Die unsägliche BT-Resolution zur Wissenschaft trägt Früchte. Nicht jede Äußerung von Francesca Albanese muss man teilen oder mögen. Jedoch spricht sie vor allem über Völkerrecht. Rechtliche Debatten müssen auch an der LMU möglich blieben. 1/

A final quick reminder that I'll be at UCL to give a CLP Lecture next week. I'll be talking about how fair administrative process can be linked to positive social effects and increased government efficacy. More details are available here:

I note that Robert Jenrick is expanding his attack on the Attorney General Richard Hermer alleging he has acted on matters on which he has a conflict of interest. There is, as matters stand, not a shred of evidence that this has happened. As a barrister Hermer was under a duty to accept instructions in any matter within his competence. The fact that he may have acted in matters on which Jenrick or anyone,disapproves of the outcome is irrelevant. Jenrick, as a lawyer, ought to know that the rule of law depends on lawyers taking on cases, even for clients who may be unpopular or reviled. Jenrick then seeks to link Hermer's work to advice he might have given the Government since becoming Attorney General on matters that might be related to the individuals he represented before he became AG. But I know from my time as Attorney General that there are robust systems in place to ensure this does not happen. If there is a potential conflict of interest, the matter can and will be transferred to another law officer and external advice can also be obtained if required. Jenrick then demands to know if this has happened. In doing this he knows very well as a lawyer and past minister that the Attorney General would be in breach of his professional duty if he identified matters on which he or his office has advised. But that does not stop Jenrick from then alleging that the truth is being wrongly concealed and should be revealed, a position he never adopted when he was a minister. It would be sensible for the Attorney General's office to explain the systems in place without compromising any individual advice that may have been given. But what I find much more troubling about all this is what it tells us about Jenrick. As a Conservative I would expect him to be respectful of the role of the Law Officers in ensuring the Government gets professional and impartial legal advice. But he is quite happy to trash the system when he thinks it might score a cheap hit. It is also linked to a narrative that the law and legal obligations on government should be ignored when inconvenient, an idea that would have appeared outrageous to previous generations in Conservatives such as Margaret Thatcher. Jenrick is certainly making his mark in his promotion of a dystopian future for the Conservative Party. .