Alexander Horne
@AlexanderHorne1
Followers
7,772
Following
3,491
Media
201
Statuses
12,558
Barrister & commentator. Hackett & Dabbs LLP @Cornerstonebarr . Visiting Prof @Durham_Uni Former senior parliamentary lawyer. Personal views
London/Brussels
Joined April 2011
Don't wanna be here?
Send us removal request.
Explore trending content on Musk Viewer
Biden
• 2354463 Tweets
Biden
• 2354463 Tweets
Biden
• 2354463 Tweets
JIMIN JIMIN
• 1787099 Tweets
#MusicianLISAisBACK
• 1298207 Tweets
ROCKSTAR OUT NOW
• 1184099 Tweets
America
• 943705 Tweets
#SmeraldoGardenMarchingBand
• 796149 Tweets
JIMIN IS COMING
• 706325 Tweets
Democrats
• 364679 Tweets
#SGMB
• 362969 Tweets
#Jimin_MUSE
• 261021 Tweets
POTUS
• 229324 Tweets
Golf
• 202593 Tweets
White House
• 154938 Tweets
Tapper
• 139925 Tweets
Dems
• 124775 Tweets
MSNBC
• 116930 Tweets
Uruguay
• 100809 Tweets
Camila
• 97018 Tweets
Newsom
• 94269 Tweets
Kamala
• 82284 Tweets
PARK JIMIN
• 71493 Tweets
Hillary
• 70953 Tweets
Kennedy
• 69829 Tweets
Brandon
• 68982 Tweets
HYBE Stop Stealing The8
• 68932 Tweets
Charlottesville
• 57315 Tweets
The DNC
• 55431 Tweets
#MEGAN
• 52840 Tweets
Medicare
• 52667 Tweets
Even CNN
• 45070 Tweets
バイデン
• 35405 Tweets
土砂降り
• 24568 Tweets
Bernie
• 23863 Tweets
Michelle Obama
• 18801 Tweets
ルックバック
• 17696 Tweets
Van Jones
• 16318 Tweets
デンリュウ
• 12625 Tweets
Whitmer
• 12349 Tweets
Hayırlı Cumalar
• 11669 Tweets
Pinned Tweet
My latest piece for the Spectator looks at Labour policy on Brexit and international trade:
2
10
13
Last time the Attorney General gave public legal advice on the Northern Ireland Protocol, during the passage of the Internal Market Bill, I was advising the
@LordsEUCom
The Committee put out an excoriating report noting that her advice was “clearly wrong in law”…
33
1K
3K
Having written previously about the
@HoCPrivileges
investigation into the Prime Minister, I hesitated to do so again. However, given recent comments by
@NadineDorries
& others, I thought it worth a short 🧵 particularly in circumstances where former colleagues may be constrained.
51
857
2K
In my article in the
@spectator
yesterday, I noted the remarkable fact that
@BorisJohnson
didn’t take any legal advice before making his denials to Parliament.
Walking to Lincoln’s Inn yesterday I suddenly recalled that the Attorney General at the time was
@SuellaBraverman
35
332
2K
If it emerges that the Prime Minister did mislead the House on 8 December, I cannot see how he can remain in post. It would suggest that Parliament no longer cares whether Ministers tell the truth. At that point, any ministerial statement in Parliament becomes meaningless. /6
28
394
2K
This seems quite remarkable if true. It seems to imply that young people in England may essentially have to provide paid for ID to vote? I wonder whether this might provoke claims under Art 3, Prot 1 to the ECHR (right to vote)? /1
The government have finally published the list of ID they will allow you to use to vote - six of the Government-accepted IDs are specifically targeted at older people, while almost none are aimed at younger people.
352
4K
5K
53
547
1K
As promised last night, here are some final thoughts on Boris Johnson in the
@spectator
In short - his criticisms of the
@HoCPrivileges
are both unfounded and reprehensible and the manner of his departure will leave an indelible stain on his character.
134
449
1K
Every time I see this story (which seems to appear cyclically on at least a yearly basis) I wish that the journalist would pose the politician concerned 2 questions:
1) What about our international law obligations under the Good Friday Agreement?
(1/2)
24
293
1K
I am slightly flabbergasted that the migration debate has taken this rather appalling turn.
The truth is that foreign students subsidise U.K. higher education.
