According to the Daily Mail, the Cabinet Office has commissioned some “devastating” legal advice from Lord Pannick QC that will stop the Commons’ Standards and Privileges Committee from investigating Boris Johnson over whether he misled the Commons over parties at No. 10. This advice is apparently going to be published later today.
In my opinion, the Tories would have got a far better result in the next General election under Boris than under Truss. And I think the MPs and party realise this today in far greater numbers than they realised this in June. So likewise your opponents can change tactical approach too in two months. This investigation into Boris misleading parliament might well be halted.
And I'm very happy for the lying former PM to remain as an MP it would make Truss's job even more impossible than it currently looks to be....
Dacre really is desperate for that peerage isn't he?
From the BBC.
David Bannerman, a 62-year-old from East Anglia said he was supporting Ms Truss because of her policies, accusing Mr Sunak of having "no new ideas".
“If you are going to dispose of a prime minister, you have to have different policies, not more of the same."
For me, this touches on what I was posting the other day - it’s Continuity Truss simply because of personality politics and backstabbing - Boris and Rishi instinctively closer on economics than Truss and Kwarzy, talk of Continuity Truss completely misses key realisation - this change is a big step to the right for the Tory party, and a lot of the Tory membership are excited about making that step and achieving it with Truss.
Yet there are a lot more who realise now they preferred Boris government approach to handling crisis like this one, but also where Truss is “shrill” for example on is Macron a friend, pressing nuclear launch etc, Boris calm and composed charismatic and often clever answers are now missing.
Let’s not say Truss is “just continuity” again because this is a big change in tone and economic approach. Anyone disagree with this?
Why was it briefed to two newspapers, known for their particular partisan stance, and not published ?
Does such briefing in itself represent a contempt of Parliament ?
We disagree on plenty, but on the supremacy of Parliament and specifically the Commons over an individual Cross bench Peer who happens to be a QC you're spot on.
» show previous quotes
Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.
Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?
That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.
The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.
The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.
New poll shows British public rank @BorisJohnson as worst Prime Minister since WWII up to now.
The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
In practice this is all a nothingburger cooked up out of governmental incompetence in not amending the motion to put "knowingly" in there. Of course the committee is going to ask 2 questions, 1. did he mislead and 2. if so was it deliberate, and if yes/no it is not going to recommend a punishment. Pannick pretending both that there's a loophole and that the committee would take advantage of it, is mere wankerdom.
Johnson wasn't brought down because his policies were unpopular. It was the character, culture and tone of him in particular, and the administration in general.
Continuity on that, whilst reversing policy seems a bold choice. But there we are.
"Cabinet Office sources on Thursday night sought to distance themselves from the advice, which they said was commissioned by the newly created Office of the Prime Minister which sits within their department but reports to Downing Street. They added that the advice will be published by Number Ten rather than the Cabinet Office."
So one imagines as such it is similar to defence lawyers public utterances.
Even the Daily Telegraph includes in its story:
"it is unusual for the Government to commission legal advice into the workings of the House of Commons and raises questions about the supremacy of parliament."
As to the merits of his argument it seems to me that most previous PMs and ministers did not find this requirement to be truthful to the House to be unduly onerous. Some, such as Blair on the dodgy dossier and his 45 minute claim, have got away with it. The argument that it impedes effective governance does not sound a strong one to me.
I think Boris will depart the stage by resigning as an MP very shortly. I think that the committee will take the more pragmatic view that pursuing him after that looks vindictive when he has paid a very heavy penalty already. I think that this will go away but not because of this advice.
Nailing the Mail etc's lies that the committee investigation is a "kangaroo court", not entirely unimportant. Much as I too would like to consign him to past memories, not often dredged up.
It's a bit like "Umpires Call" in the cricket. You can challenge but you'll only get a reversal for clear and obvious error. Or in this case VERY clear and obvious error.
Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.
Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.
The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
It's the not knowing that kills you.
Public transport spotted this years ago. Decades. All you want is to know how much longer you have to wait. A 15 minute wait knowing the train will arrive in 15 minutes is much more bearable than a ten minute wait which you don't know when it will end.
All I want is a ringtone, interspersed with "you are now [x] in the queue".
On the other hand, someone went to the trouble and cost of getting this opinion and passing it to friendly newspapers. Those aren't the actions of someone about to go quietly. And "realistic" and "concerned for the interests of others" aren't the most obvious ways to describe the current Prime Minister.
