Much atttention has been paid to the fact that the Internal Market Bill puts the UK in breach of international law. It also however, raises extremely serious questions of domestic law with far reaching implications outside of this specific legislative context.#internalmarketsbill
Clauses 42, 43 and 45(2) allow Ministers to adopt regulations in respect of controls on NI-GB imports & state aid, allowing Ministers to disapply any domestic law or remedy. The far reaching nature of these enabling clauses is extraordinary. Let us consider some hypotheticals:
State aid contingent on support for a particular political party; the exclusion of the bribery act; the imposition of a nationality requirement in relation to imports; the imposition of a discriminatory charge; the exclusion of FOI, individual tax benefits; secret guidance etc.
All in all, this is a charter for corruption. And don't assume that this cannot happen. Orban has used law to create a network of business support. Businesses know that in order to obtain licences etc, it is necessary to provide support to the party.
Finally, if this Bill goes through with clauses 42-45 then we can expect similar clauses in future bills. They will of course be litigated and no doubt the common law will to some extent come to the rescue. But we cannot wait for this. Parliament must act now to stop this Bill.
Here is but one example: ft.com/content/a0a593…
Crises provide opportunities for corruption: ohchr.org/Documents/Issu…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jessica Simor QC

Jessica Simor QC Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JMPSimor

28 Jun
This is a fascinating read (albeit a university essay in structure and style) - much of it written by Cummings no doubt. If only we knew nothing of its authors, it might fill one with hope. That said, the saving souls bit is a step too far (& the’people’s govt ‘, Soviet sinister) ImageImage
Because of what we know about recent government spending: shipping company with no ships, pesticide company supplying masks, dodgy non-existent contract for masks from Turkey, contract for failed app, purchase of dodgy satellite company etc etc etc, this does not bode well. ImageImageImage
And this is Cummings 2014. ImageImageImage
Read 4 tweets
28 Sep 19
Benn Act avoidance thread: Cummings to @lewis_goodall said: "we will see what the law is on 19 October". Andrew Mitchell this morning on @mattfrei said PM should use any legislative or Parliamentary mechanism to get no deal through. But no one will say what they are planning. 1/8
Four mechanisms raised so far: 1. Major said PM might make an Order of Council to postpone the coming into force of the Benn Act so as to render it nugatory 2. Grieve suggested they may be whipping up unrest in order to declare state of emergency under Civil Contingencies Act 2/8
3. others have suggested two letters may be sent - one requesting an extension and another retracting the request. 4. Finally, a head of state (Orban/Salvini) may be persuaded to refuse an extension; unanimity being required for it to be granted. 3/8
Read 8 tweets
12 Sep 19
The State has three arms: the executive (government), legislature (Parliament) and judiciary (Courts) Only if all three can function effectively do we have democracy. 1/8
The State has three arms: the executive (government), legislature (Parliament) and judiciary (Courts) Only if all three can function effectively do we have democracy. 1/10
The Government has the power to close Parliament (usually for a period of 3-5 days) to introduce a new legislative programme, (the power to 'prorogue'). The Government claimed that this is what it was doing when it closed Parliament, albeit that it did so for 5 weeks. 2/10
Read 12 tweets
4 May 19
@TheIndGroup @LibDems A couple of thoughts on 'splitting the vote'. Each candidate fighting has a budget, a voice and access to media etc. The more remain candidates therefore, potentially the greater is remain's reach. and louder its voice 1/4
Brexit has 3-4 parties and therefore around 300 MEP candidates. This gives that argument a very large budget and loud voice.
Remain has: Greens, Libdems, SNP, Plaid and ChangeUK. That enables it to spend & spread the word more powerfully than if there was a single grouping. 2/4
If remain parties had gone as a single slate that would have reduced their spending power and candidate reach significantly. Whilst the result could be more seats, it could nevertheless mean a lower remain % of the overall vote, since remain would have less money & reach. 3/4
Read 4 tweets
11 Jan 19
A fantastic day organised by @HenryCPorter and others; @lara_spirit and @maryftz for hosting. So many people to thank. I chaired a great panel on the hugely important issue of freedom of movement @SebDance Jane Dyball, @bellafrimpong Laura Shields @mediawhizz . A few thoughts. 1
We know that immigration was a driver of the vote to leave, whether due to perception, actual experience or lies, e.g. re-Turkey. The public is now however, waking up in ever increasing numbers (74% now in favour) to the fact that what was really at issue was free movement. 2/
This fundamental freedom is one of the most progressive developments in post-war history. It is an agent for social mobility, cultural exchange, economic growth, solidarity between countries & peoples and ultimately, for peace. 3/
Read 11 tweets
4 Jan 19
@AndrewMarr9 @MarrShow - you will recall about a year ago mentioning a letter I wrote to the PM asking her to disclose the advice she had received that Article 50 was unilaterally revocable. She refused to do so and paid 5 QCs to try and stop the ECJ ruling on the point. Why?
Please ask her why she would prefer to risk people's lives, stockpile food, send 1000 police to Northern Ireland, spend millions on fridges rather than revoke Article 50? Please ask her how badly no deal compares with remaining in the EU?
Please ask her whether she thinks if the referendum had been between a no deal scenario and remaining, 'no deal' would have won? If she is sure it would be no deal please ask her why?
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


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

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

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!

Follow Us on Twitter!