My overall thoughts on these: better to have three sets of regulations and then apply them to areas, rather than making new ones every time you bring in new areas. But, the idea that public and police will digest and understand these hugely complex rules is I think farcical...
And these regulations read as if, and I’m pretty sure this is what has happened, they have been drafted by an increasingly large but slightly random committee. There are so many exceptions, they become almost impossible to know or enforce...
I am not anti-lockdown, or even anti using criminal laws to enforce parts of a lockdown, but I don’t see in reality how these will encourage people to behave in specific ways, rather than confusing and overwhelming them
Another thought: these regulations, even the “very high” tier ones, are far far less onerous than the original lockdown regulations from 26th March which closed most businesses and told us we couldn’t leave the house without a very limited list of reasonable excuses
They may not even really be called lockdown regulations, they are more like “encouraging social distance” regulations. A number of parts demonstrate, to me having followed these closely, a loss of nerve and belief that regulations really work.
You can just sense, with 17 (now) detailed exceptions to the gatherings restrictions, and the pretty ridiculous pubs are closed not closed table meal exception, that the government no longer believes these really work, or cannot agree if they do. So what, really, is the point?
One thing that I am fairly certain of is that these will be in large part ignored by most people, including police, except perhaps the most important or well communicated messages. They are not “laws“ in the sense that other laws are laws, but may degrade trust in law generally
Problem with making everything law is you lose the opportunity to give people discretion and make them think for themselves. That’s because you can’t leave it to chance someone will be criminalised for doing something which is fine, so you have to add exception after exception
Ultimately, with a society-wide need to encourage social distancing, a huge amount has to be left to people’s discretion. You can’t prescribe every intricacy of 65 million lives. At first there was a mix of carrot and stick, discretion and enforcement. Now it’s all law
As any parent knows, it’s only by giving discretion and focusing on values/principles, that you prompt consistently good behaviour. Setting rules has its place but is only a small part of influencing behaviour. I feel values have receded, replaced with ever more intricate laws
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Does the Welsh Assembly have the power to do this? Does it fit within its devolved health powers to ban people from parts of England, Northern Ireland and Scotland? Genuinely unsure how bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-…
I doubt the Welsh coronavirus regulations could bind people not in Wales, so it would be something like "anyone from a Tier 3 are in England may not be in Wales". I can see how a person from England could be bound by restrictions in Wales, but to be prevented from entering?
Potential discrimination (on basis of nationality) argument, but also it sounds a lot like border powers rather than health. Does Wales control its borders (sorry, I don't know this)
Agreed - the new rules are not simpler (each tier is about 12,000 words and 30 pages) though in the medium term they may be simpler, geographically, for people to understand. Easier to know you are "Tier 1" than in some random collection of laws somewhere nobody can find...
But key point is that even the "very high" tier is hardly different to the current harshest regulations. Pubs and restaurants are hardly closing, the gatherings rules are almost exactly the same - so plainly there will need to be harsher rules soon if the govt wants them to be
One positive development is that there now seems to be a willingness by government, finally, to put these rules - and hopefully any future changes to them - to parliament for a vote. Won't be a chance to amend, and reality is they will be passed by large majority, but it's better
Parliament should be given a *prior vote on the three tier system and where it is initially to apply. The government said that significant measures would from now on be debated and voted in parliament
This is why - laws which bypass parliament are open to abuse and illiberal outcomes. Parliamentarians should be screaming about this otherwise what is the point of them?
The Prime Minister has confirmed that the new three-tier regulations will be laid before Parliament today and debated and voted on tomorrow - before coming into force on Wednesday. This is progress, but won't give opportunity to amend, only to vote 'yes' or 'no'
Not commenting on whether the restrictions are fair or not, but some positives here:
- 3 tiered system likely better and simpler than hodgepodge of local/national rules. Easier to understand, explain, advertise
- consultation with local mayors better than secret decisions...
- Sounds like the 3 tiers will be subject to a parliamentary vote, hopefully before coming into force.
Cautiously, this does sound like a better approach than the fairly random, secretive and largely unscrutinised (by Parliament) one we have had for the past 6 months
Also, if there are 3 tiers which are relatively well-known, it will be harder to change them iteratively and regularly without parliamentary/public buy-in. Entirely possible that govt will carry on using executive decree but the signal is positive in my view