Category: United Kingdom Law and Policy

The Prime Minister who is not there – what happens when there is an absence at the centre of government

31st May 2022

“Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn’t there!
He wasn’t there again today,
Oh how I wish he’d go away!”

– from Antigonish, by William Hughes Mearns

The constitution of the United Kingdom is as much about absences as about content.

Other constitutions have gaps – for example the constitution of the United States does not mention judicial review, the key means by which the federal courts provide a check and a balance to the executive and the legislature.

But in the constitution of the United Kingdom, there are many more absences – things which are not there.

Take the office of Prime Minister – if you were only to look at the statute books, you would find little trace of the role and almost no express provisions conferring powers.

Indeed, until the early twentieth century you would find no legislative trace at all – even though the office had then existed for nearly two hundred years and been occupied by such powerful figures as Walpole, Pitt, Peel, Disraeli and Gladstone.

The power of the Prime Minister’s office comes from other elements of the constitution – by acting on behalf of the Crown (and thereby exercising the Royal Prerogative) and by having a majority in the democratic house of Parliament (which is important as Parliament is held to have legislative omnipotence with the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy).

The Prime Minister – or at least the governing party – can also often derive power from the electorate, with the notion of a ‘mandate’ if a party wins a majority of seats, and this mandate means that the non-democratic house of Parliament must yield when there is a conflict.

All this power – and for a position that, legally speaking, barely exists.

This means that the office can be pretty much what its occupant wants it to be.

For example, Boris Johnson when he became Prime Minister dynamically used the office in five ways to force through the Brexit withdrawal agreement and ‘get Brexit done’ :-

– he changed the policy from his predecessor;=

– he negotiated a revised agreement with the European Union;

– he then signed that agreement;

– he fought an early general election to get a mandate for his negotiated, oven-ready agreement; and

– he used his mandate and his overall majority to force the revised agreement through Parliament and into law.

Few Prime Ministers have used so many of the powers of the Prime Minister in so short a time.

But.

Since that agreement became law, the Prime Minister has become the proverbial dog that has caught up with the car.

It would appear Johnson does not now know what to do with the office – or with his majority.

And remember – a substantial Parliamentary majority is the greatest prize which the constitution of the United Kingdom can bestow on any Prime Minister – and it is not as common as you would think.

Indeed – after John Major lost his working majority not longer after the 1992 general election, it was not until 2015-17 and after 2019 that the Conservatives had an overall majority; and since 1977, Labour has only had an overall majority between 1997 and 2010.

What has the Prime Minister done with this overall majority, which has flowed from the Brexit referendum result for which he campaigned and the General Election at which he promised to get Brexit done?

Almost nothing – and, indeed, the ongoing politics of the Northern Irish Protocol show that he did not even get Brexit done.

Johnson has gone from using the office of Prime Minister to the full to doing almost nothing with it.

The last Queen’s Speech – like a football team defence not impressing Alan Hansen – was all over the place.

The nasty ‘anti-woke’ noises from various ministers do not indicate a programme, but a lack of one.

The government is at one a high-spending, large-state levelling-up government that also now, somehow, wants to substantially cut the civil service.

A government that thinks nothing of partying at Number 10 while imposing the most illiberal restrictions on the rest of us ever known in peace time.

The only theme is that the government will pick fights with and seek revenge on any entity of the state which offers any check or balance.

This is not ultimately about a government or a Prime Minister, but about the lack of a government – and a lack of a Prime Minister.

And so, match our constitution of absences, we now have a government of absences, and a Prime Minister who may be in office, but who is not really there.

Perhaps it is time for him to go away.

*

“Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn’t there!
He wasn’t there again today,
Oh how I wish he’d go away!”

**

Please support this independent law and policy blog so that it can continue – do not assume it can continue without your help.

For more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

The Metric Martyrs case – twenty years on

30th May 2022

Before Brexit, there were the Metric Martyrs.

The key legal case here was a set of appeals which were decided by the High Court in 2002, in a judgment now known as Thoburn.

The street-level appellants faced criminal sanctions and other legal impediments because they dealt their groceries and wares in imperial measures rather than metric measures.

Re-reading Thoburn some twenty years later – in the light of the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union and this weekend’s ‘news’ about the government wanting to revive imperial measures – is an interesting exercise.

*

The first striking thing about Thoburn is the complexity of the applicable law.

