Westminstenders: It's like a bloody aviary

[RedToothBrush]

From Flamingos to Yellowhammer and Black Swans.

The Tory Remainer is now a Dodo. Instead the party in inhabited by disaster capitalist Vultures. Jeremy Corbyn, meanwhile, has been labelled by the right wing press as a Chicken. The SNP would very much like Boris Johnson to be a Jailbird. The LDs are keen to sing like Canaries about the contents of BlackSwan. The Br

And the Tower of London is starting to get very jumpy about the whereabouts and location of its Ravens.

I would not, however, advise eating urban wild pigeons if things get desperate, from what I know of their health.

PMK

imo, the hard right have ramped up their attempts to get rid of the NHS
while everyone is distracted

Meds shortages and forcing people onto cheaper generic meds are part of this
It will continue - whatever happens to Brexit - until we have a govt that fully supports the NHS
instead of regarding it as another chip in USA negotiations

Warning:
there's nothing in EU law preventing the NHS being wound down or sold off, even if we Remain
We have the problem - which we have to solve ourselves - that the hard right no longer abides by the post-WW2 "social contract"

PMK

That literature is an indictment of either Tory members, or their politicians' assessment of their analytic capability

I think they’re trying to get rid of the elderly along with the NHS. Most of the medicines on the list are taken by the elderly in large numbers, plus there’s going to be a crisis in adult social care. They just need to no deal and hang on for long enough for the effects to kick in. Perhaps this is their magic money tree?

Crikey, I think I may be turning into DGR! Perhaps I should lie down for a bit.

I heard that Bercow's speech recommended a codified UK Constitution

imo, the hard right have ramped up their attempts to get rid of the NHS while everyone is distracted

So is the ludicrous bridge idea Boris has been going on about all week part of this distraction?

@RedToothBrush I chuckled when I first read this and now I chuckle every time I see your post in the news feed. 😂

@red The guy who originated these reports that progress has been made on backstop is backtracking a bit after advice:


Mujtaba Rahman@Mij_Europe

So I've had numerous^ senior EU officials^ reach out to me this afternoon/evening in light of these threads/discussions.

They think my recent tweets place me on the "too optimistic side."

Based on where these messages come from, I revise my views accordingly

PMK

I think the bridge was pretending there are NI solutions

... and maybe BJ has some wierd sexual fetish for bridges 🤮
like the small-fingered Agent Orange has for walls

flapping onto my perch...

How did we end up with such a tit for Prime Minister? Just how?

... and maybe BJ has some wierd sexual fetish for bridges🤮
like the small-fingered Agent Orange has for walls

Or he’s syphoning off funds to donors who own companies that build imaginary unicorn bridges.

Off to watch question time.

DGR this thread is for you. Its about the courts and this issue of the union with Cherry and Miller.

I think this answers your question from yesterday in full:

Daniel Wincott @danielwinc
Y’day Court of Session ruled against prorogation. Striking unanimity of 3 judges. Overturned initial Outer House decision that prorogation nonjusticiable (not legal q for Court to decide). Another case at E&W High Court prorogation also deemed nonjusticiable. Confused? Thread. 1.

CoS decision has potential long term implications (see both Elaine Motion and Stephen Tierney in www.scottishlegal.com/article/inner-house-s-remarkable-judgment-on-prorogation-could-have-long-lasting-constitutional-implications and follow @AileenMcHarg 2.

Lots of ppl swiftly said prorogation ‘lawful’ after High Court + initial ‘Outer House’ CoS decision. Y’day’s decision v.impt and elected politicians are perfectly right to engage on the issues. But overquick responses from some commentators have generated wider confusion. 3

Will take time for legal process to unfold. Full reasons for j’ment (due tomorrow) and next week’s appeal to Supreme Court (SC) UK. And consider on UK’s potentially confusing pol and legal structure. Plus SC, finds itself in an unwelcome politically exposed position. 4

GB has 3 P’ments and 3 nations (or 4, including ‘Britain’), but 2 territorial legal jurisdictions: ‘EnglandandWales’ and Scotland. NI also has its own jurisdiction, making a total of 3 in the UK State. 5

The separate and coexisting E&W/S/NI jurisdictions have deep historic roots preserved in the 2 ‘unions’ of E and S, and of GB and Ireland. They predate devolution. None is ‘above’ any other. Ultimately, appeals from each jurisdiction can go to the Supreme Court of the UK. 6

‘Union’ legal structure is unusual. Some other ‘multi-level’ states have a ‘federal’ jurisdiction for the whole state and distinct jurisdictions for the parts. 7

(On Wales, devo is raising questions about operation of single E+W jurisdiction with two primary legislatures-
t.co/h3OwHbWxem ) 8

Prorogation-related cases have come up in all 3 territorial jurisdictions. Prob to be expected given the serious nature of issues. Today, McCord lost NI case at first instance (as in Scotland), but NI appeal will be heard quickly. Likely also to end up in SC. 9

Helpful explainer from IfG t.co/HcOnULrzeD (although perhaps confusing, I wdn’t call the differences between E & S judgements ‘counterintuitive’). Striking though Inner House CoS decision may be, courts ‘can and do’ differ on questions of law t.co/jcxxc3lK07 10

SC will consider all cases together next week. Since this is not a ‘devolution issue’ SC sits, in effect, as a Scottish court, an E+W court and in all likelihood an NI court. Issues set in context of these jurisdictions. 11