We should be grateful for the income that they bring. The research that they conduct . And that some wish to stay…
well, sorry I moved here I guess, can only apologise
81
70
970
74
252
1K
If the accusations are false, the PM should want to clear his name - particularly if he wishes to play any future role in either House of Parliament. If they are found to be proven, it will have a profound impact on his legacy. /ends
25
148
1K
I’ve previously hesitated to comment much on the Johnson
#PartyGate
allegations on the basis that I’m not an expert on the Covid rules in place at the time. However, I’m surprised that the debate on Twitter has turned to the seriousness of any fixed-penalty notices. Short🧵/1
54
345
973
Finally, it is troubling that the
@HoCPrivileges
is now being presented as some sort of kangaroo court. It retains a Government majority. It is staffed by impartial officials. It has employed a former senior judge as a special adviser…
2
170
903
However, this case is a very different kettle of fish for one simply reason. Assurances were given by the PM in Parliament. And misleading Parliament has always been a resigning matter. Hence, any FPNs should not be seen as the end of the matter…/4
8
160
867
Second, while some of his supporters are presenting the PM as having made the ultimate sacrifice by stepping down, he did not really leave voluntarily and essentially waited until the game was up. There is hardly any mitigation to be seen here…
2
106
835
Third, as
@DXWQC
has indicated, to give the PM special treatment now would be problematic. MPs accused of other types of misconduct (which is sadly all too common at present) should not expect to escape sanction merely by stepping down. The message that is sent is important…
3
114
822
Overnight, it was drawn to my attention that Jolyon Maughan, the head of the
@GoodLawProject
had criticised an article on crowdfunding that I published in
@prospect_uk
, I am told he accused me of "weird personal score-settling". I found this rather surprising and disappointing…
50
162
797
The question of whether FPNs are, in and of themselves, evidence of criminal conduct seems to me to be a red herring. Misleading the House would be enough - and is probably the more important issue. /ends
20
136
776
First, the investigation relates to a completely different matter than the ‘Chris Pincher affair’. While the question of parties at No10 may be seen as trivial, the PM has been accused of internationally misleading Parliament by his opponents. That is still a very serious matter.
7
105
729
Rather, the issue of FPNs should be used to judge whether what the Prime Minister told Parliament was accurate. This is a helpful summary of what was said:
/5.
10
175
710
I haven’t seen the new advice and so cannot comment on its accuracy. But I would be very surprised if the underlying issues have changed very much. This still sounds like the U.K. wishing to use its domestic law to breach an international agreement which it signed in good faith.
15
143
701
… its Chair, Chris Bryant, has recused himself after having made partial comments on the issue. It’s rather hard to see what more it could do. Moreover, I believe the ultimate sanction of suspension (leading to potential recall) would have to be supported by the
@HouseofCommons
6
87
693
This is the second article I’ve seen in the
@Telegraph
which argues that:“As a practical matter, UK accession [to CPTPP] kills off any likelihood that it will ever rejoin the EU customs union or single market.”
I’ll be blunt today - it simply isn’t true.
36
199
689
In the circumstances, I do think that Mr Rees-Mogg might lay off trying to besmirch the reputation of all of these fine people and just accept the result of the process.
15
107
685
Finally, I’d note that I’ve always been very clear that parliamentary committees should not be seen as courts and that their processes can be political.
However, in these circumstances, where a PM has been accused of intentionally misleading Parliament, an outcome is important.
1
90
662
In such circumstances, it’s really rather invidious for the Committee and its staff to face these accusations, which seem to me to be completely unjustified…
2
70
659
I see there is an interesting discussion between
@BarristerSecret
and
@SBarrettBar
about whether the PM might be found to have misled Parliament. In case it is of any interest, here are my thoughts on the matter. (Short 🧵)
/1.
22
182
664
Every time a Minister in the current Government indicates that they are “prepared to consider leaving the ECHR” the media and the Opposition should ask them two questions. (1) How is this compatible with U.K. obligations under the Good Friday Agreement?
