The SI it refers to revokes the recognition *in the UK* of the EU common ski instructor test: legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1038… (see (a)).
But - obviously - that doesn’t affect anything happening in the EU. The reason why training UK national ski instructors have to get their Eurotest qualification in December is that as a matter of EU law the regulation setting up that test applies only to EU nationals.
But that is one of several aspects of the UK’s position that gives the lie to the “But we only want a 🇨🇦 deal” protestations of the current government. And it isn’t clear what is going to be agreed here.
If there is no FTA, or no FTA including MRQ, that will be because the current government has decided to sacrifice MRQ on the altar of its ideological obsessions with eg subsidy control.
Also NB that MRQ wouldn’t help young Brits who want to work in the French ski industry over the winter: your qualification may be recognised, but without agreement on mobility, you won’t be able to get a work permit.
NB: my family’s resident expert in skiing qualifications tells me that most EU countries recognise various international ski instructor qualifications. Except - as you might have guessed - France.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Really, as the Torygraph’s chief political correspondent, @christopherhope should know that senior civil servants are *already* subject to performance reviews. This is basic.
Also, it is a myth (derived from one of the less accurate episodes of “Yes, Minister” that Ministers are forbidden from talking to (or “quizzing”) “junior civil servants”.
The real story - which @christopherhope may have missed - would be if Patel (after several years as a Minister) or her Spads still haven’t cottoned onto the fact that senior civil servants have performance reviews or that she can talk to junior civil servants if she wants to.
Preliminary and important observation: I cannot speak for the accuracy of Matthew’s story - and like any journalistic account, it doubtless leaves out much of relevance. In particular, the case for a lockdown probably didn’t really depend wholly on the 4,000 deaths/day estimate.
So let’s make this a bit abstract (but as the story shows, a realistic abstraction).
But there is on any view serious cause for concern about the untransparent spending of huge sums of public money on entities with links to ministers and advisers. The BBC should be reporting this: and I simply don’t understand why it isn’t. @bbclaurak@bbcnickrobinson.
At the very least, one of the BBC’s excellent legal correspondents could be allowed to report near the top of a flagship BBC programme on the current legal actions, explaining what they are about and where they have got to (permission having been granted in at least one case).
Not sure that @timothy_stanley knows what he is talking about. Neither reducing the no. of judges nor “bringing in specialists” amounts to “rolling back” “Blair era” reforms. The HoL judicial committee had the same number of judges as now, and were no less (or more) “specialist”.
Entirely unclear what “specialist” means here, anyway. Though some have argued that there are too many commercial lawyers and not enough crime/family specialists.
The article is a mess anyway: perhaps because whatever is being discussed is also a mess.
Well, quite. Though note that the job was originally (in 1998) given to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in different clothes).
Since the judiciary don’t want to be settling political arguments raising no real legal issues (and they don’t, and dispose of them fast), what’s the problem?