A few thoughts on this.

1) If the Government wants to agree and ratify a treaty with Rwanda, it will need to get it drafted and signed and then lay it before Parliament for 21 sitting days - unless it claims there are exceptional circumstances.

https://twitter.com/rishisunak/status/1724833146674298940

2) In those circumstances, it is hard to see why it would need to introduce ‘emergency legislation’ unless it intends to bypass the usual treaty formalities.

This, by Nick Timothy, is sufficiently extreme that it’s hard to imagine it isn’t some kind of parody seeking to discredit Conservatism.

https://twitter.com/NJ_Timothy/status/1702261458342400173

If it’s not enough that he constantly attacks the ECHR, now the Refugee Convention, written in the aftermath of the Holocaust, is from a ‘bygone age’.

My latest piece in the @spectator follows recent headlines that a number of Cabinet Ministers would like to exit the ECHR.

Unsurprisingly, I don’t think this is a great idea in principle. But I also highlight some of the practical hurdles.

spectator.co.uk/article/why-ca… As a short postscript, I note that had the word count allowed, I would have been far clearer that I think it’s almost inevitable the ECtHRs will find against the Govt on Rwanda - given that the UK would essentially be sending vulnerable people outwith the jurisdiction of the ECHR

I see that @Jacob_Rees_Mogg has been commentating on parliamentary select committees in the Mail. He argues:
“In parliamentary committees, the role of the chairman is absolutely crucial. He or she writes the draft report, appoints the lawyers and … directs the conversation.” While it is true to say that the draft reports sent out to the members of the committee is headed ‘Chair’s draft report’, it might be worth noting that in every committee that I have worked for, the report has been drafted by the impartial committee staff.

The headline to this article in the Daily Telegraph about the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is very loaded and not completely accurate - but it highlights two important truths. (Short 🧵)

telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/… First, for those people who imagine that there is a quick and easy way to begin to undo Brexit in the next Parliament, I am afraid that isn’t true (even if it were on offer by one of the main political parties).

This headline about a Tory ‘rebellion’ is quite bizarre. Less than 10% of the House of Commons appears to support measures which would breach international law (or leaving the European Convention on Human Rights)… bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi… … Sunak has no reason to treat this seriously since such proposals do not have the backing of a single opposition party, and he is under no real pressure.

On the proposed ban on nitrous oxide, I understand from @politico that a recent Home Office review stopped short of banning the substance, but Gove insisted today the government would go ahead anyway… …This illiberal focus on the use of substances ignores the fact that prisons are full, the criminal justice system has such a backlog that it is all but broken, and that criminalising drugs has not been shown to work in the past.

In response to a rather tongue in check post this morning, about why @BorisJohnson said he had not taken legal advice prior to making statements in the Commons, this popped up in my responses… Obviously, it’s just a claim from the Opposition, rather than a statement from the former PM. But it would be interesting to know if this actually happened given that at the hearing Johnson said he didn’t speak to the then AG or Government lawyers. @SuellaBraverman ?

Lovely to speak to @StigAbell on @TimesRadio this morning about the aftermath of the @HoCPrivileges hearing with @BorisJohnson and what might happen next. In short, I thought Johnson stuck fairly doggedly to his story yesterday. While he became tetchy, and even angry at one stage, arguably there was no explosive revelation.

Interesting to see Speaker’s Counsel (Saira Salimi) - the most senior lawyer in the @HouseofCommons - in the Committee Room advising the Committee. As I suggested might happen in April last year - the oath has been administered to Mr Johnson. This is unusual and is serious matter.
See:👇
newstatesman.com/comment/2022/0…

Having spent much of yesterday reading Boris Johnson’s evidence, a few things struck me about his defence - which I’ll try to explain below (Short 🧵) /1 Obviously, it is clear that he is trying to pass much of the blame onto his adviser, to seek to avoid a finding that he deliberately misled Parliament. The Committee will have to take its own view on that issue. /2

The @HoCPrivileges has released the second opinion from Lord Pannick KC and Jason Pobjoy this morning. It is an interesting read which demonstrates how far the Committee has acted in order to ensure @BorisJohnson gets a fair hearing.

committees.parliament.uk/publications/3… Notably, counsel acknowledge the fact that Mr Johnson has been told the case against him (set out in the Committee’s interim report); and that anonymous witness evidence won’t be used.

