Posts by Dr. Mouse 2114 publicly visible posts • joined 22 May 2007
"where is the right wing?"
Erm... The Tories are further right than they've been in a very long time, certainly more so than the centre-right they were under Cameron.
If you're looking for someone more right-wing, you are looking for the far right, so may I suggest the BNP (or their friendlier-faced splinter groups, UKIP & BP)?
"if you're a fake contractor you'll have to stop the pretence"
The main disruption will come from those companies (mainly banks at the moment) who are deciding to stop using contractors altogether due to the changes in liability. This will affect a large number of real contractors whether they work for these banks or not, as it will completely change the market landscape. It will also have a massive effect on those companies themselves, probably leading to delays in projects, which is likely to have a knock on effect to the wider economy.
And don't think that those in permanent employment will be unaffected either. There is a good chance that this will affect salaries across the board, as some contractors move to perm.
This will likely shake up the entire tech sector. If you think otherwise, you have your head buried in the sand. The jury is still out on what this effect will be in the long term, but it will certainly be a massive disruption in the short to medium term.
And here we get to the core.
Right wingers say the BBC is biased towards the Left, and Left wingers that it's biased towards the Right.
There is some bias in the BBC, but IMHO it's nowhere near what people make out. Mostly, people just shout "bias" every time the BBC report something they don't like.
It isn't "taking the piss" any more than using an ISA or pension is taking the piss. It's using the tax system. I know many small business owners who pay themselves little in salary and take most as dividends. However, as they don't fall into the category of a "personal service company" they don't even need to assess whether IR35 applies. Why are they treated differently?
If they wanted to stop this, there are many ways they could do so fairly such that they applied to all businesses. For example, they could say that any dividend paid to an employee/director must be treated as salary, or they could simplify the tax system to roll NI into income tax, or various other methods.
Also, please note that all in I pay a very similar amount to an employee. The tax advantages are minimal. The are where tax is being lost is in employers NI. If I was a "disguised employee" of my client (which an inside IR35 determination would mean), then that would be the client/employer avoiding tax, not me...
"How could all permanent staff pay 40% taxes and get the same... as a contractor who pays only 5 to 10% of taxes"
I know no contractors who pay, overall, 5-10%. In fact, excluding VAT, between myself and my company I pay about the same as an employee would on a salary equivalent to what I draw from my company* (including what they would pay in NI).
I think many have a very distorted view of the tax system as applied to contractors. The tax advantages are minimal and mainly amount to 2 things:
1) We can offset expenses, like travel and accommodation. This then allows us to take contracts far from home, and this flexibility enhances the entire countries economy.
2) We don't have to pay NI on dividends. This is roughly balanced out by the higher combined rate of CT & Dividend Tax, but the client doesn't have to pay Employers' NI. This is where the main tax saving comes in, but this is the same for all companies.
* Note that what I draw is not my day rate. As a responsible business owner I put aside quite a lot to cover expenses and contingencies. I never count my day rate as my income: That's the companies sales, my own income is whatever part of that I deem available to provide myself as renumeration.
"The solution to my mind would be to change IR35 so that the tax burden is there, but the employer owes the hidden employee all the benefits they have previously denied them"
This has been suggested many times over by many people: aligning tax and employment law.
I don't think anyone could legitimately argue against this. Instead of there being a tax investigation, it becomes one of employment. If the relationship is found to be employment, then the taxes are due (on both sides) but so are the rights. If not, the contractor/client relationship and associated tax regime continues.
The current fudge of "well, you're kind of an employee, so we want you to pay that tax, but you're kind of not, so you won't get any benefits" is ridiculous.
Of course, there's an even easier way to fix this by fixing (and simplifying) the tax system. Roll all NI into income tax and charge it on everything.
Of course, this would stop politicians from being able to hide the fact that the basic rate of income tax is effectively about 45%...
"If they are really doing a contract job they should be charging enough to cover those things."
Effectively, if you are found to be inside IR35, you must take all of your companies sales as your salary. This means there is nothing left in the company to cover any of the above.
Let's say I'm contracting on £300/day. That would mean the company receives around £6k a month.
Outside IR35, they would pay expenses (account, travel, accommodation, salary). Let's say around £4.5k is left, which would be subject to corporation tax. This would leave around £3.6k. Assume around £2k is taken as dividends. There would therefore be around a grand and a half per month (£18k/year) left in the company to cover sick pay, holidays, pension contributions, and other contingencies. This is not a large amount, especially if the contractor ends up sick (or otherwise unable to work) for a significant amount of time, but it's something at least.
