Profile picture
Jo Maugham QC @JolyonMaugham
, 6 tweets, 2 min read Read on Twitter
Following are some extracts from what is an absolute bombshell of a judgment for the Government (scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-s…).
It is not academic to ask whether the UK can revoke the notification and remain in the EU.
There will have to be a vote and MPs are entitled to know if they can vote to Remain.
The policy of the Government that the Article 50 notice won't be withdrawn doesn't matter.
The Government's position can change. It's impossible to be certain about what will happen in the coming months.
It's impossible to say that the question of withdrawing the Article 50 notice is irrelevant to Parliament's deliberations. Some MPs consider it significant.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Jo Maugham QC
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JolyonMaugham see all

Profile picture
The point of a "flexible" constitution is that it is responsive to underlying political reality and fits around core principles like Parliamentary supremacy. Its strength is that it cannot be 'gamed' by a constitutional player.

This is what we are, collectively, missing.
This is critical stuff. What Chris Heaton Harris is here saying is that an Executive of a (minority) Government can thwart the will of a Parliament that is said to be supreme. If our constitution means anything it must mean that Chris is wrong.
However the problem is that our approach to the relationship between an Executive that (we assume) will deliver no deal rather than risk no Brexit and a Parliament that (we learned yesterday) will not contemplate no deal is tangled in the weeds of Parliamentary convention.
Read 4 tweets
Profile picture
Labour is terrified of bringing a vote of no confidence that it knows it will lose because it lacks a plan for what happens next. It's neither in Government nor Opposition.
There is no key Brexit legislation currently before Parliament and we could well leave the EU with no deal before any comes before it.

Labour is chicken, clueless and enabling.
I hate this Government. I hate it for the contempt it has shown for our democratic superstructure: for governance, for the rule of law, and for constitutional norms. But you have to give it this: at least it has a plan. Labour has nothing and is nowhere.
Read 3 tweets
Profile picture
Absent Laffer curve effects, lifting our top rate to 70% for those paid £2m+ would raise about £6.5bn. But a HMT report found lifting the top rate to 50% raised little because of those effects. But what's oft missed is Govts can reshape the Laffer curve.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Here's that HMT 2012 paper google.com/url?sa=t&sourc…
And here's a piece I wrote on Laffer some time ago. waitingfortax.com/2015/09/07/laf…
Read 3 tweets

Related threads

Profile picture
Holy moly, this is a staggeringly shite article: heraldscotland.com/news/16982743.…
1. If it’s ok to sue someone for personal injury (physically/mentally) caused by them a (e.g by crashing their car into you), why should circumstances equating to rape be different?
2. The Court Of Session is a real court, m8. Lord Armstrong isn’t a Sheriff, either.
Read 19 tweets
Profile picture
On Friday Scotland Supreme Court sent this to the European Court re Brexit:

“They therefore seek a reference to the CJEU for a
preliminary ruling under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU”

cc @911CORLEBRA777 @LouiseMensch @WendySiegelman @ericgarland
From what I can surmise the Scottish Court argue the previous dismissal bc it was “hypothetical” ergo not reviewable:
“The issue was of great constitutional importance. Votes upon it were required in the Scottish, European and UK Parliaments”
Open Source
scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-s…
I offer no opinion one way or another. Beyond I find Scotland’s Supreme Court’s petition to Court of Justice for the EU.
That said I would keep an eye on this, given how closely we are aligned with the UK.
This link will take you to previous filings
supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-201…
Read 3 tweets
Profile picture
Thread. @HadleyFreeman has produced a cracking article this morning in the Guardian, available here: theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Following the lead of second wave feminists, I define gender as sex-role stereotypes. The feminist goal was and is the elimination of gender (sex-role stereotypes) as it is a tool of oppression which stifles all people.
It is gender (sex-role stereotypes) which teaches that men can’t express emotion and women are subordinate. It is gender which says women are second-class citizens and should be treated as such. It is gender which says ‘boys will be boys’ when men abuse women.
Read 25 tweets
Profile picture
Breaking: Court of Session (OH) rejects INEOS' legal challenge to Scottish Government opposition to fracking. Lord Pentland backs Lord Advocate position, stating the court should not interfere with emerging policy. INEOS have right of appeal to Inner House scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-s…
The key point: Lord Pentland interprets Scottish Government current fracking position as “preferred” policy ahead of future environmental assessment. This means a 'legal ban' is not in place (currently), so INEOS’ main challenge falls.
Further, Pentland: INEOS case based on “misconception” that opposition to fracking in planning law = a prohibition. The planning policy does not enforce a legal obligation on Scottish Ministers to oppose fracking applications.
Read 6 tweets
Profile picture
Hello Lord RIdley. Please see trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/20… …

Most African countries are on zero tariffs for everything bar guns and ammunition. The few remaining are on General Scheme of Preferences (GSP), like Nigeria, or EU Association Agreement, and two cases of no reduction.
Countries on the UN's Least Developed Countries (LDC) list automatically qualify for Everything But Arms (EBA) and are therefore on zero duties and quotas for everything bar weapons and ammunition. This map shows the LDC countries in blue.
Most of the remaining sub-Saharan countries have Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) with the EU, either bilaterally or though a regional trade groups. This map shows you that relationship for each country.
Read 56 tweets
Profile picture
Nadine, I think it's very important that politicians with large twitter followings impart accurate information and do not mislead their followers.. So lets examine you what you said:

So let's look at the tariff for ROASTED coffee imported from poor countries.
Let's look at the very poorest countries. The UN list of 47 poorest countries (Least Developed Nations) are all eligible for EU's Everything But Arms (EBA) schedule, that means zero tariffs on everything but guns. That's all countries on this map. Botswana (green) have opted out.
But let's look specifically at coffee producers in Africa.

The top 10 coffee producing nations in Africa are Ethiopia, Uganda, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Tanzania, Cameroon, Madagascar, Gabon, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c…
Read 65 tweets

Trending hashtags

#ussstrike #SaudArabia #MBS #Manbij #NewYorkTimes #Kuwait #SaudiArabia #Prestitute #MIC #Iraq #Director #ParsonsGreen #WashingtonPost #Russia #factualclearandconcise #Hamas #Saudi #notallgeographers #Guardian #SexCult #ROGD #Riyadh #Paris #Hezbollah #Syria

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member and get exclusive features!

Premium member ($30.00/year)

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!