Another informative thread on the Borders Bill. Those of you who want to write to their MPs about the Bill - which you should, if your MP isn’t already opposing it - can find lots of useful and accurate information here (and earlier in my timeline from the JCWI and Law Society).
Even you have a wildly pro Patel Tory MP, ask for an assurance that s/he will press for an amendment to clause 38(2) …
… so as to make it clear beyond doubt that anyone (such as the RNLI) who rescues asylum-seekers at sea and brings them to the U.K. is outside the scope of the offence of facilitating asylum seekers’ arrival in the U.K.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Really good piece by @samfr. He is on the nail in tying up the problem of dysfunction and poor procurement at the centre (Cummings’ thesis) with over-centralisation and weak, resource-less local government (very much not Cummings’ thesis).
I’d add one important thought to both @samfr and @MarcusIPPR’s paper. The weakness of local government is not an accident: it is a morbid symptom of our current constitutional arrangements.
A couple of comments on Johnson’s speech on levelling-up. I’m interested here in the constitutional issue: centralisation.
This is right (odd metaphors aside). Centralisation is a real problem.
It’s not obvious to me what this means or where it’s going. The first sentence appears to suggest giving other mayors the powers of the London mayor. But it’s worth noting how limited the London Mayor’s powers are compared to the powers of mayors in other big cities in Europe/US.
One possible answer to the West Lothian Question now abandoned. (The WLQ is why 🏴 and 🏴 MPs should vote on 🏴 - only laws (eg Covid restrictions when 🏴 MPs can’t vote on equivalents in 🏴 and 🏴.)
The duty is to be found in s.1 of the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015.
That duty applies all the time. But if it isn’t complied with the Secretary of State must explain what has gone wrong (see (3) and what is being done to correct it (4)).
So far, 3 days later, no response from @ukhomeoffice. Assertions that the proposed offence doesn’t cover the RNLI rescuing asylum seekers at sea and landing them safely on shore aren’t any use without an explanation of why that is so.
Also, note the wording. What about individuals or shipping companies rescuing people in distress at sea? What, exactly, are the boundaries of the conduct to which this offence is said not to apply? What, for example, is meant by “distress” (would overcrowding be enough?)
Before you can answer those questions - important questions given the seriousness of the offence and the need to prevent loss of life at sea - you need to know where the alleged exception comes from and its legal basis.