Impartiality is part of our constitution

But it is under assault, and not in the best shape right now. Its enemy is tribalism

This thread will hopefully explain *why* we have evolved impartiality as a constitutional principle Assume for practical purposes that society splits 3 ways (subject to small fluctuations):

40% - pro Tribe A
40% - pro Tribe B
20% - No Tribe

So if you pick a Tribe, while you instantly get 40% support, you've upset the majority (60%) and you can never have majority support

Something difficult is facing the House of Commons - because of the Committee of Privileges

I want to explain a time we lawyers, and our most respected Court, faced similar difficulty

In 1999 5 Law lords sat as a single judicial panel - in judgment of a very unpopular man General Pinochet - a dictator, and a charity who oppose tyranny was a party to the case

One of the 5 judges had connections to the charity (quite vague ones, but) ones he should have disclosed - he did not

The panel published against the dictator

The connection came out

Lord Hague focuses on the personalities, he identifies some people he likes and some he dislikes

He ignores any of the actual detail or legal process

That is unhelpful - it's not a kangaroo court because of how anyone feels about individuals, but because of how it acts

https://twitter.com/WilliamJHague/status/1668586763168763904

I have written my article, focussing solely on the procedure/law and not on any individual's personality (or whether I personally like or dislike anyone)

You can find that here:

spiked-online.com/2023/06/13/bor…

I have never changed my opinion - a birthday cake in an office is and was lawful

It is 'reasonably necessary' for work

How did the incoming Labour chief of staff end up disagreeing?

How did the barrister she picked to advise her turn out to hate Boris?

telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/… It is an obvious conflict of interest to be investigating a Conservative Prime Minister while in talks to work for the Leader of Labour

A political civil service, is a broken civil service

CBAM - is the EU's new carbon tax at its border

Trouble is, no one knows how that works with Northern Ireland and Great Britain

NI is inside. As matters stand goods from GB into NI will face the tax

That is unless a UK government folds and applies all of this EU law to the UK

https://twitter.com/MChahim/status/1648283669323194368

What matters w=is whether or not you are inside the EU's ETS - and the UK left that as a whole for goods

Northern Ireland stayed in just for energy, so people assumed NI energy would at least be exempt - but that's not accepted in the text

Committee on Privileges seems remarkably unconcerned with its own work to delegitimise itself

It *chose* to:
- Ignore Lord Pannick, twice
- Change the offence after the event
- Deny fair trial
- Ignore binding parliamentary precedent
- Ignore Erskine May
- Admit secret witnesses It then chose to go on and question the accused in a way no judge would ever let me question a witness

Making statements of truth which are contested

It's Chair has already pronounced guilt, it has engaged in displays of immense pettiness and aggression toward the accused

1. The 'deal' doesn't work (as I said 28th Feb):

spectator.co.uk/article/is-ris… 2. The EU agree:

Maroš Šefčovič negotiated it for the EU - he agrees with me

Jean Claude Junker, former EU Commission President - agrees with me

https://twitter.com/SBarrettBar/status/1632479265752064001

I want to try to explain the fine-by-arbitration in the Stormont Brake

Sometimes my being a commercial lawyer is useful - I am not sure that non-commercial lawyers see this type of damages calculation

Conclusion - these are likely to be huge and ongoing fines If NI uses the brake on 1 of the new laws and IF the UK government doesn't give in to EU pressure at the Joint Committee and ignore it, THEN the EU gets to calculate its loss

Imagine it's a new EU law demanding some new safety feature and NI thinks it's silly and unhelpful

"This is bigger than Boris" is the most important thing I say

Because it seems people need telling. But what the Committee in Parliament is doing is choosing to act outside the Rule of Law and outside Justice

I try to rattle through the reasons - but please read Lord Pannick

https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1637937367544741889

Lord Pannick's first opinion can be found here - assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…

His second here - committees.parliament.uk/work/6812/matt…

(top link)

Or if you prefer your legal knowledge by whimsy 👇

(whimsy or no, tis still true - if the Windsor Framework passes)

https://twitter.com/SBarrettBar/status/1637507309541752837

Full interview on this here (remember at the time, we were protected)

We now won't be - if it passes

I think this intervention on the Hunting Trophies Bill makes an important point about how EU law will continue to apply in the UK

But I am concerned it isn't understood

Despite the UK Government passing a law to ban Hunting Trophies - they won't be banned

https://twitter.com/eastantrimmp/status/1636678608440774662

Politicians love compromises - that's what the Windsor Framework is - but a compromise doesn't work as law

The UK want to ban hunting trophies - the EU don't

There is no compromise, one side will win

Under the Windsor Framework the EU will win - it is in charge of policy

I don't understand this as law

How can you have a vote on one aspect of it?

