Good reminder that (shades of Watergate and many other career-ending scandals) the issue of whether Johnson deliberately misled the HoC in the cover-up is at the heart of the matter.
I’d add that I cannot see how this particular claim on 1/12/21 - given his already admitted participation in and hence knowledge of some of the “gatherings” (the key concept) - could have been anything other than deliberately misleading.
As Alexander says, the constitutional position when Ministers deliberately mislead the HoC is quite clear. They have to resign.
And that isn’t a technical nicety: just as rules against deliberately misleading a court are fundamental to our justice system, so the rule that Ministers do not deliberately mislead Parliament is fundamental to Parliament’s (and so our) ability to hold the executive to account.
I’d add, though, that the fact that the law doesn’t prescribe any particular consequences to MPs for a criminal breach resulting in a fixed-penalty notice doesn’t remove the *political* seriousness of a finding of such a breach.
Johnson was (rightly) among those who urged us to take these rules far more seriously than (say) parking rules. To make immense sacrifices in keeping to the rules so as to protect everyone else against a deadly disease.
Sue Gray put the point well.
It is true that the *law* would not require Johnson to resign either for lying to Parliament or for breaching Covid rules. No court would or could hear such a claim.
But our constitution is, as we are often told, a political as much as a legal one.
Those who regard that as one of its great virtues - probably most Tory MPs - also have to accept the high responsibility that comes with that. In particular, that they have a duty firmly to enforce the political standards on which our constitution depends.
Also, on the often-heard claim that a Covid regulation fixed-penalty notice is like a parking fine: as Adam points out, that is (in law) false.
This is unlikely to work. The rules varied, but if we look at June 2020 (the “ambushed by cake” birthday sing-song, that Johnson admits attending for up to 10 minutes), the rule was that it was generally unlawful to participate in a “gathering” with people from another household.
An exception was where the gathering was “reasonably necessary for work purposes”.
So the test wasn’t “is the purpose work-related” (saying good-bye to a colleague; cheering everyone up with a birthday sing-song and cake); it was “is the gathering reasonably *necessary* for work”.
As is clear from my timeline, I don’t often agree with Lord Moylan: but I do (subject to using slightly different language every now and then) very much agree with him on this.
It is deeply unsatisfactory that we have ended up in a situation where there is a second class of citizens whose citizenship can be removed at the wide discretion of the Home Secretary.
It is also wrong that people with a right to citizenship (or, I’d add, anyone who wants to be naturalised) has to pay extraordinarily high fees - effectively a tax - to register or apply.
Claim: the Ireland/NI Protocol is “starving NI of medicines”. A very serious claim, if true. But it isn’t. Thread: and trigger warning - contains nuance and detail.
Start with some basics. Article 5.4 of and para 20 of Annex 2 to the NIP apply all EU legislation on medicines to NI. That provision overrides Article 7.1 NIP (U.K. law to govern what goes on market in NI) as Art 7.1 is subject to Annex 2.
Arts 7.3, 12 and 13 together have the result that the MHRA operates in NI in broadly the same way as the national competent authorities of EU member states do in theirs. Eg it can approve medicines in NI under EU law where national authorities can do so in the EU (most medicines)
1. These are really important and difficult policy choices. These should be made by primary legislation, scrutinised by Parliament, with those affected given a chance to be heard. Not by barely-scrutinised flicks of a Minister’s pen.
2. One other problem with the unilateral “we’ll let in products approved by countries we trust” options floated by Sam is loss of U.K. regulatory capacity and accountability. That matters when things go wrong: which, in this area, they can - very badly. Remember breast implants.
One pillar of the case for judicial review and scrutiny is that, left unchecked, all bureaucracies administering complex systems with real impact on lives will tend to this cocktail of poor decision-making, unfairness and cruelty.