[Britse politiek] #129: What have we done...

quote:

Op dinsdag 26 juli 2022 13:10 schreef Tijn het volgende:
Er komt familie uit het Verenigd Koninkrijk naar Nederland. We kregen allemaal de vraag van m'n nicht en d'r man of ze nog iets mee moeten nemen voor ons. Werkelijk niemand kon iets verzinnen.

Dat vat brexit ook wel aardig samen

quote:

Op dinsdag 26 juli 2022 15:03 schreef SnertMetChoco het volgende:

[..]
Een Jaguar. Wel even het stuur aan de goede kant laten zetten.

quote:

Op dinsdag 26 juli 2022 15:04 schreef Tijn het volgende:

[..]
Is de pond inmiddels zover gedaald, ja?

quote:

Op dinsdag 26 juli 2022 13:10 schreef Tijn het volgende:
Er komt familie uit het Verenigd Koninkrijk naar Nederland. We kregen allemaal de vraag van m'n nicht en d'r man of ze nog iets mee moeten nemen voor ons. Werkelijk niemand kon iets verzinnen.

Dat vat brexit ook wel aardig samen

quote:

Op dinsdag 26 juli 2022 16:49 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:

[..]
Marmite

quote:

Op dinsdag 26 juli 2022 13:10 schreef Tijn het volgende:
Er komt familie uit het Verenigd Koninkrijk naar Nederland. We kregen allemaal de vraag van m'n nicht en d'r man of ze nog iets mee moeten nemen voor ons. Werkelijk niemand kon iets verzinnen.

Dat vat brexit ook wel aardig samen

quote:

Op dinsdag 26 juli 2022 21:55 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]
Je miste de grap, geloof ik, je mag geen kaas meer uit het VK meenemen naar Nederland, mijn vrouw is daar niet blij mee want die neemt altijd Welsh extra mature cheddar mee naar huis

quote:

Op woensdag 27 juli 2022 00:44 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]
Yep, kaas meenemen is verboden nu.

quote:

Op woensdag 27 juli 2022 00:48 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:
Welcome to the crazy world of Brexit

quote:

Op woensdag 27 juli 2022 00:56 schreef svann het volgende:

[..]
Dat was ten tijde van de gekkekoeienziekte ook.
Of sinds die tijd.

quote:

Op woensdag 27 juli 2022 00:47 schreef Tijn het volgende:

[..]
Leipe shit.

quote:

Op woensdag 27 juli 2022 14:21 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]
Het lijkt mij enorm onwaarschijnlijk dat de andere NAVO landen hier voor gaan stemmen.

quote:

The rules of the new politics are simple: say nothing of substance, do nothing at all

Our government has gone missing in action, though I use the term “action” loosely.

By Armando Iannucci

quote:

Instead, here the party is with the final two candidates: Rishi Sunak, who wants to be like Thatcher, and Liz Truss, who wants to look like her

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

quote:

Suella Braverman bans lawyers from telling ministers their policies are unlawful

The Attorney General has banned government lawyers from telling ministers that their policies are unlawful, The Telegraph can reveal.

In the wake of the row over the Rwanda asylum plan, guidance was sent from Suella Braverman to lawyers last week stating that they should refrain from dismissing policies as unlawful and instead give a percentage chance that they may be challenged.

It is the culmination of more than a year of growing tensions, with policy advisers viewing lawyers as overly cautious. They perceive them to be getting in the way of the Government’s policy agenda instead of thinking creatively to push through ideas.

Lawyers, who are now describing it as the “U-word”, have hit back at the policy, describing it as an affront. "It calls into question our ability to hold the Government to account. What exactly is our role now?" one said. Others warned that ministers risked breaching international law and, in turn, the ministerial code.

The issue has come to a head at the Home Office. One government source said: “If we come and say we want something, they [lawyers] come back and say it is unlawful and we think there is a 70 per cent chance of losing. They don’t go: ‘Well, there is a 30 per cent chance a judge would find it lawful so we should go for it. There will be some who say it is unlawful because of x, y, z reasons rather than: ‘How can we make a legal argument that it is lawful’?”
'Idiotic' idea

Dominic Grieve, who served as Attorney General from 2010 to 2014, described the ban as an “idiotic” idea.

“I can't really work out why this has been done," he said. "Clearly, the duty of government lawyers is always - if they're confronted with a problem, and asked whether something is likely to be successfully challenged - to give their best advice based on their understanding of the law. But if they consider that something on the basis of precedent and its nature is unlawful, they should be in a position to be able to say so.”

He added: “It seems very strange that the ‘U word’ should be removed, because, ultimately, it's still up to the Government whether it wishes to follow its lawyers’ advice. It can decide to go ahead with something which they deem to be unlawful. Indeed, this current government under the present Prime Minister has been rather keen on doing that from time to time.”

Under the new guidance, lawyers will be asked to avoid binary answers and instead state the likelihood of a challenge. They must then state the likelihood of winning or losing. Only a line manager or legal director can sign off an “unlawful” response to a policy. Insiders said the policy gave ministers grounds to pursue what they consider to be unlawful policies because nothing would ever be deemed 100 per cent unlawful unless it had already been tested in the courts.

Much of this is already expected of government lawyers. However, government sources said that some had fallen into “bad habits’ in recent years.

They said the focus was “to try to think creatively if a policy does not comply with some legal requirement, can you think of a way that does. Lawyers are very intelligent people but they forget that they can shape police outcomes if they are involved early.”

However, critics pointed out that the policy was even more problematic when applied to international law because, as in the case of treaty obligations, there may be no arbitration process and policies are unlikely to be challenged in the courts. They said this risked both reputational damage for the UK and a breach of the ministerial code, which makes clear that ministers must observe international law.

quote:

Op dinsdag 2 augustus 2022 14:27 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:
Jacob Rees-Mogg, minister for Brexit Opportunities en vooraanstaand Brexiteer vandaag op LBC:
[..]
Hoe vind je hier nog woorden voor? Homerisch gelach is het enige wat past.

quote:

Op dinsdag 2 augustus 2022 14:27 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:
Jacob Rees-Mogg, minister for Brexit Opportunities en vooraanstaand Brexiteer vandaag op LBC:
[..]
Hoe vind je hier nog woorden voor? Homerisch gelach is het enige wat past.