The Northern Ireland Protocol (as it is so let's call it v.1) is incorporated

You need a vote to incorporate the new one v.2 *if* it has changed

What are they voting on? Where is the Bill?

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1636329824208683012

People will probably wave their hands and say 'oh oh, section 8C of the 2018 Act'

Let's ignore the fact section 8C doesn't require any vote and instead notice that while 8C gives broad powers to ministers, it doesn't contain a broad power to change the Protocol

The EU has been in breach of its Treaty obligations to the UK for years

It promised to not have a Rule of Law Crisis - but learned EU academics and its own top Judge agree it instead has one

Yet the UK has done nothing

https://twitter.com/SeanKellyMEP/status/1636062055999447041

The lawyers who (wrongly) said the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill was unlawful will find this difficult to explain

One side can give itself unilateral powers and the other cannot?

Your law goes bad when you surrender it to your politics

Honoured to be invited to the Legal Cheek Awards 2023 - always a treat

And chuffed to chat with the Attorney General @VictoriaPrentis who shares a passion for Social Mobility - doing brilliant work bringing young people Parliament

Selfie with @VFAnderson who got me on Twitter Thank you @legalcheek @barbri and BPP University Law School

There is a general lack of awareness of the EU action on migration

By passing power to something called Frontex, it is avoiding international law and human rights

This academic article is v helpful - "the EU can torture, kill, imprison and enslave"

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf… Whether you approve or don't approve of the UK action, or the EU action, is your personal political choice

But there is a distortion in understanding the law of what is happening if you only see (are only aware of) the UK

I have published my analysis of the proposed deal

It is not for me to endorse or condemn it. My role is to say what it does as law

As law, it empowers the EU to control a UK government of any kind and traps Northern Ireland outside the union

spectator.co.uk/article/is-ris… Delighted to be invited on the telly to discuss this already

Happy to do media and flattered to be asked

Reading - I see 'cut and paste' have been busy

But the initial point is that this is not a deal and has no legally binding effect on the UK

The threat of the NI Protocol Bill has been withdrawn in order to secure what lawyers call an agreement to agree
gov.uk/government/pub… Now law does not enforce agreements to agree

So it's not a deal and it can basically say anything - and mean nothing

I am grateful to @JohnRentoul for highlighting this error of law

It is mad fantasy to imagine that "out there" there is a court that can strike down Acts passed by the UK Parliament

No such court exists

Parliament is sovereign here and it will make whatever laws it makes

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1629411573604184070

If Ministers are being advised otherwise then the Ministers are being falsely advised

There is a remarkable ignorance about the law on this topic

It is not obviously helpful that the people purporting to speak on the law are in error of law

International law is law while we incorporate it - while we make it our law - parliament can (always could) change that

https://twitter.com/DavidGauke/status/1535661807477694464

You are wrong on the law here

I don't even need the Bill to be published, although I am waiting to read it

You need to read R (on the application of SC, CB) [2021] UKSC 26

That case alone should explain all the law on this you need - start at para 74

supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uks…

It is great news to have @BBCRadio4 recognise the ongoing EU Rule of Law Crisis

I am only one voice - lots of other lawyers have expressed their learned views, as have politicians (which I won't do)

In case it helps, here is a thread, just explaining it through my articles Germany says its court trumped EU courts. Not true and a RoL Crisis because - what is a court if you can ignore it?

"There will now be a stand-off ... because it cannot follow that EU law is sovereign in 26 member states, but not sovereign in Germany"

spectator.co.uk/article/britai…