Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski is looking to take Hilary Benn’s ‘safeguard act’ to court just days after Gina Miller managed to successfully challenge Boris Johnson’s prorogation plan.
Kawczynski – the MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham – has claimed he is drawing up plans to take Benn’s bill through the courts to stop Boris Johnson having to ask the European Union for extension to Article 50 if there is no deal agreed by October 19th.
The Brexiteer told local newspaper the Shropshire Star: “I am in discussions with an established London law firm and two senior barristers,” he said.
“We believe there are loopholes in the Benn Act that we can take to court, to try to test the legislation.
“The Benn Act is a rag-bag, badly drawn up piece of legislation, it never faced proper scrutiny.
“Ironically, there are areas of European Union laws that govern international negotiations between EU countries under which we might be able to take it to court.”
The MP said he was confident the money could be found to challenge the act in the courts.
“If the lawyers advise me there is a possibility of going to court, there will be sources of funding we can apply for”, he said.
Kawczynski took to Twitter to account his plans and was mocked by Remain campaigners.
Derek James tweeted: “I’m so delighted to hear it’s @DKShrewsbury trying to subvert the law of the land. He’s undoubtedly one of the most incompetent Tory MPs. No doubt still trying to get Poland to veto an A50 extension. How’s that working out Daniel!”
“I’m sure the firm and senior barristers are happy to spend a long, expensive time investigating the options here,” joked David Whiteley.
Simon MacDonald wrote: “This is fun. How much money has Kawczynski got to burn to pay for a legal opinion to be advised that an Act of Parliament IS the Law? The ‘established London law firm’ (meaningless) must be delighted to have this mug for a client. Barristers equally happy to oblige.”
Last month the MP revealed he had approached the Polish government asking it to veto the UK’s attempts to extend Article 50.He was rebuked by historians after making ‘totally false’ assumptions about the Marshall Plan after WWII on Twitter – something he blamed on the 280-character limit.