Thread by @JolyonMaugham

Last week I wrote in the Guardian about a @GoodLawProject challenge to the lawfulness of measures taken by Government to cut the costs of managing drug shortages in the event of a No Deal Brexit. theguardian.com/commentisfree/… /1

I highlighted in that piece that it was unthinkable that Government might jeopardise its own citizens by “tak[ing] the country over the no-deal cliff without knowing whether it can use a key measure to try and alleviate harm to the health of millions of people.” /2

Today we have published, alongside our pleadings and witness statements, the Secretary of State’s response. goodlawproject.org/issued-proceed… Three points leap out from that response. /3

First, Government now agrees serious shortage protocols are “a thoroughly important legislative measure designed to enable the Secretary of State… to address serious drug shortages… in the event of a no deal Brexit.” /4

Strikingly, Government now admits "serious drug shortages" are a real possibility if we have No Deal. /5

Second, Government says there is no public interest in challenging the lawfulness of serious shortage protocols because serious shortage protocols are necessary to protect the public. /6

This is an extraordinary response to an allegation that a measure is unlawful. The Govt seems to be denying that there is an overarching public interest in it acting in accordance with the law. But the necessity for it to do so is the very essence of what the rule of law means /7

Third, the Govt's response assumes that if that “thoroughly important legislative measure” to protect public health is struck down it would nevertheless continue with a No Deal Brexit.

This is what a Govt in the grips of madness sounds like. MPs must stage an intervention. /8

You can support this vital litigation here: crowdjustice.com/case/not-ready… /ENDS