The debate is "Is the ruling important" not "what will the ruling be"

Well I don't think the ruling is important

So you don't believe erortion of the separation of powers is important?

Already happened

More can happen

Nobody cared last time, they won't care now

Again

Not the debate

Sure it is, you claim it's important

It only appears important to you

For everyone else it's self-evident and changes nothing

It's like "Yes, the house is still on fire"

Right so yours acting on perception

And me on reality

There is currently no orecident for the courts to speak on the behalf of the executive

This would generate that precident

Which is a big step

It would make similar suits much much much easier to win

Which is important

Especially if the SC upheld it

I don't think it's anything close to the precident you think it is - the executive does not have the freedom to break the law

Courts have already 'forced' people to do things they don't want

No you don't understand, this is to ask the court to ask for an extension

Even if the PM doesn't break the law

And still is going to leave no deal

And I think Boris is unwise to try and get around the law this way

I don't see any significant benefit to it

You don't seem to understand that the court would be acting on behalf of the executive even if it doesn't break the law

It would show that the courts can just overrule the executive even if they are within the law

It's a precident

It'd be acting on behalf of Boris

He is the executive

Boris doesn't send the letter

He's also subject to the same laws as the rest of us

The executive of the UKs does

The office does

Eccles baseless point

I already said if he found a way around the law

This would still. Apply

Put that strawman down

Conjecture