Few lawyers – if any – would find it easy to follow paragraphs 8 to 35 of the judgment, which sets out all the relevant legal provisions.

Even the judge who gave the decisions of the court found it a complicated mess, saying at paragraph 81:

“In the course of the hearing I made no secret of my dismay at the way in which the criminal offences relevant to the first three of these appeals had been created. It is a nightmare of a paper chase. I accept that there was no prejudice to these individual appellants, who knew well what the law was because they were concerned to campaign against it. But in principle, I regard it as lamentable that criminal offences should be created by such a maze of cross-references in subordinate legislation.”

(The judge was Sir John Laws – notable to non-lawyers for his name and for being the uncle of Dominic Cummings – and it would be great if commenters assume these two things do not always need to be stated in their comments below.)

This judicial observation has wider import.

It is the lot of regulatory law – especially that law that regulates commerce and retail – to be complicated.

And this in turn means the law – like the one regarding the shape of bananas – will not fare well against the urges of simplification and distortion.

On one hand, you had the accessible image of market traders pricing and weighing their goods in imperial measurements for walk-up customers in English towns.

And on the other hand, you have pages and pages of impenetrable legal-ese which sets out why doing such a thing is a criminal activity leading to criminal sanctions.

Few onlookers would side with the legal-ese.

*

A second thing about the Thoburn case is just how hopeless the legal arguments were that were put on behalf of the traders.

Wide ‘constitutional’ submissions were made about ‘implied repeal’ and entrenchment of statutes – which were met by an equally wide-ranging ‘constitutional’ judgment.

This is why the Thoburn case is now – despite not being a Court of Appeal of House of Lords case – a staple of constitutional law teaching and essay writing.

The legal arguments were hopeless.

And this, in turn, was (in my view) a problem.

Many people at the time (and since) thought there was something not right about these prosecutions.

It was one thing to have common rules for cross-border trade within the single market, but it was another to prosecute and seek to give criminal records to local greengrocers and stall traders selling to local customers.

It seemed – to use a European Union concept – disproportionate.

But the hopelessness of the arguments at appeal indicates that here was a grievance here without a remedy.

There appeared at the time to be no way of practically contesting the disproportionate criminalisation of the grocers and the traders.

Even if you are (as I was and am) a supporter of the single market – and thereby of cross-border commercial standardisation and harmonisation – something just did not seem right about these prosecutions, but there was nothing that could be done about it.

And I submit that this sense of impotence in the face of what was perceived to be the legal impositions of the European Union was a contributing factor to what later became Brexit.

*

Weights and measures – like currencies – are both instruments and ornaments.

As means of exchange, such measures necessarily have to have a shared understanding – and anything which has a shared understanding will also tend to have cultural significance.

As this informative and fascinating thread by an author of a forthcoming book on weights and measures describes, one should not underestimate how important measures are to people:

https://twitter.com/jjvincent/status/1530905866689445888

I happen to have been born in 1971 and so was educated with metrification – and I still habitually think in miles, yards and feet, in stones and pounds, and in pints.

And this is despite not being especially patriotic, and not being opposed to metrification in principle.

I suspect it is not an idiosyncratic trait; I suspect many of you tend to think in imperial measures too.

*

But.

The government’s latest proposals. of course, do not make any sense.

This is partly because – after the Metric Martyrs case – both the United Kingdom and the European Union pulled back from strict applications of unified standards.

Supplementary indications of measures were to be allowed indefinitely – imperial markings as well as metric markings

And, in any case, often the relevant laws were home-made and not from Brussels:

As a former Lord Chancellor avers, this ‘policy’ is also a political rallying call which is made again and again:

*

The United Kingdom’s move towards universal measurements predates membership of the European Union and its predecessor communities.

And over time, no doubt, these more ‘rational’ and internationally acceptable measures will take hold.

(Few now can reckon in pounds and shillings – which also went in 1971.)

Yet it is one of those areas where law and policy cannot easily outpace lore and culture.

Units of measurement are the means by which people understand the world about them and indeed understand the dimensions of their own bodies.

They will not easily shift – and perhaps some may never disappear altogether.

The current government is in deep political trouble – and so it is not surprising that it seeks to get the benefit of nostalgia and sentiment.

Such a government should be treated with disdain.

But changing the everyday practices and conventions of a people is a slow process – and with metrification it still has not ended.

Not by a country mile.