Inside IR35, effectively, all of the £6k must be drawn as salary. There is nothing left to cover the rest, not even to pay for the accountant. It is left up to the contractor, as an individual, to pay for these thing from his already-taxed personal income. The company cannot fulfil its obligations to its employee because it has no money left, because it has been forced to pay it all as salary.
They could well have the same client for a long period of time (months) if working on a large job. They may well invoice monthly, or weekly, or on completion of key deliverables. None of these are indications of whether they are running a business.
I have known consultancies with multiple employees who have only one client which they invoice on a monthly basis. Are they in business, or are all their employees actually employees of the client? What about cleaners contracted through an agency, should they be classed as employees of the client?
I will add again: The courts and HMRC themselves have said that number of clients has no bearing on IR35. Indeed, you can have some contracts inside and some outside at the same time.
Most of us are not really 'running businesses', are we? We're one person companies
Is a plumber/joiner/builder/decorator/cleaner running a business when setting out on their own? There is no requirement for a company to consist of more than one person.
I run a company. I keep accounts up to date, submit relevant data to authorities, maintain insurances, search for clients, market my company.... The list goes on. True, it is on a smaller scale than many, but it is still a legitimate business and I run it as such. In time, I hope to it grow into a fully-fledged consultancy with employees and several, but for now it is just me, contracting.
The one thing I am not, to my clients, is an employee. I accept more risk and responsibility than an employee and work in a completely different manner.
Personally, I don't care that much about the tax levels. If they increase the tax rates involved, I'll pay them. Tax is not even on the radar of reasons I am contracting.
However, what I do object to is being taxed differently to other small business owners and trying to classify me as an employee, especially an employee of my client with no employment rights from them (and can no longer provide them to myself from my own company).
"it is morally reprehensible to avoid as much tax as humanly possible"
Contractors are not avoiding tax, they are running businesses and paying tax according to the tax code.
Do you have an ISA? Do you pay into a pension? Do you tick the gift aid box when you donate to charity? If you do any of these, do you then go to HMRC and say "I avoided this tax, here, have it back"?
"if they paid themselves the day rate in full then their limited company would be required to deduct employer NIC etc.."
If they paid themselves the day rate in full, their limited company couldn't fulfil its responsibilities (e.g. paying holiday/sick pay), and couldn't even pay its expenses (accountancy fees etc). It is prudent business management to retain some profits for contingencies and other things.
When it comes to paying dividends, this is how the tax system works for businesses. Do you voluntarily send the tax you would have paid on your pension contributions or ISA interest to HMRC?
The main problem, IMHO, is the "stealth income tax" in the form of National Insurance. Both employer and employee NI are effectively just additional income tax. If these were correctly incorporated into income tax, there would be no tax advantage to paying dividends over salary. However, this would show the true income tax rate (around 45% basic) and this wouldn't be a vote winner...
Similar to the typical Brexiteer view of the EU, then: An oversimplified, distorted view which they can use to justify their own opinions while denying the validity of anything else to make themselves feel better.
Personally, I don't use the caricature to avoid engaging on any issue. With those willing to have a reasoned debate I will discuss the merits and flaws of the EU until the cows come home. Those who are not willing to do so, who dismiss my points out of hand, who cite proven lies as fact and refuse to accept correction... After a short time of trying to convince them, I'll treat them as the caricature they are acting as.
That's why contractors' rates are high - to cover... costs
HMRC & the Government are saying that "inside IR35 contracts" are "disguised employment". This means they are effectively creating a new class of employment which allows the employer to avoid providing employment rights. Whether this is provided with an increased rate of pay to compensate for this is irrelevant: ALL employees are entitled to these rights.
Look at it another way: let's say Asda chose to offer extra pay to their staff in exchange for changing over to "inside IR35 contracts". Many of these workers would "choose" to take the chance on it, not take holidays, hope they don't get ill and ignore the lack of protection against dismissal. This would be very beneficial to Asda, but the employees would be vulnerable. How long before Asda stop taking on employees and only take on "inside IR35 contractors"? How long after that before they drop the pay rates back down?
It makes a complete mockery of the concept of employment rights to allow them to be opted out of. They cease to be rights by doing so, they are purely benefits which an employer can effectively decide not to provide.
"It seems curious to me that there seems to be a new class of worker who is treated as an employee for income tax and NI purposes but has no holiday, sickness, or pension rights"
This is the worst and most dangerous part of IR35. In effect, it allows companies to opt out of providing employment benefits to employees by calling them "inside IR35 contractors".
