Westminstenders: Constitutional History

[RedToothBrush]

The Supreme Court case continues
(ruling possible Friday but likely Monday)

The new NI proposal is bollocks and Johnson didn't get why until it was discussed in Europe.

There was a press conference in Luxembourg which looks good for Johnson.

Johnsons approval ratings are up.

And we are making no obvious progress to anything but no deal...

I've just seen on the Guardian website that the government have now delivered 'non-papers' to the EU regarding alternative arrangements for the border. What on earth are 'non-papers'? Is that a technical term for something or does it just mean they're imaginary ones in Boris' head?

On the one hand, its fantastic to see that the MPs in a national Parliament can stop the EU acting in ways they don't wish it to.

Thank god the UK is opting out of that madness and taking back sovereignty.

Oddly, it doesn't seem that the objection has much to do with the actual content of the proposed agreement. I cannot escape the feeling that, whatever the advertised nature of the dispute, this more about registering an objection about who currently governs Brazil than anything else.

Something the Uk government could bear in mind when dealing with regimes like Saudi Arabia, and their ilk ?

I love Pannick. Its like Supreme Court for Dummies with him, which I greatly appreciate. Very clear and succinct language. Easy to follow and understand.

The UK is in dispute with Saudi Arabia? I though the Saudi's were among our regional allies. Or are you saying we should register an objection?

The UK is in dispute with Saudi Arabia? I though the Saudi's were among our regional allies.

You are mistaking what is best for the citizens of the world with what is best for the pockets of politicians via arms deals. Easily done, I guess.

I'm sure I'm not needed to highlight how repressive and vile the Saudi regime is - especially when it comes to womens rights ?

In the current incarnation we could be in dispute with just about any country in the world. Apart from USoA of course.

We're that fragile it could be the "they looked at us funny" that tips us into dispute.

I love Pannick too. I can't believe that I'm understanding most of what he's saying. How does he speak so clearly and calmly and cleverly under all this pressure?

Re the EU / Mercosur deal
the Austrians have blocked it because they want stronger requirements on Bolsonaro not to burn the Amazon
and the articles I saw said that several other parliaments thought the same

so actually its the EU at its very best - allowing individual countries to use the might of the EU to stand up for their citizens and the planet.

Its exactly why the USA has so far failed to get a free trade deal with the EU
because the EU will not roll over under pressure
like the UK alone will be forced to

Just catching up so going back to discussions yesterday about BJ & Saj rift.

I actually think Saj has a decent head on his shoulders. He knows his shit with a decent career in senior management in banking (was earning £3m @ Goldmans and took massive cut).

If he is watering down spending plans it's probably because they need to be - he is the holder of the national budget after all.

If they're going to Rishi - perhaps he is just the 'yes man' that Cummings & BJ want. Though surely Saj has to sign everything off???

Lord Pannick/Norris Cole (I completely agree) is absolutely epic, perhaps they might just win!

I actually think Saj has a decent head on his shoulders. He knows his shit with a decent career in senior management in banking (was earning £3m @ Goldmans and took massive cut).

Which proves the square root of fuck all in the UK, I'm afraid.

Pannick's exposition is a real contrast to drivel dazzle, isn't it?

You know what I mean: half sentences; constant injection of emotional terms and exotic factoids misunderstood from the backs of cereal packet; slightly misused long words.

I think drivel dazzlers imagine it makes them appear to have depth of understanding and wealth of facts at their finger tips. Or that their audience not being able to follow demonstrates the speaker's intellectual superiority. (I may have some prominent culprits in mind.)

And then you have Pannick. Or Attenborough. Genuinely know what they're talking about, skilled enough to convey it clearly to their audience. Bliss!

I did briefly wonder if David Camerons timing and revelations were somehow part of a wide conspiracy - he's certainly not done the House of Windsor any favours.

But then I thought again, and dismissed the notion almost instantly, since the players involved would struggle to organise a piss up in a brewery.

Re: Cummings and this:

"– i will only answer things that come from gmail accounts from people who i know who they arc.
i suggest that you do the same in general but thats obv up to you guys"

Basically this should be outright banned. You can't use private comms methods in other jobs where it's important to keep an audit trail of decision making (finance/insurance/etc). Govt business should all be done via official comms channels - any exceptions should be a disciplinary matter IMO.

#MoggLive: “It is human to err, it is divine to forgive & the Prime Minister is very close to being divine I think"

🤮🤮🤮

The government has now delivered "non papers"?

Given there are only 6 weeks left until 31st October, shouldn't they be actual papers with concrete proposals?

You couldn't make it up.

@wheresmymojo - I saw that and agreed. Then just realised he should believe that he'll be going straight to hell as it is against the first commandment.

Unless of course his Catholicism is more for misogyny and show than an actual belief.

CETA was blocked just by the regional Parliament of Walloon
TTIP with the USA - which was supported by the UK govt, was blocked by some other countries

I like that even regions have the power of veto on treaties and trade deals, since these can massively affect the regions

I just wish the UK allowed similar vetos by its regions and especially by its 3 smaller member nations, instead of domination by English wishes

I appreciate this means that decisions can be slow and tortuous,
but that is the price of giving more say to more people on such key issues

Basically this should be outright banned. You can't use private comms methods in other jobs where it's important to keep an audit trail of decision making (finance/insurance/etc). Govt business should all be done via official comms channels - any exceptions should be a disciplinary matter IMO.

It's against the civil service code of conduct I believe. Therefore IS a disciplinary issue.

In theory.

Yes, it is something that politicans & advisers have tried in some Western democracies, to avoid scrutiny of their actions
e.g. Clinton and it seems the Trump administration too

However, it is generally against the rules, or sometimes a criminal offence

We need to impose significant punishment instead of finger-wagging, or they will continue - it's so convenient for them

At least sack them and have armed police march them out of their offices ....

I'm guessing "non-papers" are the equivalent of "without prejudice" ?

Or in this case "without anything at all, really".

Nick Gutteridge @nick_gutteridge
'Non-paper' is classic eurocrat-ese. Interesting to see the UK side now using it. (It means a discussion paper that doesn't form part of formal negotiations).

Non-paper will be a new word for us to play with. Like prorogue.