Re: Anybody there?
Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186-1HOZaDBbGgxaa/[email protected]> Tue, 22 Oct 2019 16:06:40 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.law.cryptography.uk |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 20/10/2019 14:57, Mark Lomas wrote: > The Financial Times came to a similar conclusion regarding Scottish law. > > While reporting on the recent Court of Session ruling, which the > government appealed to the Supreme Court and lost, the FT sought legal > advice on what might follow. > It concluded that if either a statute or a court ruling obliges somebody > to sign or lodge a document, the Court of Session has the power to rule > that it has been done - > the court does not need to rule that it should be done. > > That brings two thoughts to mind: > 1) a signature in Scotland is like Schroedinger's cat - a document with > no visible signature may become signed if you ask the Court of Session > whether it was signed. > 2) is it perjury to tell a court that you did not sign a document after > the Court of Session rules that you did? > > Many news sources have reported that Boris Johnson has sent an unsigned > letter to the European Commission. > If the Court of Session were to rule that the Benn Act requires a > signature then those reports would retrospectively become untrue. > > Conclusion: I suggest that Boris also signed the document yesterday in > Scotland, provided someone later asks the Court of Session whether he did. New possible scenario: The EU offers an extension, Boris refuses it. The timetable runs out and we have a no-deal Brexit. The Appeals Court arrests Boris and declares that he did in fact accept the offer of an extension and there was no Brexit. Boris appeals to - the European Court? Peter Fairbrother