Something is rotten in the state of Denmark? No. Try No 10.

You know No 10 is well rattled when they start trying to argue against people who present an articulate, accurate and well-argued case against the stance of the government in the so called Agreement.   

No 10 didn’t need to reply.  But they chose to do so with a flurry against Martin Howe, QC.  

Now, you don’t get the opportunity of “taking silk” unless you are right up there with the cleverest of lawyers.   

So you would think No 10, in its rebuttals of Mr Howe's excellent review of the governments position, would at least be articulate, accurate and well-argued and answer the very serious points that were being made by Mr Howe.  With a bit of humility and honestly thrown in.   

Not a bit of it.  It seems a malaise has crossed the threshold at No 10 and it is now incapable of answering things with a straight yes or a no when that is all that is needed.  They use the classic propaganda technique of trying to make it all sound so confusing and difficult.  In other words, they think we are stupid.   

I will let you read for yourself Mr Howe's response to the briefing by No 10 in which he very firmly and forensically puts No 10's response to the sword.  For something so apparently difficult he makes it all rather easy to understand for people like you and me.   

Reading Mr Howe's response makes it ever more obvious of the vacuity and apparent malevolence that now appears to be at the heart of No 10 Downing Street.   

For an authoritative independent view see TheBrexit Withdrawal Agreement: Taking back “control of our laws”? by Mark Elliott, Professor of Public Law at Cambridge University.