ( although he hasn't rulled it out).

A French diplomat raised it as a possibility.

originally posted by: Deplorable
The extension game won't play if France vetoes it. Macron's already said he would.

Declare war on France and all other members of the EU "or else" (they will probably submit to the "no reasonable demands made/met possible anyway proclimation).

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Lol.

One big issue we have here is the separation of powers. It is the role of parliament to define the laws and the role of the courts to interpret and implement the laws. Brexit is primarily a political issue and up to parliament to sort out. Sure there are lots of legal issues wrapped up it in. Theresa May was caught in a game of piggy in the middle, did not have the fortitude to push through it so delay after delay after delay was the program.

The people have voted, the mandate is there. I am sure the courts will have a lot of working in cleaning up the mess. But as for getting the direction set, that is what we have Parliament for. For Parliament to be shut down to cut through the lack of clear consensus I do expect the Queen has been in on the discussions and has her support.

It is expected that people will be upset in a change of the status quo. On the international stage the globalists are on the back foot as there is just too much going on within a nation for the centralized movement to effectively manage it all.

a reply to: feldercarb

From what I understand and I'm not a true expert and saw this online a few days after the law passed and it was that basically Boris doesn't have to go. He doesn't have to go to the EU and ask for more time. Apparently, again I say I'm not sure on this but from what I've read and heard Parliament cannot pass a law if it goes against the will of the people, I know it sounds strange but that's what I've heard that Parliament cannot change a law because it did not like the outcome of a vote for any election/referendum etc.

I'm starting to fear the next election, not because I don't want it to happen or fear Corbyn (Marist) will become PM, he won't he doesn't have the numbers but because whatever side wins we now have a way to see that vote and outcome attacked and demands for a second vote and third vote etc.

originally posted by: Dwoodward85
a reply to: feldercarb

From what I understand and I'm not a true expert and saw this online a few days after the law passed and it was that basically Boris doesn't have to go. He doesn't have to go to the EU and ask for more time. Apparently, again I say I'm not sure on this but from what I've read and heard Parliament cannot pass a law if it goes against the will of the people, I know it sounds strange but that's what I've heard that Parliament cannot change a law because it did not like the outcome of a vote for any election/referendum etc.

I'm starting to fear the next election, not because I don't want it to happen or fear Corbyn (Marist) will become PM, he won't he doesn't have the numbers but because whatever side wins we now have a way to see that vote and outcome attacked and demands for a second vote and third vote etc.

One of the fundanental principles of the UK constitution is that parliament can not bind it's successors.

Even if the referndum had been legally binding, and it wasn't, then it doesn't stop a future parliament reversing the decision.