In a way of course it was inevitable as they had painted themselves into a
>> corner but if the agreement already made needs to be changed then it should be
>> done legally.
From bits I've read that's what the government believes it's doing, the treaty has no standing until there's an act of Parliament. Mention of the Miller case against the government was brought up by them as way of example of the primacy of Parliament and as case law. Which is a little ironic.
How accurate their argument is, I don't know.
|