**

Please support this independent law and policy blog so that it can continue – do not assume it can continue without your help.

For more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

Of Partygate, questionnaires and police discretion – some footnotes to yesterday’s post

27th May 2022

The response to yesterday’s post – offering an explanation as to why the current Prime Minister only received one fixed penalty notice over ‘Partygate’ – was rather overwhelming.

The post was linked to by both the Guardian and Guido Fawkes – which must be rare – and commended by a former (proper) Lord Chancellor and a former Treasury Solicitor (the government’s most senior legal official) – and the post had over 12,000 hits.

The thing is that I do not know – could not know – if that explanation were true.

The current Prime Minister is entitled to legal advice and the protection of legal privilege – and, in a way, it is not a bad thing for a Prime Minister to have access to competent legal advice.

(The problem, of course, is that ready access to competent legal advice when facing criminal sanctions is something which everyone should be entitled – and that entitlement is under constant threat by government cuts to Legal Aid.)

The only merit of my explanation was that it explained the facts as we understand them better than any other explanation, without resorting to a conspiracy theory.

In an interesting thread today, the journalist Peter Walker has set out some useful background which also supports my suggested explanation.

https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1530131395133284352

https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1530132726048858112

The decision to issue a notice is not a judicial decision – no judge or court is involved.

The decision is made by a police officer, who must reasonably believe that an offence was committed.

The safeguard against people having sanctions based on just police discretion is that an individual can refuse to pay the penalty and, as the dreadful phrase goes, have their day in court.

Payment of a penalty also does not, by itself, constitute an admission to a criminal offence such that would, like accepting a caution, give you a criminal record.

If the police officer does not reasonably believe that an offence was committed then no notice will be – or should be – issued.

The suggested explanation I set out yesterday may not be compel a court or convince a jury or a judge – but that was not the test.

The suggested explanation had to be enough for a police officer not to reasonably believe that an offence had been committed.

And which police officer would gainsay that a senior minister had to perform an, ahem, ‘essential function’ of leadership of thanking staff and making them feel appreciated?

It was not much of an excuse, but it was enough for the job that it needed to do, and it looks like it did it.

*

But stepping back, there is a certain strangeness – if not idiocy – in investigating possible wrongdoing by questionnaire.

Especially if – as it seems – the questionnaires were not issued under caution (though I have not seen a copy of the actual questionnaires in question).

As any good regulatory lawyer would tell you – a regulator is only as good as the information to which it has access.

And so – as techies would say – Garbage In, Garbage Out (or GIGO).

The current Private Eye states that certain senior figures did not even return their questionnaires – or may have not completed all the answers.

From their perspective, that was prudent – even if maddeningly frustrating for the police and for those who wanted those who wanted the partying Downing Street staff and advisers to face sanctions.

One fears that senior figures – with access to competent legal advice – were advised not to complete or return the questionnaires, while more junior figures – not aware of their options and perhaps even trying to be helpful – basically wrote out their own fixed penalty notices.

If this is the case – and few will know for certain – then what was being actually sanctioned was not wrongdoing, but naivety.

And, if so, that would be one of many things which make ‘Partygate’ an unsatisfactory moment in our constitutional and political history.

*

Lastly, on questionnaires. here are the wise words of one of the greatest jurists never to be appointed as a judge, E. L. Wisty:

“… they’re not very rigorous. They only ask one question. They say ‘Who are you?’, and I got seventy-five percent for that.”

**

Please support this independent law and policy blog so that it can continue – do not assume it can continue without your help.

For more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

The lawyering-up of Boris Johnson – how the Prime Minister’s statement on the Sue Gray report may give clues to how he escaped more penalties

26th May 2022

Let us start with one stark fact that demands explanation.

That fact is that the current Prime Minister received only one fixed-penalty notice in respect of the many gatherings at Downing Street, while others present received many more.

One response to this striking fact is to posit that there must have been a stitch-up or some other conspiracy – and nothing in what follows in this post denies that possibility.

This blog, however, is not a conspiracy blog, but a place for law and policy analysis and commentary.

And on that basis, let us look to see if there can be another explanation.

*

Let us now go to what the current Prime Minister said in the House of Commons yesterday, in his pre-prepared statement.

One passage was especially interesting:

“The exemption under which those staff were present in Downing Street includes circumstances where officials and advisers were leaving the Government, and it was appropriate to recognise them and to thank them for the work that they have done. [Interruption.] 

