Unsurprisingly, given what's happened tonight, many of govt's opponents are furious about his approach to sending letter to Tusk, with his own extra correspondence - as it happens, Lord Pannick who beat the govt in Supreme Court case talked about possibilities earlier...
Fascinating to read what he said, here's 1st chunk - 'The Benn Act..does not, and could not, oblige the EU Council to grant an extension,nor does it prevent the PM reminding the EU member states that he does not want an extension, wants to leave on 31 October'....
He goes on..'and is sending the letter only because Parliament has required him to do so. I do not see that the Benn Act can sensibly be interpreted as requiring the Prime Minister to abandon his policy objectives.'
But Pannick says.. 'There is a very fine line between not frustrating the Benn Act and the PM making clear to other EU leaders that his policy is unchanged. What if the PM telephones another EU leader on Monday and encourages him or her to oppose or even veto an extension?'
And here, in Pannick's words, is the preview for what may happen next week - the peer and QC said, 'That would be an interesting Supreme Court case.' .. stage is set
Pannick also says - 'The Prime Minister would have a legal duty not to frustrate the Benn Act by adding some other phrases to the letter or sending another, conflicting letter.' - how do you define conflicting?