Being an "inside IR35 contractor" is the worst of all worlds. Extra tax is taken from you, as are many decisions related to running your company, while you get none of the benefits of being an employee (even an employee of your own company).
My view is simple: If a role is really a contract role, it will be outside IR35. If it is inside, it's an employee role and should be filled by an employee with all the rights and benefits thereof. "Inside IR35 contracts" should not exist.
There's two types of contractors - those that have a very strong skillset and can get things done quickly, and the second type which basically can't hold down a permie job. In my 25 years experience, the latter vastly outnumber the former.
I agree with your two types, but in my experience the former vastly outnumber the latter. There's a good reason for this: movement.
Whereas a permie can settle into a position and stay there for years, most contractors move on every few months. They then have to "sell" themselves to the next client. If they did a bad job for the last few clients, they won't be able to provide positive testimonials or references. Agencies will start black-listing them. Gaps will start to appear in their CV. Added to which, they are likely to meet contractors from previous clients, who will let their client know about previous experiences with them.
On top of all of this, if the work is not getting done the client can get rid on the spot.
In my experience, "bad contractors" don't continue contracting for very long. They are fairly quickly found out and struggle to find any more clients.
more a form of recreational combat than a real argument
Yep, I always find it fun to poke the devs at a new place with the tabs/spaces argument. As soon as I am sure it will be taken the right way, I'll kick that off on one of the dev chats and everyone will have a good natured argument. This will often continue, on and off, for days (or weeks, or months) and can be re-triggered at any time for more hilarity.
I've never known anyone to take it seriously.
"Why would you prefer to see an indentation level not intended by the author? I honestly see no benefit."
Indentation is more for readability than anything else*, and readability is a subjective quality. Some will find 2 spaces more readable, some will find 4 spaces better, some may prefer 7.
This is why I find tabs a better solution: They can be customised to personal preference without altering the file. It's also more space efficient, taking 1 character instead of 2+ per indent level per line.
That said, most clients I work with have specific code style rules, and it's no great hardship to put up with their choice.
* I do assume this is in a proper programming language, not a new-fangled "indentation is part of the code" abomination...
"As full time employees of PLCs, contractors are legally entitled to exactly the same holiday and sick pay benefits as the rest of us. Confusing money paid to the limited company with salary paid to you as the employee is mistake #1 on the road to getting done for IR35."
And most of us do.
However, this cannot be done if inside IR35. All money is effectively taken as salary, leaving no provision for holidays, sick pay, pension contributions etc. It effectively stops the contractor's company from being able to operate as a responsible employer, or even a business in its own right. The decisions are taken away from the company.
In effect, being found inside IR35 is what denies a contractor his employment rights, while at the same time calling them disguised employees... It's a travesty, pure and simple.
I have never signed a contract which stopped me from working for other companies. I have had clauses which stated I was unable to work for a client of my client (understandable), and of course all the work I do for the client belongs to the client in most cases. I also get a choice in the contracts I sign, and have often renegotiated them before accepting.
If a client is offering what should be a full time permanent role through contract, I will turn it down. I have no interest in being an employee. I'm an independent consultant, and that's how I will work or not at all.
What's missing from this story is the fact that RALC had to let go of two employees and the business is in the process of, or has already folded, purely because of the action by HMRC - who were wrong all along. That's horrific.
Yep. A tax investigation is, in itself, a horrific process. Going to tribunal even more so. Yet HMRC hound contractors who are obviously outside IR35. They are not trying to apply the law, they are on a witch hunt against contractors. They are attempting to force everyone out of contracting by making things as difficult for them as possible, even though they know this will lead to lower tax receipts than if they leave things alone.
No, HMRC are trying to find out how to apply a difficult bit of law.
By ignoring the precedents set by the courts in dozens of cases, all of which have been brought by HMRC themselves? Are they slow learners, or are they purposely trying to subvert the law to their own ends?
People are still paying less tax by being long term contractors which is what this legislation was trying to stop.
It's nothing to do with "long term contractors". The courts, the law and HMRC themselves say that the length of a contract has no bearing on IR35 status.
It's supposedly there to prevent "disguised employment". What most contractors do is not employment, disguised or otherwise. Most of us are not in it for tax reasons, or even for financial reasons. It's for the completely different way of working, for control over our own decisions. We accept the risks, the extra work involved in running or own companies, having to plan to cover our own sickness, holidays etc as part of the sacrifice needed to give us the way of working we desire.