“Let me come to that, Mr Speaker. I briefly attended such gatherings to thank them for their service—which I believe is one of the essential duties of leadership, and is particularly important when people need to feel that their contributions have been appreciated—and to keep morale as high as possible. [Interruption.] 

“I am trying to explain the reasons why I was there, Mr Speaker.”

*

This passage seemed to be very carefully put together – and (as a former government lawyer) I gained the impression that it owed far more to legal advice than to any genuine articulation of Boris Johnson’s state(s)-of-mind.

Johnson was present, he claims, because he was fulfilling a management function – an ‘essential dut[y] of leadership’.

He was, he says, thanking staff for their service, appreciating people for their contribution, and keeping morale as high as possible.

*

If you read the last sentence again, you will see it says much the same thing in three different ways.

This is a trick many lawyers know and use to make it look like an obligation has been fulfilled.

It takes the form of [duty A] was fulfilled because of [x, y and z], where [x, y and z] are synonyms or near-synonyms.

*

The impression I had on listening to this passage of Johnson’s statement was that some lawyers had been presented with the unhappy facts of the Prime Minister attending leaving parties and giving toasts, with glass in hand.

How does one possibly convert that situation into something that brings it within the legal exemption of being part of a gathering that was reasonably necessary for work?

After all, a leaving party is not reasonably necessary for work, and toasts are not reasonably necessary for work.

But if you flip the description of what happened from parties and toasts to performing an ‘essential dut[y] of leadership’ by synonym, near-synonym, and near-synonym – ahem, thanking staff for their service, appreciating people for their contribution, and keeping morale as high as possible – then, there you have it, a reasonable excuse.

That excuse may not cover others present at the same gathering – but it would cover the one providing ‘essential leadership’.

And it would not cover the one gathering where that excuse – I mean, explanation  – would and could not apply – the birthday gathering.

That is why, I aver, he got a penalty for that indoor gathering but not the other parties.

My suspicion – which may or may not be well-founded – is that this is the very reason why someone is quoted as saying that the Prime Minister was assured that he would only get one penalty.

(Of course, this may be wrong and it may be that there were Metropolitan Police leaks or undue contacts between the Prime Minister’s office and Scotland Yard – but my theory has the merit of not needing any such conspiracy.)

*

Yesterday I set out this theory in a brief Twitter reply – which was not sufficiently clear – and I was told that I was wrong – that leaving parties and toasts were not and should not be reasonably necessary for work.

But I agree with those points.

My suggestion is not that leaving parties and toasts were, by themselves, reasonably necessary.

It is instead that providing ‘essential leadership’ is reasonably necessary – and this can be distinct from how that leadership manifested itself in particular circumstances.

And synonym, near-synonym, and near-synonym – thanking staff for their service, appreciating people for their contribution, and keeping morale as high as possible – may all be supposed examples of such ‘essential leadership’.

Of course, there were many other ways a senior manager could have performed these ‘essential’ tasks – by Zoom calls, or thank-you notes, and so on.

And indeed, during the lockdown, this is what other senior managers did so as to provide their (genuinely) essential leadership.

If your view is that the current Prime Minister could have performed his role without giving toasts at leaving parties, no sensible person will disagree.

But from a legal perspective, if that was his reason for being at a gathering – and if it is accepted that thanking staff for their service, appreciating people for their contribution, and keeping morale as high as possible can all be elements of a leadership function – then you can now see how the Prime Minister has managed to take the benefit of the exemption.

*

The theory set out above has the merit of explaining the striking fact stated at the head of this post: that the current Prime Minister received only one fixed-penalty notice in respect of the many gatherings at Downing Street, while others present at those gatherings received many more.

And if this theory is sound then it shows the irony – hypocrisy – of Johnson’s many attacks on ‘activist’ lawyers for others while taking the benefit of legal advice for himself.

It is also shows the unfairness of the more senior people in ‘Partygate’ getting lawyered-up when more junior figures were not able to do so, and so were penalised instead.

If Johnson should be toasting anyone, then it should be the lawyers that gave him a way of avoiding legal liability in this awkward situation.

But, no doubt, he will ‘move on’ – and start attacking lawyers again.

**

Please support this independent law and policy blog so that it can continue – do not assume it can continue without your help.