BoJo is almost certainly now a political zombie. But zombies who don't go away can be very dangerous.
Supreme Court justices cannot control, and are not responsible for the behaviour of their spouses.
But they ought to recuse themselves in cases where spouses are directly involved.
Ginni Thomas lobbied Wisconsin and Arizona lawmakers to overturn election
The UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Whilst we can make someone stateless, we're then liable to be hauled up before the UN. Is that what we want? I know Brexit has become Britain Uber Alles we obey no foreign laws, but come on...
One more night
Bridge over troubled water
Sound of silence
What a wonderful world
Whiter shade of pale
Nobody does it better
Girl from Ipanema
and one I don't recognise. Round and round and round again. 35 minutes now...
1.04 Liz Truss 96%
20 Rishi Sunak 5%
Next Conservative leader
1.04 Liz Truss 96%
21 Rishi Sunak 5%
"It is not for the EU to inform the English courts and UKSC on who is or is not eligible to be a UK subject ..."
I wouldn’t normally point this out but I noticed you did it twice today, then from a Vanilla search of absolubtely that this is the 361st time you’ve made this spelling mistake
I can’t believe that I haven’t noticed it before
But giving him another good going over in front of the committee is not without purpose. Last time around, the quietly devastating questioning from Bernard Jenkin diminished him considerably, I thought.
It's not a case of kicking a guy when he's down, so much as making sure the villain doesn't get his third-reel resurrection.
He played fast and loose with Parliament for three years. Turn about is fair play.
This is just one of those.
Our courts absolutely can say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *is* eligible. Even if the Bangladeshi government says she isn't.
that Parker Station is bloody cracking. Also I like its strap line "the best pinot noir you can afford to drink daily."
If the UK government says someone's not eligible to be a British citizen, but a German court finds that they are, then its not for the UK government to override the German court or vice-versa. German courts are entitled to find any decision they think is appropriate within the law and evidence before them, even if it contradicts the British government.
British courts are answerable to Britain and our law. Bangladeshi courts are answerable to Bangladesh and their law.
Militant Vegans, an offshoot of Extinction rebellion, are ramping up a plan of action against companies who have refused to meet their demand to offer totally plant based milk only by 2025.
Tomorrow they picket supermarket milk aisles in several major cities.
🔴 LAB: 42% (+2 from 22 Aug)
🔵 CON: 25% (-1)
🟠 LDM: 10% (-1)
🟢 GRN: 7% (+1)
🟡 SNP: 5% (-1)
20 point lead incoming
What word or phrase first comes to mind when you think about Keir Starmer?
If that is not the evidence before the court, but they find it anyway, then that's a bigger problem.
Now we know why Wakeford defected
It's extremely feisty, highly not senile, and also notable for the total embrace of the Dark Brandon aesthetic.
If Companies House tells the courts that a company is incorporated, and the UK government said in a press release that the company isn't, then what does the court do?
Did you see the large Tory to labour swings in the two by elections last night.
They really back up the large labour leads.
I would treat People Polling with great caution.
That's their second poll.
Both monstrous outliers.
I can't spell neccesary half the time either, @Slackbladder struggles with believe.
Achieve, Apparently trip up plenty of pbers and @KJH couldn't find the calendar on August 22nd.
I pronounce in my head with the second erroneous "b" in there though, which is the source of the error.
"the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi"
According to you, if a re-elected President Trump in 2025 decrees that everyone who has ever been a member of the Democrat Party is not a US citizen then the courts must agree they're not a US citizen since the US government says that, even if the law and evidence says otherwise.
Or indeed, that he always wore pants? Hideous fire hazard, if nothing else.
LOL. Aside from the fact that evidence is notoriously unobjective, what about the North Korean court telling you you are North Korean. You are giving any country's courts the right to determine the citizenship of anyone else.
Amazing. You are in a hole here. But please do continue posting.
I said yesterday this is an untypical logical misstep from you.
When hecklers yelled obscenities during President Biden’s “Soul of America” speech at Independence Hall this September 1, he said, to the crowd’s applause, “They’re entitled to be outrageous. This is a democracy.” And so it seeks to be. It’s our task to keep it that way.
Having a free judicial system that makes decisions based upon law and evidence, not the statements of governments (even if those statements go against the law) is not a logical misstep.
If Priti Patel says something contradictory to the law in the UK, then the law remains the law not whatever Priti Patel says. If Patel gets Parliament to change the law, then the law is changed, but not until then.