A useful thread, that explains how limited the Scottish Act is.

However, it is still wrong in principle and a retrograde step.

Why?

/1

https://twitter.com/MarkaaWalters/status/1771244785321259123

The law is justified in criminalising conduct where it sets back the ability of others to lead independent lives.

Abuse, however serious, doesn't alone do that. I set out my view here



/2spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2015/10/06/onl…

Sumption making in print the case for withdrawal from the ECHR.

It is politicaly significant that this has become a "respectable view", and so what does Sumption get right, and what does he get wrong?



/1spectator.co.uk/article/judgme… First

"Many of the rights which the convention proclaims were part of British law long before the convention was conceived."

Thios is often said, both by opponents and proponents, of the ECHR. Did we have this before long before?

No. It is nonsense.

/2

Matthew is clearly right to this extent, the founding case on privacy in the UK, Campbell v MGN is appallingly reasoned.

The HL gave two reasons for a right to privacy, neither of which is convincing.

/1

https://twitter.com/MWHoyle19/status/1678767953855250435

First they said the old law of confidence has shaken off its limits and now mandated such a right.

Complete claptrap.

/2

This excellent thread is good explanation as to why if your interested in reducing the congestion, pollution, accidents etc caused by cars, focussing on number of trips is wrongheaded.

But there is another reason.

/1

https://twitter.com/Graham8digits/status/1613897491929518081

What matter for externalities is the number of cars on the road at any given time, and slashing short trips in half won't even make a noticeable dent in that.

But worse. The major problems arise at the rush hours in most places.

/2

This statement does go too far. There are some fairly limited commercial uses for blockchain that have been found (international sales documents, documentary securities).

And that adds to the problem.

/1

https://twitter.com/smdiehl/status/1629829382884794370

Because of those (very clever, but fairly limited) uses, supporters of complete crap like cryptocurrencies and NFTs say "why not us too"

/2

If you're familiar with the judges of our appellate courts, the claim that they're the lackeys of the government is as laughable as the idea that they're the enemies of the people.

/1

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1628816102955315201

Robert Reed is one of the very greatest judges we've ever had. He's a Scottish public lawyer, and so by nationality and specialism different from me.

He deliberately presents as grey and a bit dull.

/2

In order to assist law reform bodies, in the UK and elsewhere, what would a useful law reform look like in relation to cryptocurrencies (and crypto assets more generally)?

A modest proposal.

/1 Two uses have been discovered for Crypto

1. Fraud. It enables wealth not only to be taken off shore but outside of any legal system anywhere

2. Gambling. "Investors" are betting the price will go up as others buy in.

/2

Crypto (very technical legal thread).

Why do declarations of trust by brokers of unallocated crypto assets fail for want of certainty (ie why crypto is different from shares, receivables and intangible rights).

/1 If I own 100 sheep and declare "I hold the right to 10 of my sheep on trust for you" that will fail for want of certainty.

I haven't identified the particular rights in relation to which sheep that I am to hold on trust.

/2

Although this will be popular, it seems to me to be spectacularly wrong and dangerous.

Economic growth just doesn't require the consumption of more resources and the release of more CO2. Indeed developed countries show that is obviously untrue.
/1
theguardian.com/commentisfree/… The UK's CO2 emissions have dropped dramatically from the peak of the early 1970s, to around where they were in the 1860s.

NB that *isn't* because weve off shored the polluting activities (eg manufacturing).

/2

ourworldindata.org/co2/country/un…

Others will say this, but the most important change is the complete removal by the Bill of the obligation to interpret legislation compatibly with the ECHR.

This raises two very difficult legal questions.

/1 Independently of the HRA. the courts try to interpret UK law (both the common law and legislation) so as not to place the UK in breach of international law.

It is in this indirect way that international law can have an impact in UK domestic law.

/2

IF the government had or has substantive issues with, say, the law of privacy or the duties of public bodies to individuals in carrying out particularly duties, the way to deal with that is *through specific legislation*.

