1 & 2 -> it was a cross-party law passed. That’s the system they have. Boris could have resigned or refused. Instead he played games
3. Then the other countries would be acknowledging that the British PM is no longer in charge and the UK does not have a functioning government
4. As I pointed out - the response is “You forgot to sign this”
If we follow the logic that the PM can be FORCED to sign a letter that he disagrees with because the parliament demands so. Can’t the people rise up against the parliament and demand that the parliament respect the PM who is doing what the super majority of the citizens are demanding of their Government?
> 4. As I pointed out - the response is “You forgot to sign this”
OK but has tusk actually taken this step yet? (dunno myself one way or another)
> 1 & 2 -> it was a cross-party law passed. That’s the system they have. Boris could have resigned or refused. Instead he played games
to me, parliament forcing negotiations and especially an extension aka delay premised on no meaningful progress is even more of a game
> 3. Then the other countries would be acknowledging that the British PM is no longer in charge and the UK does not have a functioning government
The other side of the coin is that the EU pledged earlier to await meaningful progress. It is difficult to characterize the Benn Act as meaningful progress. In essence, the Benn Act is in fact meaningless delay. Forcing the PM to send a letter had the effect of the PM calling this to the EU’s attention in so many words.
IOW the EU should be by their own words awaiting something positive, not awaiting something that is merely non-negative. There is a distinction and to me it is not a subtle distinction.
What am I missing.
4. As I pointed out - the response is “You forgot to sign this”