16
242
604
If he appeared to be a more reasonable and temperate fellow, I’d ask him to retract his allegation. However, in the circumstances, I will simply ask readers to form their own conclusion about whether the article is a fair and balanced piece. /ends
14
27
582
In response to a rather tongue in check post this morning, about why
@BorisJohnson
said he had not taken legal advice prior to making statements in the Commons, this popped up in my responses…
38
187
581
Having spent much of yesterday reading Boris Johnson’s evidence, a few things struck me about his defence - which I’ll try to explain below (Short 🧵) /1
16
225
569
The former Treasury Solicitor,
@SirJJQC
, has set out very clearly why these continued threats to rip up international agreements are not only legally problematic, but also potentially counterproductive 👇
The UK has lots of treaties with other states, including all those nice trade deals. What would the government, including the Attorney Gen, think if one of those states said:
- “We’ve changed our mind about that recent deal. You forced us into it. We demand you agree changes” /1
75
759
3K
2
151
544
Following the debate on the Rwanda treaty this afternoon, Peers have now voted in favour of Lord Goldsmiths’s motion (214-171). In my view, they have sprung a clever trap on the Government…
6
134
560
I can’t express how much I disagree with this. When my father was young, and only 10% of young people went to university, large employers would pay for apprenticeships and for their employees to receive practical, degree level training at polytechnics.
👥 We have a major crisis among Britain’s young generation: they’re unhappy, unskilled and unmoored. It’s time to look at what a new Great British National Service would look like to reengage them with society.
Latest column for
@theipaper
1K
37
109
22
94
502
I see that
@Jacob_Rees_Mogg
has been commentating on parliamentary select committees in the Mail. He argues:
“In parliamentary committees, the role of the chairman is absolutely crucial. He or she writes the draft report, appoints the lawyers and … directs the conversation.”
44
198
492
If this is true, it is another remarkable set of claims. (Short 🧵)
First, it’s far from clear to me why Mr Johnson should expect a different standard of proof to be used in his case. I’ve noted this repeatedly, but it is not a criminal trial with criminal sanctions.
**Boris Johnson's defence**
(i) Inquiry unlawful
(ii) Inquiry politically biased
(iii) New Whatsapp message showing he was advised rules weren't breached
(iv) 'General assumption' at time that events were compliant
(v) He acted in 'good faith'
443
290
698
18
189
479
I promised a few thoughts on the Lord Pannick opinion this morning, having taken the night to reflect upon his points. (🧵) /1
13
182
451
Now that the Prime Minister has said he will stand down, I can see why some are arguing that the investigation is a waste of time. However, there are a number of additional considerations worth reflecting upon…
2
59
444
I understand that Steven Barrett and others are claiming that the U.K. did not comply with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the prisoner voting case (Hirst v U.K.). Many readers will not be surprised to hear that this is not quite right…
19
141
451
As an addendum, I’d contrast the approach of the PM and officials in No.10 with the sensible statement put out by the Department for Education on 8 Dec - acknowledging a gathering, admitting it was inadvisable, and moving on.
17
49
429
@StephenKing
@francesweetman
I’m amused by those people who don’t understand it when
@StephenKing
says that he won’t pay (and they should pay him). The truth is that he is providing free content.
@Twitter
monetize the content (via all the data it receives). Remember, if something is free, you are the product
29
25
429
One of the main downsides of the psychodrama about whether Boris Johnson would stand is that it has allowed the Sunak campaign to avoid any scrutiny on policy. Does anyone know what he is committing to do as Prime Minister?
53
108
414
And
2) Are you prepared to end criminal justice co-operation (extradition, criminal records checks, etc.) with the European Union in order to implement this policy?
(2/2)
15
78
416
For those following the saga of Boris Johnson and the
@HoCPrivileges
inquiry into whether he mislead the House of Commons, this is an essential read.
A couple of thoughts below…
Will Boris Johnson get a fair hearing?
Privileges committee will not let ex-PM publish his counsel’s legal advice.
New post, free to read:
36
70
161
12
129
400
On that issue, the committee’s report sets out the legal position in some detail at Chapter 4 👇
1
80
382
I’ve seen a number of rather bad takes overnight on the photos of the PM at a drinks ‘party’. If followers will forgive me, I’ll offer a few thoughts of my own. 🧵/1
49
100
381
While it is true to say that the draft reports sent out to the members of the committee is headed ‘Chair’s draft report’, it might be worth noting that in every committee that I have worked for, the report has been drafted by the impartial committee staff.
4
46
385
I’m not sure the relevance of this observation from
@tomhfh
?