On the question of the standard of proof that should be used when assessing Boris Johnson’s conduct at the hearing on Weds, it’s worth reading the report of the inquiry into the conduct of the late Lord Lester QC. publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ld… Lord Lester QC was accused of, arguably, much more serious allegations. Lester contended that “the standard of proof should be a high civil standard commensurate with the gravity of the allegation.”

If this is true, it is another remarkable set of claims. (Short 🧵)

First, it’s far from clear to me why Mr Johnson should expect a different standard of proof to be used in his case. I’ve noted this repeatedly, but it is not a criminal trial with criminal sanctions.

https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1637740595010478080

On the question of fairness, a number of additional steps have been taken by the Committee:
1) The hearing has been made public. This is v unusual (I think unprecedented in my career);
2) The Committee has been advised by a Court of Appeal judge on its procedures…

I spoke to @DArcyTiP on Today in Parliament (@BBCRadio4 yesterday) about Boris Johnson, the Privileges @HoCPrivileges investigation, & what we might expect from the unprecedented hearing on Weds. You can listen to the discussion here at 12m 50s. bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0… (Short 🧵) A public hearing like this is very unusual and reflects the unprecedented nature of the fact that the Committee is investigating a former Prime Minister for something he is alleged to have done whilst in office.
/2

Good to see the @LordsEUCom Protocol Sun-Committee taking an interest in the Windsor Framework.
There is clearly a typo in the deadline for submissions. But it highlights the fact that this proposed amendment to the Protocol is unlikely to receive adequate parliamentary scrutiny.

https://twitter.com/lordseucom/status/1636670141566967808

I say this because the Government plans to pass the statutory instrument implementing the Windsor Framework in the Commons next week - and thus any report produced by the Committee will not feed into this process.

Every time a Minister in the current Government indicates that they are “prepared to consider leaving the ECHR” the media and the Opposition should ask them two questions. (1) How is this compatible with U.K. obligations under the Good Friday Agreement? telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/… And (2) What impact will this have on policing and justice co-operation with the European Union? (The answer to the latter being potentially enormous because the Trade and Co-operation Agreement permits the EU to terminate co-operation if the U.K. leaves the ECHR).

While I am not surprised to read that there are moves end the @CommonsIntTrade in May, I agree with @DavidHenigUK that this is a short sighted move and a mistake.

https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1635690332653338625

Unlike the @UKHouseofLords, which has a dedicated treaty scrutiny committee (@HLIntAgreements) the @HouseofCommons has few mechanisms for scrutinising international agreements.

An update from the @HoCPrivileges ahead of their evidence session with @BorisJohnson later this month:
It includes a summary of the issues the Committee intends to raise with him.
committees.parliament.uk/committee/289/… Notably, the Committee has indicated that:

1) “Mr Johnson has not provided us with a written submission as we invited in our letter of 21 July.”

A few thoughts on the Windsor Framework, as promised yesterday. (A longish 🧵 which considers which issues appear to have been resolved, which remain unaddressed, and what happens next). /1 The Government’s Command Paper highlights a number of issues with the Protocol, including disruption in trade links between GB and NI and concerns about the implications of the arrangements for democratic governance. /2

Delighted to see the U.K. Government won’t be proceeding with the NI Protocol Bill. A real win for the rule of law in the U.K. Meanwhile, the U.K.Govt has announced that “in turn, the EU will not proceed with with the seven separate legal actions it has launched against the United Kingdom”. (Para 75). assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…