NOW WHY WOULD THE BBC MISS THAT OUT?

Sympathies to the now ex-employees of Maplins and Toys R Us. The UK is a pretty bad place to find yourself unemployed. The UK government (although by and large NOT most of the DWP staff) will treat you as if you are some sort of thieving, lowlife criminal out to take money away from doing up Buckingham Palace or HS2, just because you need to feed your family and pay your rent. They will demand that you take any work, no matter how unsuited you may be to it, and if you turn up a few minutes late at one of their appointments, in the diminished number of jobcentres, miles away from where you live, for any reason at all, they will do their best to starve you and your family. So I hope you find work very soon.

I fear that this is just the start of what is coming at us, and to suggest that it is nothing to do with Brexit is to live in a Narnia-like world…. where, should you wish to visit, you will doubtless encounter David Davis avoiding Michel Barnier, Boris Johnson setting up congestion charging on the Irish border, DOCTOR Fox taking Mr Werrity on a government-funded trip on a new Royal Yacht Britannia, Jacob Rees Mogg and Nanny in the Bently, the Maybot, being trailed around like a rag doll by her boss, Arlene and of course Humpty Dumpty and the Mad Hatter.

**********

From Jolyon Maugham QC…

!$£

**********

Going back to the BBC… part of the Today Programme this morning came from Northern Ireland and at least one interview from Derry. I’m wondering if it was a BBC policy that the interviewer should refer to it as LONDONderry?

Judicial Review on legality of UK Government witholding Sectoral and Regional Reports on Consequence of Brexit: Jolyon Maugham

£$

There has been some discussion today about the government’s intention to withhold the results of analyses that it has carried out into the effects of Brexit on “sectors” or “regions” within the UK. By now most of us will have read somewhere that Scotland and England’s North East are likely to suffer the most.

 

Jo Maugham, QC is “on it”. When it comes to law, Jo is a good guy to have on your side. Here, on a Twitter threat, he explains his arguments, and (we should not be surprised about this now) the fact that the government doesn’t actually know what it is doing or why it is doing it. Hammond and Davies don’t talk, or something?

Anyway, it is fair to tell you that Jo wrote all of this, not Munguin, and that we copied it wholesale from here.

We did so because we think as many people as possible should see it… and not everyone is on Twitter or follows Jo Maugham.

**********

Our judicial review tries to force Govt to make public its secret reports showing how Brexit will affect eg agriculture or car making.

We think democracy can’t function without truth and transparency. That’s what went wrong in June 2016. It can’t happen again.

Govt says ‘it will hurt our negotiating hand if the EU knows how badly Brexit will hit the UK.’ Like, somehow, the EU can’t do modelling.

And Govt released an impact assessment on Brexit before the Referendum. If it was the right thing to do then, how can it be wrong now?

And there’s a stream of ‘good news stories’ from Liam Fox. It makes you wonder: Good Brexit stories good, bad Brexit stories bad?

Anyway, the truth is, there’s nothing in these reports the EU can’t work out for itself. So why won’t the Government release them?

What’s unique about these reports is that they come from the Government’s hand. So Government can’t say: “We don’t accept this analysis.”

Is the fact that they possess a unique ability to embarrass Government a good *political* reason to keep them secret? Why, of course!

Is the fact that they possess a unique ability to embarrass Government a good *legal* reason to keep them secret? Umm, no. Hence our JR.

There’s also a rather good subplot. Alongside the *sectorial* analyses, there are also *regional* analyses.

We know there are regional analyses because Hammond said there were.

But if you ask DExEU for the regional analyses, they claim that even to tell you whether they *exist* would harm the national interest.

Which is kind of funny for a number of reasons. First off, it’s just ludicrous. How can knowing whether they exist be harmful?

Second, how can it be fine for us to know there are sectorial analyses but not regional analyses?

Third, Hammond has told us they exist. How can it harm the national interest for a civil servant to confirm the Chancellor wasn’t lying? /15

The reality is, they’ve worked out the sectoral analyses are a hot potato and don’t want another one – regional analyses – to juggle.

Is this a good *political* reason to deny they exist? Not really, as Hammond has admitted they exist. And it’s no *legal* reason at all.

If this all feels to you like a right bloody shambles, then so far so good: you’re following my thread. But there’s more.

We know the EU knows what Brexit means, including for the UK, because they’ve *published a study*.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/595374/IPOL_STU(2017)595374_EN.pdf

And, richest of all ironies? The man refusing to confirm the sun will rise tomorrow for fear of political embarrassment is David Davis.

Would that be the same David Davis who wrote this paragraph? Before being a Minister? Reader, it would.

**********

We also found this. We’ve no idea who the minister is or to whom he said it, but it’s more or less what we have been thinking: