I can’t mind-read. What was written was that this was an “illegal request”
since boris requested it, my question to the poster was whether he thought Boris did something illegal or not?
The letter was still a formal request from the office of Prime Minister. IF you put Boris under oath and say “did you send a letter requesting an extension? No ifs and buts”, the answer should be “yes I did send it”
That’s it - he’s trying to squirm out of his earlier statement that he wouldn’t send such a letter.
Boris’ entire lifetime has been spent squirming out of stuff. He’s like billy Bunter
aha... maybe what was meant was (speculatively) that the letter is illegal by the benn act, which (under one hypothetical interpretation) might have required a *signed* letter while the only letter that boris sent was *unsigned* and therefore an implied violation of the benn act.
standard disclaimer: i am not a barrister
The more appropriate question would be to EU members who need to vote whether they should “cash an unsigned check” knowing that it was written under duress. If the entity forcing the letter to be drafted —. IF all 322 members of the UK parliament signed the “check” would the EU be authorized to cash it since none of those 322 MP’s are ok the “account” ?