Uncivil Still @uncivil_s
Strictly, it not being a devolution issue, the SC’s judgment will be as a Scottish court in respect of one appeal, a court of England and Wales in respect of the other, and a court of NI, if that one gets added, too. Section 41 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

Daniel Wincott @danielwinc
Will SC come to one decision about lawfulness of prorogation for all jurisdictions, or different decisions across them? (Cherry QC emphasised distinctive Scots tradition on P’ment holding exec to account, we don’t yet know how judges viewed it). 12

SC, of course, decides on the law, but all outcomes are likely to have big political (+constitutional) impacts. Deciding prorogation unlawful would be a big deal. Even bigger if based on law in only 1 or 2 jurisdictions. But overturning unanimous CoS cd impact pols in Scot. 13

Happy or not about yesterday’s result, all eyes shd be on next week’s Supreme Court hearing. Making sense of the situation is not easy and the stakes are huge for Brexit, the role of the Courts and territorial constitution/future relationships across E/NI/S and W. End.

So this really is even messier than it sounds.

The Supreme Court could rule that the government acted unlawfully under Scottish Law but not under English Law.

This would be one unholy clusterfuck constitutionally if that happened. And yes that would put certain strains on the union. How would the government respond to that? How would the Scottish Parliament respond?

Fun fun fun.

Judges being exposed to the Fail readership
Must be frustrated they couldn't find anything juicier, but look at the full page spread with pictures ...

Jack Blanchardd@Jack*Blanchardd_

Daily Mail has found some proper dirt on the Scottish judges who ruled prorogation to be unlawful.

It turns out one has a "passion for France."
Another is a "jazz lover" who predicted Brexit would be "an onerous task."
Scandalous stuff

The guy who originated these reports that progress has been made on backstop is backtracking a bit after advice

Completely unsurprised.

Peter Foster has focused on the practicality and purpose and intention of the backstop. I think he's the only journalist who keeps coming back to that. Other journalists and commentators have focused on comments and whispers around Brussels without fully understanding why they wanted the backstop and the practical factors of implementing that. Just doing the politics isn't good enough. The practical side of it is the bit that matters.

I wish I could fly, way up to the sky
But I can't.

I think they’re trying to get rid of the elderly

Now can anyone spot why this policy will represent an existential crisis for the tory party?

Answers on a postcard will be gratefully received by No10 Downing Street - they could do with a bit of help.

Looking for a feathery meal....

The backstop will only go if Ireland gets sufficiently scared by the UK's not so subtle threats
and / or or is offered sufficient other goodies by the UK e.g. more joint cooperation on NI in other areas

Does Varadkar think the Irish public would rather back down to the Uk than risk a goods border ?
So far the answer is no

PMK Thanks Red and all

Uncivil Still @uncivil_s
Even if the differential conclusions were the result of different law in the two jurisdictions, it is in my view wholly fanciful to think the SC would come to differential conclusions. There is no mechanism for reconciling a jurisdictional clash other than the SC.

It’s important to appreciate that the jurisdictions are territorial in a secondary, not the fundamental, sense. A jurisdiction is that which is within the reach of a court (or system of courts). The prorogation issue is within reach of each of the high courts and the CoS.

So if the SC cannot reconcile the law of Scotland and of E/W (and NI, which is likely to be identical), then we would be left with an incoherent outcome. Parliament would be unprorogued in one jurisdiction and not in the other(s).

That does not mean that in some territorial sense, Parliament is unprorogued in Scotland, but not in rUK. There is only one Parliament, but this question is subject to three jurisdictions (again, think the reach of those actual courts, not the bits of land).

Daniel Wincott @danielwinc
Agreed. Nothing in the thread was meant to suggest that P’ment is prorogued in some parts of U.K. and not in others. As things stand - unless and until overturned something only SC can do - CoS means prorogation unlawful across U.K.

Remember how Johnson came to Manchester and said a lot of nice sounding things that were pretty much everything Andy Burnham has been saying....

... Well

Jennifer Williams @jenwilliamsMEN
Interesting thing in here about the govt setting up a northern powerhouse body to oversee the general direction of things, something northern leaders generally see as taking power away from them rather than handing it back

You’ve got to be a pretty confident PM to hand control back, whatever the side of your bus says

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/boris-johnson-speech-northern-powerhouse-16911207.amp?__twitter_impression=true
North will get ‘control over the things that matter’, promises Prime Minister
The government also wants to set up a new body to oversee the ‘northern powerhouse agenda’ for the government, prompting one council chief to respond: “It doesn’t sound much like more power to local leaders to me.”

Mr Johnson is also expected to confirm that a new body will be set up to oversee the ‘northern powerhouse’ body, with an appointed chair to work ‘closely’ with the minister in charge of the portfolio, Jake Berry - a move northern leaders have been worried about for some time.

They fear it will be used by the government to undermine the voice and autonomy they have spent several years developing, by giving ministers more control over a region they are claiming to be empowering.

Manchester council leader Sir Richard Leese is among those with concerns, responding: “Presumably the chair will be appointed by government.

“Doesn’t sound like more power to local leaders to me.”

Would this be drumroll another unelected beaucrat?

I guess the mayor and council will just be there as a nice scapegoat for electoral purposes when it suits Central government...