The proposed sanction for Johnson is not for Covid rule/guidance breaches.
Rather it’s for misleading the House of Commons, giving misleading information to the Committee, seeking to undermine the investigation…
Margaret Ferrier took a Covid test. While she was meant to isolate, she
- visited a gym, beauty salon, & gift shop
- took a train from Scotland to London
- spoke in a parliamentary debate
- received a positive test result
- returned to Scotland by train
Her suspension? 30 days
2K
927
3K
34
71
375
While this doesnt come as a great surprise, it is a new low in this Government’s approach to international law… (short 🧵)
14
127
365
Sigh. Having completely failed to deal with these issues during his time with Theresa May - both at the Home Office and as Prime Minister, we find
@NJ_Timothy
back with another raft of awful ideas on immigration and asylum. A few thoughts (short 🧵).
And here is my column today on the same subject. We need to completely change the way our immigration system works. If that means leaving the ECHR, that is what we must do.
83
80
267
12
94
358
This, by Nick Timothy, is sufficiently extreme that it’s hard to imagine it isn’t some kind of parody seeking to discredit Conservatism.
There’s many false assumptions with this pro-Starmer take.
1. That it is our moral duty to take refugees from safe countries.
2. That the West should take anybody who meets definitions of asylum and refugee status written in a bygone age - more than 100m people worldwide
(1/5).
291
218
990
39
63
352
I hope that, when we get to see the detail, the Government is simply proposing to use Article 16 of the Protocol to (legally) disapply some practical aspects which are not working, rather than seeking to resile from the entire deal. /ends
5
73
338
This is far more relevant, since intentionally misleading Parliament is a resigning matter and that issue is currently being investigated by the privileges committee. That is the real danger for the PM. /6
6
32
335
As I (and
@davidallengreen
) have argued throughout - even if Johnson can demonstrate that he believed what he said at the time that “all guidance was followed in No. 10” and that “the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times” - that wasn’t the case…
4
36
335
The second point, which has been widely ignored since Brexit, is that accession to the CPTPP highlights a major scrutiny deficit in the U.K. Parliament. Namely that Parliament is not asked to consent to this new agreement and has no veto.
5
129
327
As far as I am aware, I have never met Mr Maugham. Nor have I ever been involved in a case in which we were opponents. Indeed, for the bulk of my legal career I worked as an impartial official in the UK Parliament, dealing with human rights, EU law and international law…
2
18
312
Credit to
@bricksilk
for leading the resistance in the Lords to the odious Rwanda Bill last night.
Very sorry to see it pass. Nonetheless, I predict that this is likely to prove a pyrrhic victory for Rishi Sunak. (Unless his real aim is to manufacture a row with Strasbourg)…
14
84
318
Moreover, while I am not privy to any special secrets relating to the privileges committee inquiry, it was notable that, at the hearing, it was advised by the top lawyer in the
@HouseofCommons
, the excellent Saira Salimi. She again is an impartial official. (Speaker’s Counsel).
2
32
313
Rather histrionic of Vernon Bogdanor to describe the Sue Gray appointment as “unconstitutional” this morning. Not a word which immediately came to mind.
21
48
313
Well. It’s beginning to look like
@anandMenon1
was correct. The long grass awaits the ball.
If this unfortunate story is true, it appears that
@RishiSunak
has lost the opportunity to do anything useful with his premiership.
NEW: Britain will not sign off on Northern Ireland deal without DUP
@duponline
backing - Cleverly
234
68
154
14
92
309
Thus, we can see that Johnson’s attempt to stop the Committee examining his statements about the guidance (and therefore his failure to correct the record expeditiously on that point) is quite a clever procedural ploy. However, I doubt very much it will succeed. /end
9
30
301
If the Government wants to crack down on crime, perhaps it could focus on the sort of violent and sexual offences which make many people (mostly women) feel that it is unsafe to go out - rather than wasting time with this pointless exercise.
