>”The cautious language of my letter may have failed adequately to explain the far wider scope of my objection.”
>
>”Emphasis on the steel tariffs question is a distraction.
>
>”It was simply one example of what might yet constitute deliberate breaches by the United Kingdom of its obligations under international law, given the government’s widely publicised openness to this.”
>Johnson wrote in his reply to Geidt that his former adviser resigned after being asked for advice on an attempt to protect a crucial industry — understood to be steel — where the government intended to impose tariffs on imports. The prime minister said that would potentially conflict with the UK’s obligations under the rules of the World Trade Organization.
>
>But in Geidt’s new letter to MPs on Friday he said he had not wanted to give Johnson advance cover when the prime minister was planning to breach international law. He did not offer other examples, but the UK has been accused of breaking international law in various instances in recent months, notably over its plans to rip up parts of its 2020 Brexit agreement with the EU.
>
>The former ethics adviser said that explicit references to international law were removed from the ministerial code in 2015. But he said he still could not be party to advising on any potential lawbreaking. “It is widely still held that a breach of international law would, in turn, represent a prima facie breach of the ministerial code.”
>
>Johnson’s team argues that Geidt quit because he had come to the end of his tether after media criticism and a grilling by MPs at the start of the week.
>
>But Wendy Chamberlain, chief whip for the Liberal Democrats, said: “This letter confirms what we already knew. Lord Geidt quit because he was sick of being asked to cover up for Boris Johnson’s lawbreaking.”
–
On “*references to international law were removed from the ministerial code in 2015″*:
6 comments
>”The cautious language of my letter may have failed adequately to explain the far wider scope of my objection.”
>
>”Emphasis on the steel tariffs question is a distraction.
>
>”It was simply one example of what might yet constitute deliberate breaches by the United Kingdom of its obligations under international law, given the government’s widely publicised openness to this.”
–
Add:
>Sam Coates Sky (@SamCoatesSky) [Jun 17, 2022 · 5:54 PM](https://nitter.net/SamCoatesSky/status/1537841026123149312#m)
>
>NEW:
>
>Letter from Lord Geidt toughens language on why he quit
>
>He says he “could not be party to advising on potential law breaking”
>
>Admits his resignation letter may have been too cautious
>
>>[Page 1](https://archive.ph/LhyWQ/b3f03dd0bac87332da25d0694a4fce93161cc03f.jpg)
>
>>[Page 2](https://archive.ph/3jxcZ/0234ec3820b1c1a1e4cf19de15914e672ce6ea5a.jpg)
>
>>[Page 3](https://archive.ph/O9tVg/56ed8fe2118e9fc75d00ec59d331709aa667e88d.jpg)
–
From [Pickard of the *FT*](https://www.ft.com/content/16f27adf-09b1-4246-90cc-e32256ecae31):
>Johnson wrote in his reply to Geidt that his former adviser resigned after being asked for advice on an attempt to protect a crucial industry — understood to be steel — where the government intended to impose tariffs on imports. The prime minister said that would potentially conflict with the UK’s obligations under the rules of the World Trade Organization.
>
>But in Geidt’s new letter to MPs on Friday he said he had not wanted to give Johnson advance cover when the prime minister was planning to breach international law. He did not offer other examples, but the UK has been accused of breaking international law in various instances in recent months, notably over its plans to rip up parts of its 2020 Brexit agreement with the EU.
>
>The former ethics adviser said that explicit references to international law were removed from the ministerial code in 2015. But he said he still could not be party to advising on any potential lawbreaking. “It is widely still held that a breach of international law would, in turn, represent a prima facie breach of the ministerial code.”
>
>Johnson’s team argues that Geidt quit because he had come to the end of his tether after media criticism and a grilling by MPs at the start of the week.
>
>But Wendy Chamberlain, chief whip for the Liberal Democrats, said: “This letter confirms what we already knew. Lord Geidt quit because he was sick of being asked to cover up for Boris Johnson’s lawbreaking.”
–
On “*references to international law were removed from the ministerial code in 2015″*:
From 2020:
> Lord Anderson: [The Ministerial Code still mandates compliance with international law, despite a change to its wording, as the Court of Appeal confirmed in 2018:..](https://nitter.net/bricksilk/status/1303358429474496513#m)
>
> – [🪞](https://archive.ph/XXoN2)
–
Also from earlier today:
>Lord Anderson: [We can’t rely on the ‘good chap’ theory of government](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3822d684-ed96-11ec-8821-d2e916a7eab3?shareToken=08bdccc81a32ace3fdd462ed56fe715d)
>
>Lord Geidt has resigned from an impossible job….
>
> – [🪞](https://archive.ph/NNKim)
–
And finally, Rowson [on the subject](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/21d6532f34a078a9e97920f1ef88dd98c6b53b4c/0_42_4808_2885/master/4808.jpg?width=1065&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=f7b330ac44671a31165a65f8536490a9).
–
Tells you everything you need to know about the Conservative Party.
Two ethics advisors resign, so now they want to scrap the role.
Its as if they think the Nolan Principles are a 70s vocal group.
Politely saying, Boris is a duplicitous lying cunt leading a cabal of cunts who would sell their kids to medical science if there was a profit in it.
*holds up headshot of Boris*
*points at picture*
*end of interview*
Ethics is a European concept so has no place on this island.
Am I right in reading into this that Bojo is planning some shady stuff this guy wanted no involvement in?