He didn't "dodge a tax bill", the court found he didn't owe it.
HMRC could come up to you and say "You owe us a meeeeelion pounds in back taxes", with no basis for the claim. If you took it to tribunal and they cleared you, would you be happy if people declared you had "dodged a million pound tax bill"?
HMRC keep trying to pull a fast one, and time and again the courts knock them back. Even more are dropped before they even get to tribunal.
That's why they're changing the rules: They think they'll be more successful in scamming companies into taking undeserved taxes from genuine contractors.
if you aren't taking breaks on your journey then you should be, and if you are then it doesn't actually matter if you plug in whilst you stretch your legs, rest your eyes and brain and refresh yourself
This!
Recommendations are for a 15 minute break every 2 hours. If you do this, 15 mins charging (pretty much enough time to go to the loo and have a cuppa) would give approx 45% charge. If this is a car with a 300 mile range, that's 135 miles. To cover that in 2 hours would give an average speed of 67.5mph.
Increase the break to 20 mins, you'll get around 60% charge/180 miles. That's enough to drive for over 2 and a half hours at the motorway speed limit of 70mph.
If you aren't already taking reasonable breaks, I would say an EV would be good for you (and other road users).
"only a minority actually have that meter installed. So, decades long market experiment tells you there's a problem with persuading people that's in their economic interest."
Things change quite a bit with an EV, though. Even with a relatively short commute (20 mile round trip) at a fairly economical usage rate (5 miles per kWh), you are looking at 4kWh/day. For many, this could mean charging their EV is a third of their electricity usage. If they can get that third at a significantly cheaper rate, especially without the meter change/double meters required before smart meters*, it becomes interesting.
Increasing the figures to match my own, I can save over £400/year with the "best" ToU tariff I can find, which is around a 35% saving compared to not (without any other adjustments). It definitely becomes an interesting proposition, and may also move me to consider timing other activities for the cheap leccy times (e.g. washing)
* Yes, I know, yuk! I would resist installation if I wasn't getting an EV soon, meaning the savings are worth putting up with it.
I have had to make large detours to be able to tank up my Mini (real one, not the new BMW) in the past while camping. I also have to make detours regularly to tank up my current car, as there are no fuel stations directly on my regular commute.
In the end, as long as you are able to charge overnight at home, you will probably still save time overall having an EV compared to a dinosaur-juice vehicle. I worked out that it adds around 15mins on to my commute to tank up. If I have to do that every other week, that's over 6 hours in a year saved by charging at home. Let's say I do 2 holidays a year which each require 2 20min fast charges en-route (and I wouldn't have had to stop anyway), that would give me over 4 hours of time available for detours to find chargers....
This is an issue in all sorts of situations, but is very necessary at times. It doesn't only apply to govt projects.
I'm looking at this from an IT project perspective, but it applies to many.
At the start, the scope and price are agreed. If the consultancy allows scope creep, the timescales and costs to them skyrocket. Therefore anything outside the agreed scope needs to be costed as an extra. Yes, this feels very bureaucratic, but it's necessary.
If, instead, the consultancy allows changes to the scope within the project without the bureaucracy etc, the "blame" falls the other way. The consultancy ends up having higher costs, the project becomes unprofitable and the project team get a hammering from C-suite and shareholders. The timescales also change, and the consultancy can get hit with penalties for not delivering on time.
The larger the project, the more important this is, but even on my own level (small, one-man consultant developer) I have to be careful to clearly define the scope of the works and stick to it. I can offer a small amount of flexibility on an ad-hoc basis, but it doesn't take much for things to get out of hand...
"I had almost (but not quite) forgotten about the robot lurking in the basement."
Yeah, the BOFH & PFY vs Supplier (I think) war with the killer robots was highly amusing for a while. Good to dig up the past every now and again...
...Actually, this is BOFH, maybe that's not the best idea. May find a roll of carpet with something unpleasant inside!
This was for a Tesla Model 3, leased without maintenance over 4 years compared with PCP, HP, personal loan and cash buying, on the assumption that I wouldn't keep the vehicle beyond 4 years.
I did the comparison for both personal and company purchase/leasing. For personal, the conclusions above were valid. For company, it was even more cost effective to lease due to the offset of 50% VAT for the lease payments.
As I said, this will change depending on deals available, but I calculated it all and leasing was the cheapest option.
