Just finished #EmergencyState & some thoughts.

I really enjoyed it, & it’s a real feat managing to distill so much in such an accessible, readable & intellectually wide-ranging way. I hope he writes more books along these lines. My particular interest is in one theme in the book: why were such draconian laws given so little scrutiny, even taking account of the emergency conditions? Hence, partly at least, why much of it was so poor, & misunderstood, including by the police & Government itself.

Two factors contribute to current political instability in the UK: Brexit, & the election of party leaders by their members.

Something connects them: both have - separately & together - weakened parliamentary democracy. 1/ It should be uncontroversial to claim that Parliament is the UK’s supreme legal authority, & that a PM derives authority from it. And it should follow that democratic authority derives from the election of MPs. But that has been undermined by both developments. 2/

Behind the nonsense of this, I think some valid points are revealed here. 1/11

https://twitter.com/peteratcmc/status/1556594981791584257?s=20&t=ArRSckpvW3u3QwKa1-n0BA

Note to start with this "duty of care" to members. So how, for example, has the Board justified the use of party funds to bail out its leader's flat redecoration, and for his legal fees in fighting off allegations of preferential treatment for his lover? 2/

There's some dispute on the relevant test for determining the PM's investigation by the Privileges Committee, & whether it's able to reach a proper conclusion. Some thoughts here. 1/12 An example of muddled thinking was this article, which has now been comprehensively taken apart by in threads by @BarristerSecret, @GeorgePeretzQC & @AdamWagner1 yesterday. I think a couple of points arising are worth further consideration. 2/
spectator.co.uk/writer/steven-…

Boris Johnson’s supporters claim that his 1st FPN penalty isn’t serious enough to justify his removal from office. How does that square with the requirement in the Ministerial Code to comply with the law, & what’s the constitutional significance? Some thoughts. 1/13 Here’s the relevant part of the Code.

IMV reflects an unwritten understanding that’s part of the constitution: given the role of Government, which involves proposing, making, & overseeing the enforcement of laws, its ministers shouldn’t act in a way that undermines the law. 2/

Did the PM “knowingly mislead” Parliament regarding his account of the 20 May 2020 event? The Gray inquiry won’t determine that issue, as it’s out of scope, but likely to consider relevant evidence (in determining disciplinary matters etc). Some things to look out for. 1/ The relevant part of Johnson’s statement is here. Note it’s silent on what Johnson understood about the event before it took place. 2/

Thoughts on the correspondence released between Lord Geidt & Boris Johnson, on issues not being focussed on by the media currently. 1/17 gov.uk/government/pub… Follows my views on the initial report. 2/

https://twitter.com/inkspringed/status/1398345993423306760

This is an extraordinary report. 1/

gov.uk/government/pub… The relevant payments concern refurbishment of the flat, spending on which, apart from the £30k allowance, must be met by the PM. But note the reference here to official parts of No10, which is irrelevant. Muddies the waters. 2/

I think voter ID is sensible. I’m aware most people I’d normally agree with would disagree on this. I know there’s limited evidence of ‘electoral fraud’, & it gives the Conservatives an advantage. And fair points in the thread below. But... 1/10

https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1362039068683550721

It’s true there are few convictions for relevant offences (in particular here, ‘personation’ under s60 RPA 1983). See this Electoral Commission report: electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and…. But opinions vary on how much goes undetected. It’s not a high priority for the police. 2/10

While we watch events anxiously in the US, how robust is our own electoral system? I suspect few people are aware that the UK Law Commissions recently produced a report on electoral law, which isn't encouraging. 1/11 This is it: s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-st….

And here's the introduction. 2/11

This judgment on the coronavirus regs looks odd to me. Firstly ruling that the challenge to restrictions is ‘academic’. Secondly the basis for ruling that the Govt had power to make them. 1/9

https://twitter.com/adamwagner1/status/1280135910613569537

‘Academic’ the court said because the regs have been superseded. But there was still an unprecedented deprivation of liberty, prosecutions & other significant consequences flowing from the initial regs. Is the Govt protected from JR by virtue of amending regs regularly? 2/9

Several lawyers have claimed today that either Mr Cummings didn't contravene the lockdown regulations, or that there's no real evidence that he did. Here's an example:

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1264171237586153478?s=20

. Under the law at the time (reg.6 SI 2020/350), he could only leave his home if he had a 'reasonable excuse'. Examples of such excuses were listed in the regulations. None of those appear to apply to the reasons he and the Govt have given for his trip.