I am going to put bits of information about Brexit and the UK place in the world here. Some is new to me. Some is repetitive conversations I am having with others as the issues keep coming up. /1

The European Convention on Human Rights is not linked to EU membership. It only came into force domestically after the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998. Brexit has happened and it is still in force. The 1998 Act can be repealed whether or not we are EU members. /2

The UK does more trade with Ireland than with the BRIC countries combined. That is Brazil, Russia, India and China. /3

Harrods pays more tax to the country than the fishing industry. /4

The Good Friday Agreement is a model for peacemaking across the world. It underpins the peace in Northern Ireland and has done for decades. It is a massive British (Irish, US and international) success story. /5

Referenda were held following the Good Friday Agreement. It was approved by 71.1% (NI) and 94.4% (Republic of Ireland). The DUP campaigned against the GFA. /6

The tax take from the financial services sector is approximately 10.5% of all tax collected by the Government and 11.6% of all employment taxes. /7

Under our constitution Parliament has the ultimate power. It is impossible for Parliament to pass a law that cannot be later amended or repealed. That is because later Parliaments also have the ultimate power and can always change the law. /8

None of what is said in /8 above about Parliament is controversial amongst lawyers. /9

What those constitutional arrangements mean is that Parliament can always change the law. Put another way Parliament can always change its mind. /10

In the above "Parliament" means the people. This is because the people elect MPs to the House of Commons at general elections. The House of Commons has the real power in passing or changing law. /11

What that means is that the people can always change their minds about a law or earlier decision. Again, this is not controversial but is obvious. Examples of laws that have been amended or repealed by later societies are numerous. /12

It can only be right that the people can change their minds. Facts and circumstances change and it would be wrong for an earlier Parliament to have bound later Parliaments forever. That would be undemocratic. /13

The House of Lords is also part of Parliament. It is unelected and members are appointed by the Government. On paper its powers are of delaying (only) legislation. In practice it has far more power than it appears. /14

That appears to be a democratic anomaly but in practice the House of Lords has been a balancing factor against successive Governments over the years /15

Parliament has the supreme power and can legislate for anything if the votes are there. As a first year law student I was taught that Parliament could pass a law mandating the death of all people named John. /16

Primary legislation is Acts of Parliament. There is a an established process for a proposed law (a Bill) becoming and Act. The Bill goes through various readings in both Houses and is then approved by the Monarch. /17

A great deal of law is secondary legislation which has a much less rigorous process to go through and is effectively done by the Government. These are not Acts (also known as Statutes) but are Statutory instruments or legislation /18

In a recent (last 50 years or so) development the Courts have developed a mechanism for scrutinising these actions of Parliament. It is Judicial Review of administrative action. Judicial Review or "JR". This is politically but not legally controversial /19

Governments dislike JR because it is a check on their powers. Because they have a democratic mandate from Parliament and therefore the people they say JR is undemocratic. Most governments complain of this. /20

There is a distinction between unlawful and illegal. For these purposes Illegal is a criminal act. Unlawful means a Govt has done something that it did not have the power to do or done way that was procedurally incorrect /21

Many people see "procedure" as red tape. But when it comes to passing new laws procedure is vitally important and what protects our rights as citizens. Especially in secondary legislation where a minister is passing laws alone but for the procedure. /22

A minister can only do that if an Act of Parliament has allowed him or her to do it. The problem is many modern Acts of Parliament give very large powers of passing secondary legislation to the Government. It is a way of avoiding scrutiny and questions. /23

In the USA, where there is a written constitution unlike here, the Supreme Court took on for itself a role that was not written in the constitution. In a very famous case (Marbury v Madison) the Court gave itself the power to say that a law was unconstitutional and void /24

In the UK it is argued Courts have developed Judicial Review on their own and have struck down legislation when they do not have the power to do so. /25

Because we do not have a written constitution where the rules of power are clearly set out we do not have the same written "checks and balances" as the USA. That is partly why the power of Judicial Review is so important in this country /26

If we did not have Courts who could declare a piece of legislation unlawful then what would stop the Govt (if it had the votes in Parliament) from decreeing that all Johns should be killed? That is not just procedure that is a really important power and function of the Courts /27

Even with a written constitution it is noteworthy that the US courts have had to develop the law to make it work (see above). That body of decisions (or precedents or the common law) develops principles as the years go by. /28

To a lawyer it is obvious why this has to happen. No Act of Parliament can envisage all circumstances. There always has to be flexibility so as to meet new facts and developments. That is not something to be afraid of, it is just how the system has always worked. /29

The current Govt wants to substantially limit Judicial Review in a way that is frankly frightening. I am not making a party political point there, I am making a systemic point. I want (we all should want) a refiewing power for when a Govt acts unlawfully. /30

The other way that legislation can be attacked is the Human Rights Act. Legislation now has to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights /31

That Convention says things like torture is prohibited, family life must be respected, everyone deserves a fair trial. Some rights are stronger (absolute) than others (conditional). /32

The Human Rights Act is also under attack with many calling for its repeal. That repeal, coupled with the proposed limiting of judicial review, would give any Govt enormous powers and the ability to avois proper scrutiny of what they are doing /33

Human Rights are not academic. The UK has been found to have tortured people (in Northern Ireland) under that system. Think about that. /34

You simply cannot do my job and watch the State interact with individuals on a daily basis and believe that what is needed is less scrutiny of the State. (My job involves child protection and the power of the state to remove children from families) /35

That is not because I believe the State is inherently evil. It is because it is run by humans and flawed. Add in budgetary constraints, cuts, low staffing and mistake and you can see why mistakes get made. Those mistakes can be devestating for individuals. /36

