Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
You should probably offer your services to the Attorney General, as you seem to think you know more/better than him and the entire Government legal team. 
---------- Post added at 15:18 ---------- Previous post was at 15:15 ----------
Relevant word in bold/underlined...
But you also seem to be missing a/the point - you are stating that something should happen because the (then) PM said so, and his word must be believed; he also said something else, which wasn't true, but that doesn't need to believed.
As I said - chosing your "promises" from DC selectively...
---------- Post added at 15:20 ---------- Previous post was at 15:18 ----------
From a barrister... |
In what other context could X be held accountable for Y & Z not coming to an agreement, where Y won't say what they would agree to, other than saying(3 times) that they refuse to accept the only thing Z is prepared to offer? Even if Y or Z agree to a particular plan, it still takes BOTH of them to have to agree. The onus is on Y & Z, not X. How can something that is LEGALLY described as being a transitional phase, unambiguously limited in time, have something that is not limited in time?
Examples please of where those things would and have been, allowed legally?
In a trade union dispute, would a trade union leader be held legally responsible for 2 sides(employer and union members) not reaching an agreement? Would the trade union leader be forced to accept whatever the employer proposed, if no agreement was reached within a certain time? Would the trade union leader have to go into negotiations with no threats of strikes or other disruptions allowed? Not sure all that would be in the negotiating handbook for trade unions(or any other organisation). It certainly wouldn't be allowed in any contract or Law.