4
61
302
I believe that the only significant interaction I have ever had with him was when I once informed him that one of his proposed JR’s couldn’t be pursued because it fell foul of Art IX of the Bill of Rights. That claim was never issued…
1
17
291
Do we want Ministers to act recklessly and think that they can cure things by correcting the record days, or even weeks, later when some important action has already been taken? /9
1
39
292
A number of Ministers from various political parties have been issued with fixed penalty notices (FPN) for breaches of the criminal law and have not resigned - including a former Attorney General who was fined £5k for employing an illegal housekeeper /2
5
45
281
Even if the PM were to argue that he didn’t know at the time that the gatherings were against the rules, he was also under an obligation to correct the record as soon as he did. I think it’s pretty unlikely that any reasonable person would believe that he met that obligation. /7
6
32
288
I’m not going to comment expansively on the proposed new asylum Bill which is being introduced today. However, I will make one observation about the Government’s proposed statement under s19 of the Human Rights Act 1998. (1/4).
4
132
288
A few thoughts this morning about the Government’s proposed Bill and the EU’s likely response.
First, like a number of lawyers on here, I was surprised to see reliance on the doctrine of ‘necessity’. This doesn’t sound very convincing to me. /1 (short 🧵)
12
108
286
So, the privileges committee has found that Johnson deliberately misled the House, misled the Committee in the presentation of his evidence and attacked the committee in “vitriolic terms”. They found the last point to be “a serious further contempt”…
11
72
282
Finally, the privileges committee did appoint another adviser - Sir Ernest Ryder - a former Court of Appeal judge and Senior President of Tribunals.
1
27
281
This is a remarkable post.
@Dominic2306
- whatever you feel you achieved in the past, and would like to achiever in the future, you really need to reflect on whether these revelations are doing the U.K. significant harm. The last sentence is a quite preposterous thing to say.
good faith blah. listen to babble of student politics from sw1 insiders infantilised by EU membership. it was international diplomacy vs *people trying to cut our balls off*. of course there wasn't 'good faith' you 🤡. NEWSFLASH: cheating foreigners is a core part of the job
655
149
600
24
72
276
As
@AdamWagner1
may recall, throughout this saga I have maintained that the greatest risk to the PM will come from having been found to have misled Parliament, (rather than the matter of the FPNs). It’s a matter of serious importance, & not just for the political bubble. /ends
7
29
272
Unfortunately, the fact is that it is often the lack of safe routes, poor decision making by the Home Office and the unavailability of alternative safe countries who will accept the return of failed asylum seekers which lead to these issues. Not the ECHR.
6
86
274
It has been brought to my attention (since I have blocked him) that Steven Barrett has produced another of his interesting opinion pieces on international law. Anyone reading it, might want to be aware of this guidance from
@FCDOGovUK
- particularly the last few lines👇
8
98
272
In conclusion, we might take two lessons from yesterday’s events.
First, procedure should be the servant of democracy, not the other way around.
Second, we should take steps to ensure that our elected representatives are not subject to bullying and intimidation. /end
28
50
273
Obviously, it is clear that he is trying to pass much of the blame onto his adviser, to seek to avoid a finding that he deliberately misled Parliament. The Committee will have to take its own view on that issue. /2
7
32
266
I’m reminded that he is now Sir Jacob. That doesn’t make his criticisms any more valid. But perhaps he could make his remarks in a rather more chivalrous fashion going forward.
18
19
265
However, the rule also has a second limb - which to my mind is equally important. Ministers are expected to correct “any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.” Thus, it is not sufficient for the PM to say that he did not “knowingly” mislead Parliament. /4
5
46
255
A few thoughts about the episode in Parliament yesterday (a short 🧵). /1
18
133
259
But to conclude - if people wish to dwell upon the issue of FPNs further, I think it would be a better use of their time to ask how it is that so many junior staffers seem to have been fined - and whether that situation is remotely fair in the circumstances. /ends
29
19
251
Despite the Government’s best endeavours, no new Bill will cure these problems. Creating a new row about the ECHR therefore looks very much like the Government is searching for a distraction while it seeks a deal on stopping small boats with France.
5
69
247
…This illiberal focus on the use of substances ignores the fact that prisons are full, the criminal justice system has such a backlog that it is all but broken, and that criminalising drugs has not been shown to work in the past.
2
47
244
For all of those people who yesterday expressed the view that what we really need is a codified constitution, a question:
Would you allow a Govt headed by Dominic Raab to propose a new constitution, subject to agreement by a referendum, next year?
