According to one constitutional legal opinion, the Kinnock amendment makes the Benn Act impossible to satisfy:
‘The Prime Minister must seek … an extension of the period under Article 50(3) … in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks.’ [Kinnock additions emphasised]
Apparently, there were no outcomes of those inter-party talks; or at least an outcome of "no outcome". So any extension offered has to be on terms that can never be met.
If it is impossible to satisfy, then, is it an absurd law, in the technical sense, not the pejorative sense? If the Benn Act is actually unsatisfiable, then does the letter requesting an extension to the Exit Date of 31st October still have legal effect?