A discussion between @bricksilk and @JoshuaRozenberg that suggests that clause 1 of the JR and Courts Bill (remedy may be prospective-only) may be less harmful that feared. Watch this space, though.
Interesting to note that the MoJ press release chose to highlight this somewhat lukewarm endorsement from Ekins, of the Judicial Power Project (sometimes referred to as the Executive Power Project).
Pretty clear from that that he would have wanted to go much further (and indeed at the end eggs Parliament on to go further).
Not clear why the MoJ chose to highlight this less than gushing endorsement. Is it a wink/veiled threat to various audiences that more may follow? Or are we supposed to be reassured by how “limited” all this is?
While on the Judicial/Executive Power Project, worth retweeting this thread.
A reminder that an agreement with the EU on food health standards wouldn’t just help in relation to the NI Protocol: it would make 🇬🇧 food exports to all our close neighbours easier.
It would also reduce the costs and difficulties (which will be reflected in prices) that U.K. importers of food from the EU will soon face.
Since the current government promises not to reduce food standards and is unable to explain what (if any) divergence from EU standards it actually wants, its case against is pure dogma, unleavened by any consideration of U.K. public interest.
On the day on which the current government’s Bill on judicial review comes out, this is a really important article by Paul Craig on why there is no foundation for its claims, backed by its outriders in the Judicial Power Project, about “judicial overreach”.
As it may be TLDR I will try to pull out the key points.
The JPP’s speciality is to produce short and misleading summaries of so-called problematic cases. But in looking at these, you need a sense of scale. There are ‘000s of JR cases over decades. What does a list of ~50 selected cases tell you, when you stand back?
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.
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).
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.