Plus: If Johnson goes soon, it will be of his volition. And: these presidential debates are a train crash for America.
They can’t have been satisfied with the compromise reached yesterday over future votes on any changes to the Act’s provisions.
Johnson contradicts his message of national togetherness, and antagonises MPs, by appearing to regard criticism as disloyal.
The move, which aims to increase parliamentary scrutiny of the Government, is also signed by Labour and DUP representatives.
There’s a Covid-19 debate today, the Internal Market Bill tomorrow, a housing measure on Wednesday – plus maybe the Brady amendment.
Over a third of those who asked a question during a Hancock statement yesterday were to some degree resistant to such shutdowns.
Look, too, at the track record of EU Member States. In 2020, Germany’s highest court ruled on subordinating EU law to German law. The EU took no action.
It looks as though we are in the territory supported by this site on Monday – Government support for something not unlike the Neill amendment.
As her Lord Chancellor, I would have resigned if she had brought forward such proposals (which she wouldn’t have done anyway).
When such Brexiteers as Michael Howard and Norman Lamont are tearing into you over international law, you have just a bit of problem.
It may be good tough talk to speak of breaking international law, but it does not engender respect. His exact words were not even factually correct.
The Speaker threatened to run Hancock “ragged” if the Health Secretary continues to insult the House.
Johnson and Cummings’ previous assaults on the pre-Brexit order have been brilliantly conceived. This one may not be up to the same standard.
Every single charge under the Act – 141 so far – has been found unlawful on review by the CPS,