Looks like it to me. Is there a clever ploy here that I can’t see because the alternative is that they are genuinely mad with this banana logic? (Or of course it could be a stitch up like the FWS case). . .

Has he admitted the EA, according to the SC, was written to end the rights afforded by Croft, Goodwin, GRA etc. meaning ministers had knowingly and deliberately misled the European Council at the time of royal ascent?

For the record, @exxonmobiloil.bsky.social is so desperate to hide its pollution, it is now openly disagreeing with the ideas of:

1. Science
2. Clean Up Your Mess
3. Thou Shalt Not Kill