Listening to Grant Shapps on @BBCr4today: the reason for maintaining test/quarantine requirements on those who can prove that they are double vaccinated seems to be that it’s unfair to exempt them vis a vis people who can’t be vaccinated or can’t easily prove vaccination.
I don’t see how that can be a lawful basis, under public health powers, for applying quarantine to those who can prove double vaccination, if the position is that they pose no health risk sufficient to justify quarantine.
The only relevant question is danger to public health. If some people pose a significant danger and others don’t, there is no justification for imposing the requirement on those who don’t.
It’s irrelevant that it isn’t fair that people fall within the more dangerous category through no fault of their own. (Just as it’s irrelevant that it isn’t fair that people who have been exposed to COVID need to isolate because they pose a danger while others haven’t and don’t.)
Two case studies. On subsidy control, it should have been a U.K. priority to renegotiate Art 10 of the Protocol (which is going to cause problems).
But no discernible attempt was made to do that. Perhaps because that would have involved clear commitments up front that the U.K. would have its own effective subsidy control regime.
1. The thesis that the rule of law is a difficult concept that may be being over-extended has some force. But that may be because it’s being used to do jobs that in a mature constitution would have been properly articulated: such as the boundary between courts and legislature.
2. These claims are not alternatives: they can be (and are) both true. The U.K. executive in the 50s/60s had an extraordinary amount of power (Hailsham’s “elective dictatorship”). It was constrained by “good chaps” understandings of how that power would be used.
Not obvious to me that this is a legally relevant consideration in imposing quarantine on return from an amber country on the double-vaccinated under *public health* powers.
The basis for imposing quarantine on a person under section 45F of the Public Health Act 1984 is that the requirement is for preventing danger to public health.
If quarantining P isn’t justified on the basis that (unless quarantined) P poses a danger to public health, then P can’t be quarantined: it’s irrelevant that it’s “not fair in many ways” that P isn’t subject to that obligation while others (who do pose that danger) are.
Interesting set of responses to that question. The best answers note that inward mobility from the EU may not be in the national interest simply because the volume will be larger.
A series of points on the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol.
1. It sets out binding obligations under international law - as an integral part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
2. It is also incorporated into U.K. law (s.7A of the EU Withdrawal Agreement). It binds the U.K. government as a matter of domestic law (subject to legislation clearly overriding it, which would be unlikely to clear the House of Lords).
A good answer would focus on the civil service code and on Part 1 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
In favour of “boss”: Ministers’ power to manage the CS; the requirement that the CS code “to carry out their duties for the assistance of the administration as it is duly constituted for the time being, whatever its political complexion.” (ss.3(1) and 7(2)).