I did get a calculator and a clue just a couple of months ago. For myself, over 4 years:
- leasing the car worked out cheaper than either PCP or HP unless the vehicle was worth at least £10k more at the end than expected
- leasing the car was slightly cheaper than getting a loan for the car value unless the car was worth at least £5k more than expected at the end
- leasing was slightly more expensive than buying with cash, but came out similar of you put the cash in a savings account and used that to pay the lease
This is obviously going to vary depending on the deals available, but it was the case for my specific situation.
You know things are looking down when leasing rates spike
Many lease cars now. It can be the most economically advantageous method, even if you've got the cash to buy outright.
You also forget a significant factor: Company cars. Many countries are offering significant incentives to companies to offer electric vehicles to their employees, and most company cars are leased (AFAIK). In the UK, there are significant advantages to this. This leasing rate spike could simply be down to a spike in the number of Teslas being acquired as company cars.
that is coupled with a clause along the lines of "You will only be paid for invoices accompanied by a signed time sheet"... And another saying that they have no obligation to give you work (and you have no obligation to take it if they do - You REALLY want this clause)
Precisely. This is one of the key indicators that you are not an employee: No "Mutuality Of Obligation".
However, in the context of notice, this means there is effectively no notice period. They can give you your "2 weeks notice", then offer you no work for those 2 weeks. Similarly, you can give them 2 weeks notice and refuse to accept any more work.
Luckily I've never had this situation either way. However my father was a contractor for most of my childhood, and he had several experiences of turning up for work on Monday morning and being told to go home as they no longer needed him (and this included contracts where he had just spent several hours travelling to get there).
"however we need to remember that even inside IR35 our day rates and NET take home will likely be more than we would be able to achieve if in permanent employment"
So, that indicates that your employer* would be paying you to not take your employment benefits. This is dangerous and is exactly why it should not be allowed. An inside IR35 role is an employee role, and employment benefits are given to all employees.
Taken further, what if a company started classifying its staff as "Inside IR35 Contractors". The taxes would be the same, but none of the employee benefits would exist.
Employment rights should apply to all employees, and "Inside IR35 Contractors" are, effectively, employees.
* I have chosen the word "employer" specifically because, as stated several times, "Inside IR35 Contractors" are effectively employees.
holidays, sick pay etc. as tax-free benefits in kind. In order to maintain "fairness" - which was much trumpeted by the likes of Red Dawn - surely those should be taxable
This isn't entirely accurate (and I say that as a contractor who deplores the IR35 regs, new and old*).
Holiday pay and sick pay are taxed. They are just income as far as HMRC are concerned. For contractors, part of our increased rate over a permie is to cover these for ourselves, which is also similarly taxed.
There are tax-free benefits a permie gets, like employment protections.
* My main problem with them is the existence of inside IR35 contracts: IR35 is supposed to be about disguised employment, so if you are found to be inside, you should not be a contractor but an employee, with all the benefits and privileges that come with it. "Inside IR35 contracts" are not much more than mechanisms for companies to avoid giving employment rights to an employee, which should not be allowed.
it's not certain that goods traded with the Northern Ireland company won't be considered 'at risk of entering the EU' and have duty applied accordingly which has to then be reclaimed
Actually, if I have understood correctly, it is fairly certain that they will have duty applied which needs to be reclaimed.
all apps that recorded phone calls stopped working
This irritated me no end, too!
As a contractor, when I'm looking for a new contract I get many calls from many potential clients and agencies. I am often out and about and, even if I have a pen and paper to hand, it can be difficult to write down details.
I therefore installed a call recording app on my phone. It was brilliant, I could review all the conversations when I was able and keep proper records of each potential engagement.
Then along came an update and BAM: No more call recording! I suddenly lost a very valuable function.
he could apply to wind up Google UK
I remember a story* in which a plumber did some work for a large, national company worth millions. It was a bill of a few hundred pounds, but the company ignored all his attempts to collect. Eventually, he filed to wind the company up on the grounds that they wouldn't pay him. They ignored that, too, and winding up proceedings began.
While they were able to stop the company being wound up, their credit rating was destroyed and all creditors called in what they were owed. The company collapsed, all because they were dicks to a small supplier over a few hundred quid.
* I don't know if this actually happened, it may be an urban legend. Anyone who knows if it is, or any more details than the vague outline I remember, is welcome to fill in the blanks.
the added bonus of knowing the employee is only there for a fixed time
However, this is where they prefer contractors again. Contractors may have a set contract length, and may have "notice periods". However, with no obligation to provide any work during that notice period, they can simply say on a Monday morning "we don't need you any more, goodbye". I know this from my father's decades of experience contracting (and he experienced this more often than most due to his "abrasive" personality), and there's nothing which can legally be done about it.
