UKIM: Government statement on notwithstanding clauses - Published 17 September 2020
"HMG will ask Parliament to support the use of the provisions in Clauses 42, 43 and 45 of the UKIM Bill, and any similar subsequent provisions, only in the case of, ..."
"... in our view, the EU being engaged in a material breach of its duties of good faith or other obligations, and thereby undermining the fundamental purpose of the Northern Ireland Protocol. Examples of such behaviour would include:"
"a. insistence that GB-NI tariffs and related provision such as import VAT should be charged in ways that are not related to the real risk of goods entering the EU single market;"
"b. such insistence under (a.) leading to a failure to reach agreement in the Joint Committee, with the result that the default provisions on tariffs between GB and NI apply;"
"c. insistence on paperwork requirements (export declarations) for NI goods going to GB, thereby compromising the principle of “unfettered access” in Article 6 of the Protocol;"
"d. insistence that the EU’s state aid provisions should apply in GB in circumstances when there is no link or only a trivial one to commercial operations taking place in NI; and"
"e. refusal to grant 3rd country listing to UK agricultural goods for manifestly unreasonable or poorly justified reasons."
"HMG confirms that in parallel with the use of these provisions it would always activate appropriate formal dispute settlement mechanisms with the aim of finding a solution through this route."
"Since then, the UK and the EU have worked constructively together through the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee. Discussions continue to progress and final decisions are expected in the coming days."
..."If the solutions being considered in those discussions are agreed, the UK Government would be prepared to remove clause 44 of the UK Internal Market Bill, concerning export declarations."...
..."The UK Government would also be prepared to deactivate clauses 45 and 47, concerning state aid, such that they could be used only when consistent with the United Kingdom’s rights and obligations under international law."...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yesterday, I asked Sir Charles Bean from @OBR_UK if he agrees analysts have not adequately taken into account the behavioural impact of coronavirus on the economy and on healthcare.
Sir Charles said the impact of the pandemic onto the economy comes through two routes…
@OBR_UK I then asked Richard Hughes, the Chair at @OBR_UK, to join me in calling on economists producing analysis of the costs to be careful not to fall into the error of miscategorising the source of harms.
Watch his response here:
@OBR_UK In my third question, I asked Andy King if he thinks it’s realistic @OBR_UK’s forecast doesn’t contain public spending on Covid from March 2022.
“That will emerge over the course of the next year as we learn more about how effectively the vaccines can be rolled out”.
1. A lack of public review: models often contain internally inconsistent and non-replicable numbers.
2. Poor characterisation of statistical uncertainty: uncertainty bounds are either not reported at all or have extremely wide ranges.
3. Non-existent or circular model validation: some scientists have argued that few healthcare models can ever be validated against reality, yet they should still be used to make decisions. Research papers can pre-suppose their own conclusions.
Lord Sumption: "SAGE is working on a case fatality rate of 0.7%. So 4,000 deaths per day equates to about 4 million new cases per week. These are Noddyland numbers. They are designed to frighten, not to inform"
@BucksCouncil 2 / I am delighted @BucksCouncil have implemented a ‘Helping Hand’ scheme, using £110,000 given for this purpose by the Government.
@BucksCouncil 3 / This bespoke, community-led scheme has focused on those who need help locally, directly seeking to help parents who might struggle during these unprecedented times.
For people trying to understand what the row is this week over coronavirus law, please see the attached summary of procedure for delegated legislation, here:
The problem is that the Government has been over-using the "rare" made affirmative procedure.
"Most SIs subject to the affirmative procedure are laid in the form of a draft SI. They are considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (JCSI)." ...
"The role of this committee is to scrutinise the SI to ensure it is legal and *does not go beyond the powers specified in the parent Act*." [emphasis mine]
The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 is subject to JR, now at appeal: