Law, personal opinion and governance

Yeah... that’s a bloody eye-catching title, if ever there was one.
This could be part of the brexit debate, but I want to discuss it, without actually getting into the polarization which dogs brexit.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50112924

Here’s the case summery (see link for full details):
- the law states that the prime minister as representative of the government has to do A (send letter for process extension).

- complying with the law, A is done without signing (which in law, I believe, actually means it is not valid; but if it’s stamped by government or has obvious government approval, perhaps it is legally binding?).

- A is accompanied by B (in this case a second letter accompanying the first, but with a contradictory opinion and signed by Boris Johnson).

Now, I’ve not seen B. I can’t tell if it’s signed as a personal letter or as the prime minister as representative of the UK government).
However, since Boris Johnson is the prime minister and there is no other reason for the EU to be interested in one man’s personal opinion, I reckon that the difference is semantic.

- do you agree that there’s no difference between Boris Johnson writing B as personal or as prime minister when addressing the EU?

- can not signing A be considered professional conduct?

- can not signing A and sending B be considered circumventing UK law?

I’m not entirely sure what to think of it.
Well, obviously, it’s in line with the brexit shambles until now, but the behaviour itself is rather, well, repugnant. Or it feels so to me. And I’m not quite sure why.

@shavixmir said
Well, obviously, it’s in line with the brexit shambles until now, but the behaviour itself is rather, well, repugnant. Or it feels so to me. And I’m not quite sure why.

Time to get a written Constitution. (Or rather too late ...) I was
arguing just the other day that NZ needs a written Constitution -
I dare say there are several countries in the same position. The
Brexit farce should be a wake-up call for them all.

But in answer to your questions .... anything is possible and it
will probbaly go to the High Court.

@wolfgang59 said
.... anything is possible and it will probbaly go to the High Court.

@shavixmir said
Yeah... that’s a bloody eye-catching title, if ever there was one.
This could be part of the brexit debate, but I want to discuss it, without actually getting into the polarization which dogs brexit.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50112924

Here’s the case summery (see link for full details):
- the law states that the prime minister as representative of the gov ...[text shortened]... t the behaviour itself is rather, well, repugnant. Or it feels so to me. And I’m not quite sure why.

@shavixmir said
Or it feels so to me. And I’m not quite sure why.

@divegeester said
“Probably”

Don’t mention it.

@wajoma said
Logic and reason first - then - feelings.

@divegeester said
Good for him; his stock just went up a few points with me and most likely with all of the millions who participated in the People’s Vote to leave the EU.

You find it repugnant because you are an English hating EU lover.

@wajoma said
No one is interested in your feelings shag, your feelings are based on your thoughts and values, there is a hierarchy. People who go about laughing manically for no reason are nutcases, as are those that get angry or sad for no reason.

Logic and reason first - then - feelings.

@shavixmir said
🦘🚜🗑