YOU really don't have to work hard to mock Jacob Rees-Mogg's European Research Group (ERG) of Brexiteers ... they serve up the punchlines themselves.
The latest example of their lack of self-awareness would be truly astounding if it was from anyone else.
Theresa May returned from talks with EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in Strasbourg yesterday with some legal alterations to the backstop on Brexit.
What exactly those details are is for another story ... but, for now, let's remember that the following morning was spent with much debate over what the legal implications of the change actually were.
While most were awaiting the ruling of Attorney General Geoffrey Cox, the hardline Brexiteers of the ERG were coming up with their own analysis.
Their assembled group of lawyers is made up of William Cash, David Jones, Dominic Raab, Suella Braverman, Michael Tomlinson, Robert Courts and Martin Howe, QC, along with Nigel Dodds of the DUP.
But it's the collective name for that group of lawyers that says it all – they are officially known as "the Star Chamber".
Yes, we have been treated today to the Star Chamber's legal verdict on the backstop.
As our columnist Andrew Tickell put it: "If you have *any* knowledge of British legal history, why would you call a group you - presumably - want people to respect "the star chamber"?"
If you have *any* knowledge of British legal history, why would you call a group you - presumably - want people to respect "the star chamber"? https://t.co/jqKIoi7D6I
— PeatWorrier (@PeatWorrier) March 12, 2019
To quote the dictionary definitions of the Star Chamber:
"A former court of inquisitorial and criminal jurisdiction in England that sat without a jury and that became noted for its arbitrary methods and severe punishments, abolished 1641."
OR
"Any tribunal, committee, or the like, which proceeds by arbitrary or unfair methods."
It's almost too perfect. Either they know this and think it's all just a bit of a laugh anyway, or, somehow, can't see the connotations.
Which of those is worse?
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel