A rebalancing clause, a review clause, an ECHR kill switch... will investors, having regard to our volatile politics and disregard for the rule of law, want to bet on the trade deal remaining in place?
It would be nice to think Government might now listen to the scientists who have been warning for months that it is dangerous for it to misuse lateral flow tests in such a way that they deliver huge numbers of false negatives.
This ITV report from 10 September identified the problems that have come to pass. But Government nevertheless pressed on. itv.com/news/2020-09-1…
On 17 September lawyers for @GoodLawProject wrote to Government asking for an explanation of who gave the go ahead for the programme and why with these weird counterparties. We have issued proceedings but three months later still have no good explanation. crowdjustice.com/case/operation…
"Failing to act will result in natural catastrophes and changing weather patterns, as well as significant economic damage, supply chain disruption and displacement of populations": @AlokSharma_RDGcrowdjustice.com/case/heathrowh…
Earlier this year, @GoodLawProject brought litigation to force Government to review its planning policy in relation to Energy infrastructure because that policy predated its June 2019 NetZero 2050 commitment.
We believe there is a similar challenge to be brought in relation to Heathrow Airport expansion. The reasoning of the Supreme Court earlier this week is explicitly confined to the state of the world as it existed in June 2018 - before the NetZero target.
I was wondering what kind of a 'Christian' you'd have to be to look at people not having food to eat and be outraged that UNICEF was feeding them. But then I remembered when Rees-Mogg said that the people who died at Grenfell died because they lacked his commonsense.
(This is absolutely not an attack on the Church, by the way. I am not religious but we live very near a church and I know full well the incredible work @churchofengland does in my parish.)
This promise to focus on "increasing openness and transparency" can't have been made by a Cabinet Minister whose advisor scooped the jackpot in the VIP lane she refuses to come clean about? Can it?
Reader, it can.
It's from Liz Truss' speech boldly entitled "Fight for Fairness" (fairness here meaning, one assumes, fairness for those connected to Cabinet Ministers.) #OneRuleForThem
I have to say, @trussliz, I rose to my feet in applause at this bit.
"The end of the Transition Period provides an historic opportunity to overhaul our outdated public procurement regime," writes Lord Agnew in this long awaited Green Paper assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…. If these words don't strike terror into your heart they should.
Remember, the Government's position is that no one has the ability to bring a public interest challenge to it giving contracts worth hundreds of millions to its mates. Only disaffected bidders, Government says, can bring those challenges.
We don't yet know whether Government's position is right. The position of the Administrative Court so far, is that it is arguable we do have standing. But we have no *financial* interest in pursuing procurement claims in the public interest.