For more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

The Prime Minister says he “takes full responsibility” – but what does this mean in constitutional terms, if anything?

25th May 2022

Today we take in the now-published Sue Gray report.

The quick-takes have already been given and a parliamentary statement has come and gone, as the rest of us who have an interest digest the details of the report.

This post is not about the report in detail, but about the current Prime Minister’s response.

It is a response that Boris Johnson often gives at times of trouble.

It is the response of saying that he ‘takes full responsibility’.

What could this phrase mean?

Note the ‘responsibility’ he purports to take is ‘full’ – and so, presumably, this is intended to mean something (or to convey that it means something) distinct from taking mere responsibility.

Oh no – this is ‘full’ responsibility.

Rhetorically, it is an impressive statement – to which some may even nod-along.

But it is hard, if not impossible, to see what it means.

For example: what actually is different as a consequence of Johnson saying he ‘takes full responsibility’?

What things change that otherwise would not change, but for the Prime Minister saying that he ‘takes full responsibility’.

What is different from the Prime Minister saying instead “I am not taking full responsibility” or “I am not taking any responsibility whatsoever?”.

There is not any real difference; nothing changes.

If the Prime Minister instead said a sequence of nonsense words, it would have the same constitutional import.

This is because, in constitutional terms, when the Prime Minister says he is taking ‘full responsibility’, he is saying nothing meaningful.

In constitutional terms, the position is exactly the same after the moment Johnson says it, as when he does not say it.

It is instead a rhetorical device – a political tactic to get him through an awkward moment, cynically giving the impression to the listener that something grave is being conceded or admitted, when nothing is being accepted at all.

For, in constitutional terms, a Prime Minister taking ‘ full responsibility’ for a serious wrong is to perform an action, rather than to say a thing.

The action the Prime Minister would perform is to resign.

And if there is not a resignation after a serious wrong then ‘ full responsibility’ has not been taken.

Indeed, by using it as a deft rhetorical trick, Johnson evades taking full responsibility.

So next time you hear the current Prime Minister assure you and others that he ‘takes full responsibility’, substitute for that phase a sequence of random words and sounds, for it will have the same constitutional meaning.

That is to say: no constitutional meaning at all.

**

Please support this independent law and policy blog so that it can continue – do not assume it can continue without your help.

For more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

‘Partygate’ is not ultimately about lying to parliament, or breaking the criminal law, or putting lives at risk – it is about fair dealing

24th May 2022

‘What is justice?’ is a question that has been long discussed by clever philosophers, jurists and political theorists.

But one way of understanding justice is to see it not as a thing, but the absence of a thing: justice means a lack of injustice.

Justice is thereby defined by what it is not.

A just society is one where concrete injustices have been addressed; a just outcome is the solution to an actual unjust situation; and so on.

And for many it is injustices that matter, for injustices rankle.

*

With ‘Partygate’ it seems what rankles most is the unfairness of it, the injustice.

That the current Prime Minister lied to Parliament and to the rest of us surprises no sensible person, for it is the one quality about Boris Johnson that all sensible people will know to be true.

That the current Prime Minister broke the law and guidance again is no shock – and, indeed, it would be more of a shock if, in any given situation, Johnson had followed the law and any guidance when he did not need to do so.

It does not even seem to matter to that many – though there are exceptions – that Johnson broke laws and guidance designed to keep people safe.

The anger about ‘Partygate’ appears (at least to me) not to be motivated primarily by the concern that Johnson was personally putting others at risk (though this will anger some).

What seems to be what upsets people about ‘Partygate’ is that while others were immensely affected because they had to comply with rules, or were punished if they did not, the Prime Minister and others in Downing Street casually did not comply with those rules.

The rules, of course, that Johnson and his government imposed upon the rest of us – the laws his government issued and enforced, the guidance he and his government promoted night after night.

The stories which appear (again to me) to be getting the most traction on news sites and on social media are those from people who, for example, could not visit their loved ones on their deathbeds or were not able to attend funerals.

Had the story been about Johnson in a serious dilemma choosing to break the rules to see a loved one in hospital or attend a funeral, then people would perhaps be more forgiving.

Many people in extreme situations may choose to break rules.

But the situations in which Johnson and his circle broke the rules were not extreme situations or dreadful dilemmas.

And this disparity in the seriousness with which one abided with the rules is what annoys – disgusts – people who would otherwise shrug.

