Head of government legal department quits

With a bit of luck this will be grist to Starmer's mill tomorrow at PMQ's. Another disaster-in-waiting for Johnson. He was furious after last week's shambles, he might have another fit tomorrow.
 
They have no interest in governing within the rule of law. They want lawyers to advise them on what they can get away with or what they need to change. Clearly too much to stomach for Jonathan Jones.

The scary part is that with the majority they have, they can pretty change any law they don't like anyway. The only saving grace is, it's quite hard work and they're pretty lazy. But they'll do it for their priorities, no doubt about that.
 
Just watched the NI Minister avoid, on a half dozen occasions, the question if legal advice was given on this. He did actually agree that the government were breaking international treaty law. But tried to pass it off as a situation that would only be implemented if a no deal occurred. Totally indefensible position.
We're are breaking the law....but only a little bit.
 
Just watched the NI Minister avoid, on a half dozen occasions, the question if legal advice was given on this. He did actually agree that the government were breaking international treaty law. But tried to pass it off as a situation that would only be implemented if a no deal occurred. Totally indefensible position.
We're are breaking the law....but only a little bit.
Sorry. I raised a new thread at the same time as this one. Saying what you have said at the end of your post.
 
Thank God Starmer actually understands the law and will be able to accurately articulate what they are doing. It won’t mean he gets any sort of a straight answer at PMQ’s tomorrow but it does mean Boris will enter the house once again knowing that he is debating with a bloke who can buy and sell him on the matters under discussion
 
While Patel whines about Ext.Rebellion breaking the law with their legal protests the government is doing this. If the government wants people to obey the law they should do so themselves.
By the way, does anybody know why Johnson has not been hauled before the beak for illegally proroguing parliament?
 
While Patel whines about Ext.Rebellion breaking the law with their legal protests the government is doing this. If the government wants people to obey the law they should do so themselves.
By the way, does anybody know why Johnson has not been hauled before the beak for illegally proroguing parliament?
They all pizz in the same pot!
 
Thank God Starmer actually understands the law and will be able to accurately articulate what they are doing. It won’t mean he gets any sort of a straight answer at PMQ’s tomorrow but it does mean Boris will enter the house once again knowing that he is debating with a bloke who can buy and sell him on the matters under discussion[/QUOTE

Sir K S has been a wee bit quiet lately and in fact someone accused him of a bit of fence sitting. Hope he's not following a previous Opposition leader in that respect.
 
Just found this https://www.cityam.com/brexit-top-uk-civil-service-lawyer-quits-over-downing-street-row/

The chief of the government’s legal department has resigned over Boris Johnson’s plans to alter some of the terms of the Brexit withdrawal agreement.
Jonathan Jones, the Treasury’s solicitor and permanent secretary of the Government Legal Department, reportedly resigned his position after a row with Downing Street over suggestions that Johnson was preparing to breach the withdrawal agreement.
 
It's known in the legal profession as 'embarrassed by my client'

UEA Associate Professor in Law tweets 'This is the point where any government minister with even a pretence of principles should resign.'

Communications Law Professor replied 'And absolutely every lawyer. Raab. Buckland. Braverman'

David Allan Green thread on the importance of this. I must admit, I thought of the Elizabeth Wilmshurst Iraq resignation and Iraq.

 
Simon Clark's resigned though. Is it on principle over this or is that just too ridiculous to even contemplate?

He's quit for personal reasons. I imagine as a solicitor, being a party to knowingly breaking the law can affect your future career post Westminster, though I'm sure he will be looked while the Bluekippers are in control of the party, so could that count as personal reasons?
 
Back
Top