36
20
234
A few thoughts on the Windsor Framework, as promised yesterday. (A longish 🧵 which considers which issues appear to have been resolved, which remain unaddressed, and what happens next). /1
20
101
240
Now it is arguable that the U.K. Government did the minimum possible to comply with the judgment (and did so very reluctantly).
But the idea that we could use domestic law to refuse to comply with the judgment was flatly rejected and is not good law.
/ends
4
23
241
While it is not precisely on point, Parliament itself has set out new rules for the recall of MPs. FPNs don’t seem to meet the threshold for recall.../3
4
27
228
When considering whether misleading Parliament by making recklessly inaccurate statements should amount to a potential contempt, it’s worth recalling the importance of the decisions made in Parliament on the passage of legislation and monumental decisions about war and peace. /8
2
40
236
It’s hard to imagine that
@Jacob_Rees_Mogg
was Leader of the House of Commons.
Even if you take the view that many of the 4,000 pieces of EU law that were retained following Brexit can now be scrapped, or replaced, that process still requires scrutiny from Parliament.
13
49
238
However, if the PM is found to have intentionally mislead Parliament, then I really do think he has to go.
/10
9
22
232
But it is hard to see why he couldn’t have corrected the record to say that gatherings has taken place in Downing Street which *may* have been contrary to the Covid guidance and that the police were now investigating to see if any offences had been committed. /12
1
29
232
Interestingly, the above tweet has unearthed this 👇
In response to a rather tongue in check post this morning, about why
@BorisJohnson
said he had not taken legal advice prior to making statements in the Commons, this popped up in my responses…
38
187
581
11
65
228
The Speaker may have been forced to apologise today. But, in democratic terms, in my view he did little wrong in suggesting that Members of Parliament should have been entitled to vote on all 3 motions yesterday. /5
11
35
231
Whatever the result, this sorry episode is likely to have a serious and adverse impact on people’s perception of politicians and the Metropolitan Police. It is deeply regrettable. Trust in these institutions will be eroded. /12
7
21
223
Finally, as I’ve said repeatedly, whether Johnson knowingly misled the House is not the end of the matter. If he inadvertently, or recklessly misled the House, he was still required to correct the record expeditiously.
2
42
218
Other Government Departments (e.g. the Department for Education) did exactly this - apologising for gatherings without making any admissions about whether the Covid *rules* had been broken. /13
1
22
214
Very sorry to see
@stephenkb
still having to put up with this nonsense.
I had the privilege to meet Stephen when he came to speak to some House of Lords staff a few years ago (when he was still with the
@NewStatesman
).
He is a one of our best political journalists. The end.
@JoshNeicho
@epkaufm
@sundersays
@Schroedinger99
@TonyDowson5
Or indeed, the Times! A place I literally only discovered I was the first black person to write the comment front at when Tomiwa Owolade wrote that he was the second!
3
3
77
4
16
215
Finally, I wonder whether the Privileges Committee might seek to question the PM in person (and if so, whether they might be tempted to ask him to take the oath). It is very unusual for parliamentary committees to do this - (see link above) - but it’s not inconceivable.
/9
5
42
210
I wasn’t planning to comment further on the Government’s asylum policy. But this article in the Times rather surprised me. It is reminiscent of the approach that was taken to the prisoner voting saga, and so I think it’s worth making a couple of observations. (Short 🧵) /1
Times: The Government's idea is that it could lose cases over the Rwanda plan to the ECHR, but go slowly in appealing this, while continuing to apply the policy (for up to three years) as an alternative to withdrawing from the ECHR.
14
20
32
9
84
211
Hence he was under an obligation to correct the record at “the earliest opportunity”. If he failed to do so, either intentionally, recklessly or inadvertently, I can see little reason why the House couldn’t find him to be in contempt.
2
19
209
First, he is trying to avoid the Committee looking at whether he misled Parliament when he said that the guidance wasn’t broken. He argues that the Committee was only asked to look at his assertions about the legality of activities. /4
2
27
207
Perhaps, faced with this concrete example, parliamentarians in the
@HouseofCommons
might wish to take back control and insist that their consent should be required for the ratification of major international agreements?
5
73
210
My latest piece in the
@spectator
follows recent headlines that a number of Cabinet Ministers would like to exit the ECHR.
Unsurprisingly, I don’t think this is a great idea in principle. But I also highlight some of the practical hurdles.
18
60
207