Not the lies, not the rule-breaking itself – but the unfairness.

*

‘Partygate’ is not about parties or cakes; and it is not ultimately about lying to parliament, or about breaking the criminal law, or about putting lives at risk; it is at bottom about fair dealing.

And that is why – months into this scandal – ‘Partygate’ will not go away easily.

Downing Street partied while the rest of us were prevented from going to visit deathbeds or attend funerals, at the behest of Downing Street.

That was unfair.

**

Thank you for reading – and please support this independent law and policy blog so that it can continue.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

The importance of access to good legal advice: how Johnson had only one penalty while junior Downing Street staff had many

23rd May 2022

Some of the best lawyers in the country work for those who often state publicly their disdain for lawyers.

Some of the best media lawyers work for the tabloid press who insult lawyers on front pages and blame them for many social and political ills.

And some of the best regulatory and procedural lawyers help populist politicians and pundits get out of all sorts of scrapes.

None of this is surprising – being part of the tabloid media or being a populist politician or pundit is a high-risk activity.

Such figures will regularly face civil and/or criminal liability in what they want to say or do, but thanks to their good lawyers they are kept safe.

The irony is, of course, that the stock lines-to-take of such figures include ridicule and hostility towards the lawyers who help others.

Those lawyers are ‘activists’ and invariably ‘left-wing’ – some are even ‘human rights’ lawyers.

In other words: the populists dislike lawyers that keep other sorts of people from legal harm, while taking the benefit of lawyers who keep populists safe.

From time-to-time you can see this discrepancy in practical examples.

During the phone-hacking cases, certain publishers took the benefit of outstanding legal advice, while sometimes letting individual reporters and their sources fend for themselves.

And last week we saw the same with the Downing Street parties and the now-closed Metropolitan police investigation.

It would appear that senior Downing Street figures escaped penalties while junior staff incurred them.

And it seems to be the situation that this discrepancy may be because senior figures had the the benefit of deft legal advice in how to complete (and not complete) the questionnaires, while more junior staff provided answers that had  not had the benefit of such advice.

This sort of ‘getting off on a technicality’ would – if it were about migrants or other marginalised group, or loud protesters – be met by emphatic criticism from populist politicians and the tabloid press.

But as it is the leaders of a populist government, then there is hardly a word.

There is nothing wrong with such senior figures having access to competent legal advice.

The issue is not that some have access to good lawyers, but that not everyone does.

Everybody facing criminal liability should have access to the legal advice of the standard that assisted Boris Johnson in ‘Partygate’.

And when you next see denouncements of ‘activist’ lawyers, remind yourself that those denouncements often come from those with ready access to the best quality legal advice, when those that need help from ‘activist’ lawyers often do not.

**

Thank you for reading – and please support this independent law and policy blog so that it can continue.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

The only ultimate solution to the problem of the Northern Irish Protocol may be a united Ireland

20th May 2022

Sensible conservative-unionists – and, no, that is not necessarily a contradiction-in-terms – used to abide by the maxim that politics was ‘the art of the possible’.

And one thing that the European Union did was make certain things possible, which otherwise were not possible.

With Gibraltar and Spain, for example, the border issue became less of an issue.

And with the island of Ireland, the border issue too became less of an issue.

Because both Ireland and the United Kingdom were both members of the European Union – and thereby both members of the internal market and customs union – a hard border, with infrastructure and bureaucracy, was unnecessary.

This created the conditions that made the Good Friday Agreement possible – though, of course, there were many other factors.

But now Brexit has come along, there is a problem.

There has to be a border somewhere where one entity is inside a pan-European internal market and customs union and the other entity is not.

Had Brexit not been so extreme – with the United Kingdom staying inside the internal market and/or the customs union (which is the position with some other non-EU states) – then the Irish border issue would be less of a problem.

But the Brexit which Theresa May insisted on, with the United Kingdom outside the internal market and customs union, meant there was going to be a problem.

May eventually realised this – and so she supported the ill-fated ‘backstop’ arrangement, which meant that – if there was no post-Brexit trade agreement – the cross-border arrangements of European Union membership would continue as a default.

But May’s proposal was rejected heavily by the House of Commons (including by ‘remain’ Members of Parliament).

That left one other option – the border in the Irish Sea, which was supported by the new Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and enshrined (ahem) in the Northern Irish Protocol.

