I think that in "my brother is a murderer" scene, not every member of the government knew about Mycroft´s plan, but that only a chosen few (including Lady Smallwood) conspired to set Sherlock free. To escape the accusation of brotherly favoritism, Mycroft acted as a stern iceman in front of the others and demanded some sort of punishment for Sherlock, while Lady Smallwood acted affronted to appeal to the sympathy of the rest of the present goverment members.

Also, Mycroft´s strange statement about the third Holmes brother insinuates that Holmeses were mysteriously mixed in goverment´s shady dealings for a longer time then Sherlock is around....

SherlockianPrincess wrote:

Lola Red wrote:

I see where you are coming from, but I am not quite convinced (not that it is your job to convince me). So Mycroft was talking to what I assume is the shadow government assembled, telling them that there were two options. Option one was putting Sherlock in prison, something he instantly dismisses as it would cause riots. The “alternative” requires Lady Smallwood’s approval and is “hardly merciful”. I just cannot see that he proposed the hardly merciful alternative of a four minute exile which will end by hacking every TV in the nation to have an official reason to call his baby brother back. That is hardly merciful for the nation, but where is the big hitch for Sherlock?

 
That makes sense, assuming Moriarty actually is back however, after Sherlock 'saves' the day from him would Lady Smallwood (or any of the other members of the shadow Government.) return to their original plan of sending Sherlock off to his eventual demise once again? Or would they forgive him as he just stopped a very dangerous criminal, in this case assuming he stops him.

Good thinking. That remains a bit of the question, doesn’t it? Sherlock has effectively been sentenced to death. They called him back, but what will happen when a) he slays the dragon or b)it all turns out to be a ruse? Will he get a pardon? Will it cause some problem that has to be resolved? Will it all just be forgotten in the commotion? Will he and Moriarty (if he is back) just be locked in an eternal battle, so the question will never be asked again (because, apparently, you need Sherlock Holmes to fight Moriarty)?
 

A single persone being the government is already hardly realistic
I you are realistic : there's no way Magnussen's murder circumstances stay hidden with so many witnesses/  nobody can avoid a trial for a murder even a famous and powerful person/ there's high security wings in jails/
but realistic is boring.

I’d say Sherlock was still in a state of shock. Not so much because of the murder, we have every reason to believe that he has killed before and was not overly affected by it (ASIB), but because he was beaten on every step on the way. First it was Mary, someone he trusted, someone his mind told him was trouble, but he would not listen. Then there was CAM who he could not win against at any point. Against Moriarty and Irene he had small victories along the way, depending on your interpretation he might have won a few battles or even the war, but with CAM he was constantly bested. All he could do was to shoot a man at close range and keep the promise he gave John and Mary, but he still lost. Maybe he was willing to accept the consequences of his “failures”, or maybe, it was Sherlock himself who generated that GIF (we have not seen his ability to hack several devices since ASIP, but we know he can do it), but I find that less likely when I look at him during the end of HLV (though I believed him on the roof of Bart’s, too and we all know how that turned out).

Not quite sure I agree. Both were very ghastly deeds. He went to both occasions knowing he might walk away a murderer (even more sure in Scandal, how else was he to save Irene and get out of there unharmed?). In both cases he went there armed. One might argue that hacking at people with a sword is even more ghastly, because it is not over in a heartbeat. But in Scandal he knew if he killed those people he would just walk away afterwards and in a way he won, he once more outplayed everyone. Yes he had to kill, but he was not a beaten man. He had won against Irene (at least until he came back to rescue her, one might argue that, in the end, she was the woman who beat him), he won against that terror cell that did not see him in their midst, and, if you believe that Mycroft did not know about him saving Irene, he even won against his brother. But with CAM he knew (or believed) he had just forsaken his own life, because first he would not use “the great gifts he was born with” (Mary) and then because he was beaten with his own weapons (CAM). He was beaten and at no point had a chance to win, that shot was the ultimate form of losing.

Arrogant and spoiled in a sense that he would start misuse and hurt others in belief that he could afford it, because he would know that his familial connections allow him to escape the consequences of his deeds. And that is currently not so....

Obviously we are talking on a hypothetical level and with a good dose of suspension of disbelief because it's a show and it can't be too realistic or it would risk losing the fun factor - but I don't think we can say there were 'too many witnesses' for Mycroft to keep Magnussen's murder a secret. There are so many things in the real world that happen and are kept secret, I think we'd probably not believe our ears if we found out. I think the Secret Services are used to this kind of things and covering up someone's murder, even and especially the murder of someone so preminent, would be nothing new to them.