Interesting passage in @katyballs’ piece about No 10’s plans to use the UK government’s new powers in the UK Internal Market Act.
The powers are here (section 50).
Money is power: if you give unfettered power to the UK government to spend effectively as it likes in 🏴 and 🏴, you affect those governments’ ability to determine priorities in areas within their competence.
Can’t help noting, though, that the EU’s “put our flag on everything we pay for”strategy can backfire: if the investment is seen to be extravagant or imposed without consulting, it alienates more than it wins over.
“Look at what the Romans have done for us” doesn’t always work as a “hearts and minds” strategy.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This attempt to contrast a “common law” approach to regulation with an EU “civil law” approach is wholly unconvincing. (And I have read the detailed paper on which it is based.) express.co.uk/comment/expres…
There is no consistent “common law” approach to regulation that fits Reynolds description of a judge-led, principles rather than prescriptive approach. Look at regulation that the UK has introduced without any EU involvement (from planning to merger control).
The idea that there is a distinctively “common law”
approach to to regulation (presumably opposed to EU law, said to be “civil law”) is a bit of a Brexiter trope. No real basis for it.
If you look at our planning control system (the basic elements of which are entirely domestic), it’s a bit hard to describe it as based on broad principles with interventions only where necessary.
And some EU legislation - eg medicines - was pretty much based on UK regulation. Indeed, most important EU regulation is characterised by a pretty heavy UK input.
The current government claims that its proposals to safeguard the ability of musicians and other creatives were devised in consultation with the sector. But its proposals were always a non-starter, for reasons explained here.
And no-one seems to know who it consulted with on its doomed proposals.
The simple fact is that it was the current government’s blinkered refusal to discuss *any* mobility arrangement with the EU - its “we are going to treat you as foreigners just like everyone else” dogma - that led to the current impasse.
Note: the freedom not to invite someone to speak at a student event because of their views is also part of the right to free speech. It is the same right used by the owners of the Daily Telegraph when they decide not to run a daily column by (eg) Owen Jones.
You could argue that some platforms are so important that that they should be offered to speakers with a balanced range of views. But then you have to explain why that applies to a student society but not to the Daily Telegraph.
Universities (as opposed to student societies) may be a harder case: they are (essentially) public bodies. You can mount a good case for saying that they must offer a diverse range of views in teaching controversial topics.
I don’t know Louise’s circumstances, but one of the problems with the Withdrawal Agreement is that it gives UK citizens living in the EU rights only in their state of residence.
This piece by @jpianomiddleton sets out the problem. The government’s explanation of how we got here was set out by the DCMS minister, Caroline Dinenage, in a debate last week on the petition about this issue. committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1…