A democracy can only function if the great majority of the people deal in facts. /37

It is well recognised in history that totalitarian governments operate by distorting facts and carrying enough of the people along with their distortions /38

For example, all our economic woes can be put at the door of one group in society (Germany 1930s). That is a distortion of fact that led to horrific consequences. /39

It is a fact that the MMR vaccination does not cause autism. For a while it was an opinion but then people looked for evidence and it became a fact. There are cases where children have had the MMR and have autism. The missing thing is the causal link. /40

Modern society is full of such missing links and full of people who believe that there is a link when there is not. I believe this has been excacerbated by social media. But that does not mean social media has caused it. /41

There are people who believe that Bill Gates is microchipping everyone via vaccinations. If true this would be monstrous. The response (always) is to be shown the evidence. /42

A note about evidence. It is NOT evidence that Mr Gates is indeed microchipping everyone to point to someone else who thinks he is. Evidence would be his ordering billions of microchips, being caught inserting them in the vaccine or someone witnessing this. /43

Measles was a real disease that impacted millions. That is a fact. It is also a fact that it was beaten (greatly reduced to the point of near-eradication) by vaccination. Polio too. The fact that you had measles and did not die is NOT evidence that it never kills others. /44

Science moves forward and learns by putting forward an idea and then investigating whether the facts support Idea is published and other scientists reply (peer review). Data is collected, debated and a conclusion is reached (if possible) /45

During that process it is easy to jump in too early and describe one of those ideas as a fact or as established. Before the proper debate, data and discussion has been gone through. /46

This is a potentially dangerous thing to do. If you jump in too early you might deny yourself some helpful medicine or take some medicine that proves to be harmful (crude examples) /47

That is why in medicine, food and many other walks of life we have laws (regulations) that only allow certain things to be given to the public when they are safe and the data agrees that they are safe /48

In the UK this is sometimes referred to as Health and Safety. And that term as used as though that it is a bad thing. We should not be sold cars that explode, food that poisons us or medicines that harm us. Can we all agree on that? /49

All those things have happened in the past. And so we develop systems to deal with new products to try and keep us safe. Those systems are now very complicated and large. That is because society is very complex and is enormous /50

History has shown (the exploding car example) that without a regulator stopping private industry from doing something harmful the profit margin can take over and people's safety is given less weight than profit. Not always. Sometimes. /51

So the regulations that keep us safe are good things. Even if they can delay a product being available or slow up profits. /52

None of that can work if the people involved do not deal in facts. If the car explodes but people deny that it did so that alters the response (because there is no problem). If I am told it is not raining when it is I might not take my umbrella. /53

When a country is deciding its future course it has to do so on the facts or the decision is skewed. If people lie about those facts they should be corrected. At least. When those facts are so complex that only a few people really understand, they should explained. /54

All of that relies on good faith. That people are acting honestly, not trying to put forward lies. /55

There may be another problem. People might think they are being honest but are just wrong. That is more difficult. And that is when displaying the facts available and explaining them becomes even more important. /56

I might be wrong on some of the things I "know". I am human. It is likely that I am. Hold the front page. All we can do is try to inform ourselves of facts and try to decide what is reliable information. /57

And the sheer volume of information out there is a major problem. We live in a complex, large and inter-connected society and I am afraid there is no way round it. The immediacy of the internet and social media has not caused those facts but it does make it feel worse /58

The vaccine lie. /59 https://twitter.com/bbcrosatkins/status/1334226019973287937

The Leave campaign said we would stay in the single market and campaigned on that basis. This (for me) is a real whopper that we all knew that we were leaving the single market when we voted in 2016. /60 https://twitter.com/OFOCBrexit/status/980409350924783616

There is no democratic mandate for no deal. It was not mandated bu the referendum. No general election has mandated no deal. The last campaign was run by the Tories on the basis that there was a deal. /61

A lie that still takes my breath away is the ditching of the oven ready withdrawal agreement, that was campaigned on in the GE, achieved a democratic majority and then was ditched because the EU were breaking up the UK. /62

The withdrawal agreement as signed with the EU came about by Johnson giving up the Northern Irish issue and signing up to a border in the Irish sea. That was a betrayal of the DUP, his partners (from their perspective) /63

Johnson then spun the new withdrawal agreement as a great negotiating victory despite the obvious blow to the integrity of the UK (from the NI unionist persepctive) /64

He won an election on that basis. And then ditched his own agreement. Tories now say they did not have time to absorb the meaning of the agreement and in the same breath blame the EU for striking that blow to the UK. Those same Tory MPs voted against more time to consider /65

It is breathtaking. And is more than just "politicians tell lies". It is fundamental, calculated, dishonesty. And in the context of NI and its politics it really matters. /66

Of course, in the mix at the time was the public's ghastly choice at that GE between Johnson and Corbyn. Neither fit for office in my view. But that does not alter or even impact the lies told by the now Govt as set out above. /67

Over-arching all of this is the spin from Leavers and Tories that the UK is more democratic than the EU. Also breathtaking. You must think I am quite breathless by now. /68

But what is amazing is the way these lies have achieved traction in the voting public. I profoundly hope that it is explained by the Corbyn factor (above). The alternative is that the public do not know they are being lied to. Or do not care. /69

This is all the more important because a deal may be about to be struck with the EU and we are going to be spun to death about the terms of it. Just remember what happened with the last Johnson deal. /70

He gave up the red line for his party and his partner (UK integrity). Was told he had done that. Said that is not true. Then said it was true. But it was the EU's fault. /71

If someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. /72

So it is obvious to me that this thread is way different to what I originally intended. It has turned into a personal venting and/or therapy thread. For which apologies. This is why Twitter has a mute button. /73