Thread by @clim8resistance

Me in @spikedonline on the #heathrow decision and what it means for democracy.

A few are saying I have overstated the Court's role & not paid attention to the significant part of the judgement. I don't think so. >>

spiked-online.com/2020/02/28/the…

@spikedonline The judgement is here. I think it is mealy-mouthed about the role played by the court.

judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…

@spikedonline I think the observation that the Minister just has to amend details of the governments plan under the Paris "Agreement" to overcome this, while may be technically true is a bigger job than is implied.

@spikedonline E.g. this... Which is followed by

" The Paris Agreement ought to have been taken into account by the Secretary of State in the preparation of the ANPS and an explanation given as to how it was taken into account, but it was not (paragraph 283). "

.. >>

@spikedonline And its conclusion...

The government's remedy is not a trivial task.

@spikedonline As my article tries to make clear, Parliament decided in 2008 that it would be the Climate Change Committee that really makes decisions about future carbon budgets, including which sectors should be allowed to emit how much.

@spikedonline Here, for instance is a letter from CCC chair to the Minister about emissions from shipping and aviation.

It's terribly dull.

theccc.org.uk/wp-content/upl…

@spikedonline So, what happens if the Minister (who is after all only Grant Shapps), just makes arbitrary adjustments to the instruments and documents the court seems to require?

Got it yet?

Judicial review.

@spikedonline Of course, pretty much anything (as far as I know) could the subject of a JR.

But we have the ambiguities of the Paris agreement, the vagueness of its ratification, the unstated consequences and parameters of the Climate Change Act and subsequent legislation...

@spikedonline All of which are FODDER for the lawyers that extremely well funded NGOs and fake plaintiffs in these kinds of cases.

Remember, NGO lawyers drafted the Climate Change Act in the first place. And the government of the time was stuffed full of lawyers. This is design.

@spikedonline There is, put simply, and almost literally, a pipe, pumping money from billionaires' "philanthropic" foundations, into legal efforts to stop you flying, driving, eating...

@spikedonline Because they *know* they can't win the political debate.

I think it was *explicitly* declared that this was the intention, by this Miliband...

@spikedonline Why would millionaire Miliband want to tell the public that they were living profligate lifestyles, and that they had to rein in their material expectations?

Because that's how technocrats see the world, that's why.

@spikedonline To a Miliband, you and your family are nothing more than a metabolic unit that requires management.

In the same spreadsheet, you are also a risk factor.

You may exceed your metabolic allowances.

Or you may decide you want to get out of your cage.

@spikedonline Tell me that there is any other possible interpretation of what Miliband was saying.

@spikedonline You, the metabolic unit, has no access to the courts. The government can defer technical detail to "science" and "ethical" rubber-stamping to NGOs (aka billionaires). The technocrats' work is complete.

@spikedonline Those miserable last years of the Blair-Brown era, were characterised by extremely shallow thinking.

Here's the other Miliband, arguing with Nigel Lawson shortly after...

The Milibands and the Lab govt were incapable of accepting criticism or debate.

@spikedonline For the Milibands and others, the design for society was as straightforward as the measurement of CO2 effect on the atmosphere. The one followed the other. To criticise climate POLICY was *equivalent* to criticising climate "science".

They were convinced of it.

@spikedonline The idea that *anyone* could have a different view about what people could expect from life or politics was anathema to the Milibands' view.

A scientific panel had already judged. And the optimal configuration was decided. All that was needed was the institutional apparatus.

@spikedonline That apparatus included national and supranational political institutions, NGOs and lots of lawyers.

Public opinion was just an afterthought for Ed Miliband, as I pointed out at the time. climate-resistance.org/2009/01/the-pa…

@spikedonline Ed Miliband is of course mediocre and unconvincing. He simply doesn't understand what role debate plays in political life, whereas it's in Lawson's blood.

The Milibands' benevolent technocracy is a mediocracy.

@spikedonline For Miliband, all he needs to do in the face of a superior argument and intellect is to defer to expert panels, and then to hector Lawson about his failure to defer to them.

It's a fundamental departure from the democratic tradition.

@spikedonline It means Miliband has to accept no responsibility for his argument or agenda or ideology. And it means you have no say, no opportunity to participate, and that there is no place for debate in the management of public life.

As I said, it is design.

@spikedonline That is the background to the third runway debacle. You don't have to agree with the third runway plan to see the point.

A bizarre agenda will of course beset infrastructure projects.

@spikedonline But that's *nothing* compared to the mess that's coming over the future of your car, your boiler, your job, your money...

If your life doesn't fit their agenda, have you got enough money for judicial review? Because the political parties aren't interested unless you have.