And, as this blog has set out many times, Johnson here changed the policy, negotiated the Protocol, signed the withdrawal agreement containing the Protocol, fought a general election so as to get a mandate for the Protocol, and rushed the relevant legislation through parliament.

Johnson could have not done more, as Prime Minister, to have brought the Protocol into existence and to pass it into law.

But.

The Protocol is a solution to one problem but not to another.

It is a solution to the political problem of late 2019 where Brexit needed to be ‘done’ – and the Protocol was the only possible way to do so avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.

But it is not a solution to the deeper problem of how Brexit is compatible with the on-going existence of the union that is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Either one has Brexit (at least without continuing membership of the internal market and the customs union) or one has that union, but one cannot easily have both.

This is not to say that a united Ireland is likely – there are many solutions to political problems that never are adopted.

It may be that the problem continues, and continues, and is never resolved.

But a united Ireland is the only ultimate solution to there not being a border somewhere in respect of the north of Ireland.

Of course, special arrangements would need to be made for the non-nationalists in Northern Ireland – and one would hope that those protections serve that community better than the (lack of) protections for the nationalists in the north of Ireland after 1922.

Having watched Brexit from the beginning, I am still bewildered why supposed unionists did not see this problem coming – and indeed strongly campaigned for Brexit.

The European Union provided a means by which Northern Ireland could have continued in the United Kingdom, regardless of demographic changes and the gradual fall in unionist support.

But some forgot that politics was the art of the possible, and they pursued the politics of the impossible instead.

 

**

Thank you for reading – and please support this independent law and policy blog so that it can continue.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

 

Four possible consequences of Partygate

19th May 2022

Partygate, again.

Today the Metropolitan Police announced the end of their investigation.

This means that, in small part, the Partygate issue comes to an end.

But there are at least four things which may now flow from the circumstances of the unlawful gatherings at Number 10 during the pandemic.

*

The first, of course, is publication of the Sue Gray report.

This unseen report now has many expectations loaded onto it.

It is useful to remind yourself of her terms of reference.

Whatever is – and is not – in her published report, it is more likely than not to be in accordance with these terms of reference.

It is also useful to remind yourself of her truncated interim ‘update’.

That update indicated – though not in any definite way – where there may be problems for Downing Street when the final report is published (see this blog’s previous post here).

Two paragraphs of the update, in particular, are worth reminding yourself of:

“ii. At least some of the gatherings in question represent a serious failure to observe not just the high standards expected of those working at the heart of Government but also of the standards expected of the entire British population at the time.

“iii. At times it seems there was too little thought given to what was happening across the country in considering the appropriateness of some of these gatherings, the risks they presented to public health and how they might appear to the public. There were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times. Some of the events should not have been allowed to take place. Other events should not have been allowed to develop as they did.”

Whether the report leads to any political change – and whether it is, in fact, the timebomb suggested by the earlier post – is, of course, determined by politics and the remarkable capacity of the current Prime Minister to evade accountability.

*

The second consequence of Partygate is – on the face of it – potentially more significant constitutionally.

This is the House of Commons committee’s investigation into whether the Prime Minister misled parliament.

Here a difficulty for the Prime Minister is not so much whether he realised the parties he attended were unlawful gatherings, but when he knew.

This is important because, as this blog has previously set out, it appears that the Prime Minister is not only under an obligation to put the record straight, but also to do so at the earliest opportunity.

This point was well explained by Alexander Horne in this thread:

Even if the Prime Minister did not realise at the time the gatherings were unlawful, he no doubt knew once he saw the Sue Gray report and/or was advised in response to the Metropolitan Police investigation.

The committee may perhaps find that Boris Johnson did tell parliament at the first available opportunity, or it may hold the rule somehow does not apply, or it may censure him.

Again, the political consequences of any censure – or sanction – are not predictable with the current Prime Minister.

But misleading the House of Commons and not correcting the record as soon as one can are still serious matters, even in this age of Johnson, Brexit and 2022.

*

A third possible consequence of Partygate is the worrying normalisation of politically motivated reporting of opponents to the police.

This blog recently set out this concern – and the concern has also been articulated by newspaper columnists:

This is an issue distinct from the obvious truth that politicians should not be above the law.

This issue is about when there is political pressure for there to be police intervention in respect of opponents, where such pressure would not be applied in respect of one’s own ‘side’.

