Anybody there?

[Peter Fairbrother]

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