Read on Twitter
In the days of Grayling, Gove and Truss as Lord Chancellor there was the conventional view that all would be ok for the Rule of Law if only we had a lawyer again in that office
We now do
And it is far worse
We now do
And it is far worse
My view at the time was that it was irrelevant if a politician happens to gave a legal qualification if they do not care for Rule of Law
Raab, for example, has more legal qualifications than me and many others on legal Twitter; Buckland was a Recorder; Braverman on AG& #39;s panel
Raab, for example, has more legal qualifications than me and many others on legal Twitter; Buckland was a Recorder; Braverman on AG& #39;s panel
In USA, you have Barr and others, all legally qualified, actively undermining the Rule of Law
The post-2016 experience here and there should shake out the complacent view that lawyers somehow have some special claim to caring for the Rule of Law
The post-2016 experience here and there should shake out the complacent view that lawyers somehow have some special claim to caring for the Rule of Law
And although it is wonderful for the great and the good of the legal profession to be loudly championing the Rule of Law...
...it matters little, perhaps nothing, until lay people (that is, non-lawyers) care about it too
...it matters little, perhaps nothing, until lay people (that is, non-lawyers) care about it too
Just as pointing out lies and so on will not work when a sufficient number of voters do not mind being lied to...
...pointing out the Rule of Law is being undermined does not matter if people don& #39;t care
...pointing out the Rule of Law is being undermined does not matter if people don& #39;t care
And that is the challenge
It is not enough to expose how the government is undermining the Rule of Law
They know it, we know it
The challenge is to make anyone care
And there is no easy way of doing this
It is not enough to expose how the government is undermining the Rule of Law
They know it, we know it
The challenge is to make anyone care
And there is no easy way of doing this
A great deal of the United Kingdom constitution was/is based on self-restraint
One of those self-restraints was that the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers would not let certain things happen
And if they did, the legal profession would & #39;Tut"
One of those self-restraints was that the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers would not let certain things happen
And if they did, the legal profession would & #39;Tut"
The legal profession has Tutted
And the assaults on the Rule of Law continue
Three Bills currently before parliament methodically and deliberately limit the Rule of Law
& #39;Tut!& #39; https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1313252112021807110">https://twitter.com/davidalle...
And the assaults on the Rule of Law continue
Three Bills currently before parliament methodically and deliberately limit the Rule of Law
& #39;Tut!& #39; https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1313252112021807110">https://twitter.com/davidalle...
This is not an argument for a codified (& #39;written& #39;) constitution
Codified constitutions are not a panacea - they can be good or make things worse
It is instead an observation that our current constitutional arrangements are falling apart in real time while we watch
Codified constitutions are not a panacea - they can be good or make things worse
It is instead an observation that our current constitutional arrangements are falling apart in real time while we watch
For big set pieces - the Miller litigation 1 and 2, the Benn Act - UK constitutional checks and balances still work
But what happens when the assault on constitutional norms is more low-key, ongoing, methodical, clause after clause, Bill after Bill, regulation after regulation?
But what happens when the assault on constitutional norms is more low-key, ongoing, methodical, clause after clause, Bill after Bill, regulation after regulation?
