1/ @MarcusFysh is an MP. He is an elected representative. As an elected representative he has a code of conduct to adher to which includes acting with integrity, openness, accountability and honesty publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cm…
2/ @MarcusFysh has been ranting about the House of Lords because they have been exercising Parliamentary Sovereignty. @MarcusFysh does not like this because that is not the right sort of Parliamentary Sovereignty he had in mind when arguing for Brexit.
3/ @MarcusFysh would appear to have also misunderstood the purpose of the specific amendment the House of Lords voted in favour of and seems to ignore that the amendment is not (yet) binding in law.
4/ Instead @MarcusFysh tweets a series of inaccurate views and then is rightly challenged by @JMPSimor
5/ @JMPSimor may be against Brexit (which @MarcusFysh could choose to argue with separately) but is an expert on public and regulatory law and so @MarcusFysh would do well to consider why his views are being challenged on legal matters.
6/ Here is @JMPSimor 's CV matrixlaw.co.uk/member/jessica…
If ever there was someone to listen to and consider their arguments on public law, it would be @JMPSimor
If ever there was someone to listen to and consider their arguments on public law, it would be @JMPSimor
7/ But no, @MarcusFysh decides to attack @JMPSimor for being a *faux* expert. I am no expert but I am pretty sure you don't get to become a QC if you are a *faux* expert on legal matters.
8/ Indeed if you look at @JMPSimor you will see @JMPSimor was on the Attorney General's A Panel Of Counsel. Here is a link to what qualifications and expertise you need to get on this panel: gov.uk/government/new…
9/ Specifically it says: "Members of the A panel deal with the most complex government cases in all kinds of courts and tribunals including the Supreme Court"
10/ So when @MarcusFysh attacks @JMPSimor for being a *faux* expert one has to question whether he is attacking his own Government for using such an expert for legal advice
11/ All of this is not to say that @JMPSimor views have to be accepted as gospel but they do merit very serious consideration on issues of public law.
12/ But @MarcusFysh instead chooses to question why @JMPSimor is a QC and says she appears "stupid or disingenuous". Instead of engaging with the public law argument, @MarcusFysh chooses to attack the individual and engage in name calling.
13/ One may wonder why an elected representative feels the need to engage in name calling when challenged on an opinion and whether that is really appropriate behaviour for an MP
14/ One could summise that @MarcusFysh realises his argument is weak and he does not have a credible robust position that withstands scrutiny and is lashing out like a 4 year old.
15/ Or one could summise he is abusing his position as an MP to spread deliberate untruths (and has been found out). That would not really be in the spirit of his code of conduct would it?
16/ If @MarcusFysh has got this far in my thread, perhaps he may like to read @StevePeers analysis of the amendment
17/ Naturally if @MarcusFysh disagrees (as he is free to do) he *should* tweet a detailed legal analysis of his position thereby advancing the overall debate about the scope and impact of the amendment
18/ He should also tweet @JMPSimor an apology for the name calling.
19/ @MarcusFysh what will it be? I would hate to think your tweets on the amendment and about @JMPSimor reflected your true colours....