Employees, however (even on fixed term or temporary assignments) have some protection in employment law. Notice periods need paying, employment tribunals are available for unfair dismissal etc.
You are right in this.
However, companies do not want to do this. Having someone on payroll, even for a short, fixed term, is very expensive. They would need to be covered by the companies own insurances (contractors must provide their own), holidays paid (contractors fund their own), and many other things.
That said, I have told agents that if a company wants me inside IR35 (and I agree to do so), they can take me on at an adjusted (by myself, not them) day rate on PAYE as a temporary employee. "Inside IR35 contracts" are an oxymoron: You should either be on contract and outside IR35, or an employee.
Exactly right. HMRC are woefully incompetent* at interpreting the law in IR35 cases. IIRC over 99% of "inside IR35" determinations by HMRC are successfully challenged without proceeding to tribunal, and the vast majority which reach tribunal are found to be outside.
For one, this is a massive waste of tax payer money, purely down to the fact that those in HMRC don't understand* the rules correctly. For another, this is why the new rules are being brought in: They are hoping that large companies won't accept the risks of outside IR35 contracts. I know that, in many cases, they are wrong: Several of the large clients I deal with have said that they are willing to take the risk, and have large legal budgets available to challenge HMRC's idiocy*. This may all backfire...
* I am giving HMRC the benefit of the doubt, here, and assuming it's incompetence. I'm not certain that assumption is valid: they could be intentionally trying to break the law.
There is an error in your terminology here. From my understanding, freelancers and contractors operate under different business models.
Freelancers generally take on a specific piece of work and are paid on outcomes (e.g. they get £X for completing Project Y, possibly split up into payments for key deliverables).
Contractors generally get paid a day rate (or hourly rate) for the time they work, although are normally taken on to complete a specific project. They provide specialist skills which the client needs for that project, but still retain a great deal of control over the work they take on and how and when they do it.
The whole point is that claim has been examined by the taxman and found to be nonsense. The vast majority of IT contractors are in fact either employed or self-employed, and should pay taxes accordingly.
Then why does the taxman lose so many of the IR35 cases which go to tribunal? Why are they having to resort to changing the rules if it is clearly "nonsense" that we are independent consultants providing services to a client?
The truth is that the majority of IT contractors are precisely that. There is a minority who either abuse the system or misunderstand the rules, and similarly there are a small number of clients/"employers" who do the same.
However, even if your assertion was correct, the right course of action is not just to tax them more, but also to force "employers" to provide the rights and benefits to which an employee is entitled. Otherwise, you are effectively allowing people to "opt-out" of employment rights, and employers to insist on such, which is a very dangerous precedent to set.
It's even more irritating when:
1) The Register is supposed to be a tech publication which should understand the differences, and
2) They have had these mistakes reported to them, and have corrected them, multiple times in every contractor-based article they have published.
While at university (studying engineering), we kept a log book during our labs. One lecturer had told me that our lab books were for our use only, and to use them to ensure we remembered what we were working on.
I then changed university, and carried on using my lab book in the same way. During one particularly frustrating lab in which I had made a fundamental mistake at the beginning and wasted 2 hours trying to figure out why nothing worked, I vented my spleen on my lab book. The comments I wrote were not particularly suitable for work, nor were they something I would want anyone else to read.
Imagine my horror when the lecturer announced "Remember to hand in your lab books"!
Too embarrassed to say anything, I sheepishly handed it in and left. The next week, I received it back with good comments all the way up to my... colourful language. It was then that the lecturer explained something that this university made clear from day one: that lab books weren't just for your own use, but could be used by an employer to help others continue your work if (for instance) you fell ill (or, in his words, got hit by a bus).
Say for example a "Government of National Unity" forms to block Brexit rather than facing General Election.I can see this going to the courts as it is formed for the sole purpose of "stymie" the referendum result.
It is more likely a "Government of National Unity" (or just another Government) forms to find a way forward with Brexit without just telling the EU "we're taking our bat and ball home because you're being mean to us" (a negotiation strategy which most school kids work out early on is unlikely to be successful).
Even so, the referendum result has no legal weight so the situation you specify couldn't be taken to court. As Leavers said they wanted so many times during the ref, Parliament is Sovereign and it is up to Parliament to implement the referendum result (or not) as they see fit. That's what Sovereign means, in this context.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
