• I don't really understand why the full legal advice is considered so important, but I suspect the fact that the Government is trying to withhold it suggests that there may be something there, although I'd be surprised if there were some kind of smoking gun. Or could it be a false trail to distract from something else?

    Because the advice will contain a section called "how we could break the terms of the withdrawal agreement" or something similar - and I imagine the government doesn't want the routes that they have mapped out for screwing the EU made public.

  • Because the advice will contain a section called "how we could break the terms of the withdrawal agreement" or something similar - and I imagine the government doesn't want the routes that they have mapped out for screwing the EU made public.

    Really? I doubt that very much. Obviously, if you were right that would be a most interesting political development--and despite the odds it would certainly have chances of being politically damaging.

  • Because the advice will contain a section called "how we could break the terms of the withdrawal agreement" or something similar - and I imagine the government doesn't want the routes that they have mapped out for screwing the EU made public.

    Really? I doubt that very much. Obviously, if you were right that would be a most interesting political development--and despite the odds it would certainly have chances of being politically damaging.

    I'd be amazed if it didn't - how can any advice be complete if it doesn't address what happens if you break the agreement? It would be irresponsible of Cox not to have included a section on the implications of breaking the agreement.

About