When is something against the law actually against the law?

Today, David Allan Green asked this question, and would it be bad.

Turns out some breaking the law is worse than others.

And if the UK reneges on its commitments under the WA, NIP and TCA then other than the EU, who cares. And does it matter?

International law is a rum beast, turns out there is international law, but little policing of it when it is broken.

But then bending a clause in one treaty to casting an entire treaty aside are two different things, and the UK is erring more to the latter than the former.

And as previously stated, what the other trading nations in the world will think of the UK as a rogue trading nation, not honouring its legal commitments, entered into freely, is another matter.

Government Ministers went out last night to say the UK Government signed the NIP under duress. Which just isn't true. The pressure under which the Government was under was of its own creations, having set sensless deadlines that any decent agreement could be made.

But the PM then was elected to implement it, saying it "got Brexit done", and the following Parliament ratified it.

Nothing pressured in that, other than it turned out, any deal was better than no deal, it seems.

And now, the Brexiteers are rejecting the EU's proposed changes before the EU has even published them, opting for the usual routine of after getting what they wanted, then demanding more.

All this is really old news and I get sick in typing it.

I just want it all ended, grown ups to take over and we get on with our lives, picking up the fractured pieces of our economy.

But no, we must do more stupid, because Brexit and Boris.