/1 Instead, under this badly drafted Bill, courts are supposed to give "great weight" to freedom of expression or the authorities ability to carry out its functions?

What does that *mean*?

/2

We've heard much about why the NI Protocol Bill would place the UK in breach of its obligations under international law.

The same is true of the (ludicrously titled) Bill of Rights Bill. It will put the UK in consistent breach of art 13 of the ECHR.

/1 By art 13, signatory states are under an obligation
to ensure
"Everyone whose [ECHR] rights and freedoms are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."

/2

Couple of things on the theory of human rights.

First by Raz. (Which I find convincing).

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

Second by @JTasioulas (which is an important critique, but which I don't go all the way with)

corteidh.or.cr/tablas/libro6-…

/1 The rhetoric of "human rights" appeals to the idea that they reflect the rights we have simply by virtue of being human.

We should reject the sixth-form relativism of those who deny that there are such rights as a matter of law.

/2

A view that you see a lot is that your vote only matters in a marginal because it is only there that it "makes a difference".

That is wrong.

Why do individual votes matter?

/1 Virtually no single vote in a UK General Election makes a difference to the outcome of a seat. They are almost all always won with a majority of greater than two. The chances of your vote making any difference to any result is vanishingly small.

/2

Say you lived in a society with a first past the post electoral system.

In the last election, Evil Party won with 10 million votes. Slightly Less Evil Party won with 9 million votes, and a variety of Not At All Evil parties won 8 million votes.

In this election how to vote?

/1 Applying the clever utilitarian calculus of, say, @sjwrenlewis and others, you'd choose to vote tactically, as many people at the previous election did.

That indicates a choice for Slightly Less Evil Party. The lesser of two evils.

/2

Yes.

The ERG has won.

Albeit by abandoning the Unionists and imposing a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

/1

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1185555652657238017

Brexit has shown the unfortunate strength of the party system. There was a large cross party majority for a softer Brexit than this, but it couldn't be constructed because no opposition MPs, save for really committed Brexiteers would vote for a "Tory Brexit".

/2

This is, naturally, stupid but does illustrate why any change to our constitution is difficult, and why any Big Bang codification would be counter-productive.

/1

https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1172414426508492800

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act is a straightforward simple piece of legislation, that is very well drafted.

It is however constantly misrepresented, and blamed frequently by all sides.

Why?

It is new.

/2

Ok, so this is depressing.

So what can we say to be optimistic?

Three things.

First, it is good to have a discussion so that we know where we are, and know what might work to stop no deal and what won't in advance of the Commons returning.

/1

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1161264388810170368

Second numbers. Cooper-Letwin passed by one, new legislation will have to go further, and opposition among Tories looks soft

But, there are anti-no dealers who were in May's cabinet, now sacked, who followed the government whip to oppose then, but who won't follow Johnson.

/2

As simply as possible, why won't legislation along the lines of the first Cooper-Letwin Bill that became the European Union Withdrawal Act 2019 work to stop no deal Brexit, and what is the alternative?

/1 What that Act did *not* do was compel the government to agree to an extension of art 50.

This is because when the government asks "please can we have and extension" the EU27 didn't and won't respond "fine".

/2

Short thread on the PM's duty to resign, and Cummings' nonsense from the weekend.

Or how to stop no deal Brexit.

/1 First, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is of no relevance on the PM's duty to resign. It fixes Parliaments, not governments (see its name).

The Act makes Cummings' wheeze harder as the PM has no control over election date, Parliament does.

/2

Johnson's line that the Withdrawal Agreement will be renegotiated surely won't hold beyond next week?

Won't the press start emphasising that no discussions whatsoever are taking place, not even bilateral ones between heads of government? I don't think Johnson can meet Merkel, Macron and so on, as would be usual at this point, because he'll be told on camera that the deal is non-negotiable. And people will notice.