Unless a report would be made to the police in the same circumstances when it was a political ally rather than an opponent, the report is being made on a partisan basis.

And routine goading of police involvement – and their coercive powers – on a partisan basis is not a good sign in any political system.

*

The fourth possible consequence is more optimistic.

The covid regulations were an exercise in bad and rushed legislation, where – even accounting for it being a pandemic – insufficient care was given to the rules imposed and to how they were enforced.

This was pointed out at the time – by this blog and many other legal commentators.

The fact there was a pandemic was used as an excuse for shoddy drafting rather than it being the reason.

And part of the shoddiness was, no doubt, because these were seen by those in the executive as being rules for other people – that is, for the rest of us.

One perhaps positive thing about Partygate is that senior officials, politicians and advisers in the government now are aware that such rules can apply to them.

This may mean that in the event of another pandemic requiring similar rules, the provisions will have more anxious scrutiny before being put in palce and enforced.

That said, of course, it is perhaps also possible that the government will just make sure that future rules expressly do not apply to Whitehall.

But we have to take what possible positives that we can from this gods-awful governmentally-self-inflicted political, legal and constitutional mess, known as Partygate.

**

Thank you for reading – and please do support this blog, so that it can carry on for you and others.

These free-to-read law and policy posts every week-day do take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to pre-moderate.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compliance not confrontation: a possibly significant rhetorical shift in the Foreign Secretary’s statement today on the Northern Irish Protocol

17th May 2022

As any good regulatory lawyer will tell you, ‘compliance’ is better than contravention or challenge.

The question is what can constitute compliance.

From time to time a regulatory lawyer will get a new or inexperienced regulated client who want to challenge or contravene a regulatory rule or policy.

‘Let’s go to court’,’ the novice will say, or ‘let’s tell them that we will see them in court’.

The regulatory lawyer will shake their wise head and say: ‘well, if you do this instead, then you will be complying, and then all the bother will go away’.

*

Compliance is usually a better overall legal strategy than confrontation.

And with that view in mind, let us now look at the statement by the Foreign Secretary today to the House of Commons about the Northern Irish Protocol.

Instead of the statement once (notoriously) made by a cabinet minister that the United Kingdom would only break international law “in a very specific and limited way”, the Foreign Secretary said that the government would comply with international law in its new legislation:

“That is why I am announcing our intention to introduce legislation in the coming weeks to make changes to the Protocol.

“Our preference remains a negotiated solution with the EU.

“In parallel with the legislation being introduced, we remain open to further talks if we can achieve the same outcome through negotiated settlement.  […]

“The Government is clear that proceeding with the Bill is consistent with our obligations in international law – and in support of our prior obligations in the Belfast Good Friday Agreement.”

In other words, the government is to ‘comply’ with international law – though no doubt in a very specific and limited way.

*

So much for rhetoric – on information currently available, it seems the government is threatening what it has threatened before.

The significant difference is that the government is now to threaten this while maintaining it is complying with international law rather than candidly admitting that it is seeking to break it.

It seems that the basis for this intellectual exercise in gymnastics is that the Good Friday Agreement takes priority over the protocol.

That this is the tactic is supported by the references to the Good Friday Agreement at the beginning of the statement and from statements from government supporters:

*

As one Northern Irish writer put the notion of such priority in a fantasy context, there can sometimes be “deeper magic”.

What the government appears to be developing is a contention that any unilateral amendment of the Norther Irish Protocol cannot really be a breach of international law if that amendment is by reason of the Good Friday Agreement.

Of course: this is all sophistry and illusion.

The policy substance has not changed, and the proposed breach has not changed, all that has changed is that the proposal will not now be described as breaking international law.

*

Yet such a rhetorical shift is possibly significant.

For it may signify that although the United Kingdom government has no fresh ideas about how to resolve the issue with the Northern Ireland Protocol, ministers may now realise that the rhetoric of challenges and outlawry is not necessarily helpful.

And, if this is the case, this could become a useful habit – for the government may find other things that can be brought under the label of ‘compliance’ that may allow it to shift its position in substance.

Smudgery and fudgery, perhaps.

And somewhere in Whitehall, a foreign office lawyer nods their head wisely.

It is all about what ‘compliance’ means, you see.

**

Thank you for reading – and please do support this blog, so that it can carry on for you and others.

These free-to-read law and policy posts every week-day do take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to pre-moderate.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.