For a liberal democratic govt to function properly, it's essential to have separation of powers so that the power is distributed to separate branches within the govt. This is one of the most basic concepts underlying the majority of modern democracies.
2/
The separation of powers limits corruption within the govt by using the system of checks & balances. If the power of judging were joined to executive power, then the person who wields such power could have the force of an oppressor. But that power has been given to Raab.
3/
“There's no liberty, if the power of judging isn't separated from the legislative & executive. If it were joined to legislative power, the power over the life & liberty... would be arbitrary... the judge would be the legislator."
Raab is in the executive (as he's Dept PM).
4/
The UK is one of the most peculiar states in the world. It is one of 3 states which do not have a written constitution, as such the separation of powers, as any law student can tell you, is fairly weak. But it exists for a purpose. To stop tyrannical rule.
5/
Our weak separation of powers was addressed by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Before, the LC acted as the head of the Judiciary, was a member of the Cabinet & presided over the HoL as its Speaker. The CRA 2005 removed the LC from his position in the Judiciary.
6/
By appointing Raab as both LC & Dept PM, we are in a precarious position. Raab is accountable to himself (so's the govt). LC's are extremely powerful and there's no way one should also be the Dept PM. One man has far too much power for any constitution to bear.
7/
With this power, Raab is already creating false narratives that are the type of thing that would frighten any rights loving democrat that's used to liberal democracy ordinarily protecting such rights.
With the right to protest diluted, the removal of fundamental freedoms (when the CFR was abolished after Brexit) and Raab intent on hand-picking which judicial decisions he thinks are right (in the absence of any accountability or scrutiny) authoritarianism is a real threat.
END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Last week schools made up nearly 20% of outbreaks: schools are now 2nd after carehomes
Thread 1/
This graph shows the increase in outbreaks in schools. A PHE Report (24/06) shows schools now rank above hospitals for infections. The reopening of schools is a contributing factor to an overall increase in detections outside hospitals, as outbreaks start to rise again
2/
Leicester relocks as people rush to beaches & can't wait for pubs etc. to reopen. We need to pause & think about the infectivity rate of kids as schools are set to be reopened in full by September & parents threatened with fines for non-compliance
Let's take a forensic look at #DominicCummnings conduct during lockdown. S.3 of the Ministerial Code deals with appointments of special advisers and refers to the 'Code of Conduct for Special Advisers', which states they 'must not take public part in political controversy'. 1/14
Paragraph 14 (SAs Code) is unambiguous: 'Special advisers must not take public part in political controversy, through any form of statement whether in speeches or letters to the press, or in books, social media, articles or leaflets'. They must avoid personal attacks. 2/14
In Cummings case, he has become the story - he is the political controversy. After Cummings called for 'misfits and weirdos' to apply for jobs in Downing Street, Andrew Sabisky was hired; 'superforecaster' Sabinsky later resigned for becoming the story over rascist comments.3/14
A reminder of the mendacious info supplied by the Leave campaign that persuaded millions of ppl to vote against their interests
'Benefit from better care owing to reallocated funds from the EU budget!' Yes, the big red bus!!
Just 1 of the lies in this propaganda video:
1/
Lie No. 2: Controlled immigration will result in reduced waiting times 'for you and your loved ones'....
Anyone remind them that more immigration comes from outside the EU? 😂🤣
2/
Lie No. 3: 'Excess (emphasised) funding, that would otherwise be sent to Brussels, COULD also be directed to education, meaning better prospects for your children'
What about those rights you'll be stripping from them, like the right to education itself?
3/
Ahead of Cherry and Miller (No 2) in the UKSC, I should comment on the argument of whether the crucial matters are judiciable or not. IMO they are but that needs a little explaining. This thread says why I think that it's a matter for the courts to decide.
1/18
The pivotal issue is whether the advice given to the Queen by the govt concerning the prorogation of Parliament (for 5 weeks) is lawful. Prorogation needs to be split into 2: the prorogation itself (a prerogative power) & the ancillary advice tendered to the Queen.
2/18
Prerogative powers are judiciable and the normal principles of JR should apply to the govt's exercise of prerogative powers. As such the Division Court held in error. No govt powers are unrestricted, they must be used lawfully and for legitimate reasons.
We already knew it but former UKSC judge, Lord Sumption has confirmed we're in a constitutional crisis: The govt is using prerogative powers w/out a majority in the commons. Ministers can't use such powers w/out a majority. It's a 'serious situation'.
‘The FACT is that our entire system depends on Ministers being responsible to Parliament & NOT directly to the people’. If Ministers exercise Crown powers w/out being responsible to Parliament ‘they are effectively responsible to nobody’ (Lord Sumption)
2/6
Ergo the 'will of the ppl' expressed through Parliament is how the UK constitution is geared; there is no scope for the 'will of the ppl', as expressed through a ref. Its impossible for Parliament to ask for the ppl's opinion every time an important decision needs to be made
3/6
Many academics are relying on an assessment of the normal rules of the constitution but we're facing a novel situation where solutions that 1st seem absurd can turn out to be the prefered route as the constitutional crisis unfolds. We're not dealing with black letter law.
There's a conflict between 2 differing concepts of democracy. The Westminster concept draws on Parliament’s democratic competence, the Parliamentary sovereignty & the convention that a govt holds power only to the extent that it has the confidence of the HoC.
2/10
The Whitehall version focuses on Standing Order 14 that gives priority to Governmental business in the HoC. It wants an all powerful executive based on the mandate on which it was elected with Parliament taking a passive role. That concept's been diluted by the EU(W)A 2019.
3/10