The U.K. is already pretty “liberal” in most sectors, so “including” really means “mostly in”. And “moving away from the EU” in that area means (a) more difficult to resolve NI Protocol issues/smoothing exports to EU and (b) political problems (food and welfare standards).
By all means advocate such agreements. But ignoring the fact that FTAs of this kind (if they do anything much at all) involve difficult policy choices and generate significant losers as well as winners is part of what has given free trade a bad name in many quarters.
See thread. It is an example what a conceptual cat’s cradle - benefiting no one but lawyers - the current government’s proposals on free speech at universities are likely to be.
And another muddle emerges from this excellent interview by @EvanHD: a student body or university will remain free simply to not invite someone to speak at all because (eg) they espouse unpleasant views (and just think about how impossible it would be to make them do so) ...
but if they invite someone who then expresses those views, they can’t disinvite them without risking litigation.
Good piece. My own suggestion would be that immigration should be removed from the security-focused Home Office and put into a new Department of Employment, along with training, employment law, and other labour force issues.
Having immigration run by a Department focused on attracting skills and talent rather than on keeping as many people out as possible would be a major improvement.
Like the @instituteforgov, which has also suggested getting immigration out of the Home Office, I’m generally sceptical of machinery of government changes.
The opening rhetoric (“protect the judiciary from being drawn into political questions”) is the standard cover for those whose real motive is to protect the executive from being held to account for the lawfulness and fairness of its decisions.
But let’s look at the detail (while remembering that that opening may foreshadow other things).
Why didn’t the current government do more to get a better deal in the TCA? My theory: taboos against going anywhere near mobility of people (very linked to services); and against asking the EU for anything for fear of having to make concessions in return.
It’s important that general political commentators like @peston get to grips with precisely what is at issue here, and don’t shove it off to legal correspondents as a technical legal matter.
Effective judicial review is about ensuring that government decisions - from small planning decisions to decisions to close down half the economy - are within the powers we (through Parliament) have given them and meet the standards of fairness and thoughtfulness that we expect.
Effective judicial review is not anti-democratic: rather, it is a vital mechanism to ensure that those whom we elect (and their officials) comply with the rules debated and set by Parliament and the standards we want them to live up to.
The Scotland Act 1998 says that legislation is outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament if it “relates to reserved matters”.
See section 29(3) in the above quote for some help as to what “relates to” means. You look at the purpose of the legislation at issue and its effect in all the circumstances.