Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chris T
Worthy though these issues are, they are a bit of a side-show in the context of the announcements made over the last couple of days. Let's retain a focus here: The Attorney General talks to the PM privately in very cautious terms, then 10 days later the Attorney General tells Parliament, in strident terms, that he belives all is legal and above board.
Some (principally Andrew Marr, who when push comes to shove is a Blair sympathiser) have tried to suggest that the former was just the unpublished musings of the AG, a work in progress and not his final conclusions, whereas what he said 10 days later is his settled view. Frankly this simply doesn't wash - well not with me anyway. Goldsmith underwent something of a Damascene conversion in the intervening period and I would dearly like to know how that happened, and whether the fact that Tony B. Liar sent to him on the 15th to make clear that as far as he was concerned, everything was legal, was significant. Subtext: "Fall into line, Goldsmith"?
|
They were different as the first shows a balanced case, and doesn't say it was illegal just says that the case can be made while later he says it is legal. So the change may not be as drastic anyway.
The advice here isnt the smoking gun, it is in fact what was already known before. A lot of people will be disappointed in that but there it is. As Marr has said they made this document worse than it is by hiding it when in reality it isnt anything like what some people thought it would be