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”.
In the context of a deadly disease, with eg funeral attendance strictly limited, it’s hard to see how gathering for a bit of Johnson “boostering” counts as “reasonably necessary”.
Had Johnson been in any doubt, or cared about compliance, expert legal advice was on tap.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
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.