Profile picture
, 4 tweets, 2 min read
My Authors
Read all threads
Your regular reminder that the Government has *already* agreed to remain significantly bound by EU State aid rules after transition (under the NI protocol: provisions that would almost certainly apply to any State aid to Flybe).
And even the Conservatives’ (somewhat incoherent) GE proposal to replace State aid rules involved recreating a domestic anti-subsidy regime. prospectmagazine.co.uk/economics-and-…
NB “almost certainly” is putting it too high in relation to FlyBe, as it isn’t (I think) a cargo airline. (The reference to “trade covered by the protocol” in Art 10 is a reference, essentially, to goods: but aid to a company that carries goods would affect that trade.)
Lawyers are going to have fun with this sort of point, though.
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Enjoying this thread?

Keep Current with George Peretz QC

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GeorgePeretzQC see all

Profile picture
George Peretz QC
@GeorgePeretzQC
Absolutely.
Cf the extraordinary, broadly defined powers taken by the executive in the Withdrawal Agreement Act: powers to be exercised withot any real Parliamentary scrutiny. Powers that will, as the Govt well knows, set up a clash with the judiciary when they are abused (as they will be).
See this for an example: an attempt (spotted in time, but not by Parliament) to give *HMRC officials* a power to suspend *Acts of Parliament* by *public notice*. Case of Proclamations, anyone? publiclawproject.org.uk/uncategorized/…
Read 3 tweets
Profile picture
George Peretz QC
@GeorgePeretzQC
Interesting judgment today on EU free movement in the context of protection against bankruptcy of assets in foreign personal pension schemes (in circumstances when assets in UK schemes would be protected. Reference to CJEU (perhaps the first to be made in the transition period).
See monckton.com/high-court-ref… (a link to the judgment from the note).
I acted for the Irish national seeking protection of his Irish pension assets. Also a walk on part for @CSBarnard24’s book on EU law (paras 92-112).
Read 3 tweets
Profile picture
George Peretz QC
@GeorgePeretzQC
Looks like an account to follow. A good summary of Ghaidan.
Incidentally, this is a classic example of one of the features of the HRA. By 2004, few would have queried that the surviving partner of a committed gay relationship should be treated no differently from the surviving partner of a committed straight relationship.
But this corner of the law hadn’t been updated to reflect that (by 2004 there weren’t many Rent Act tenancies left: Parliament had other things to do).
Read 5 tweets

Related threads

Profile picture
Tony Connelly
@tconnellyRTE
So, some tough messaging on level playing field (LPF) provisions coming out of a preparatory meeting between the European Commission and member states today, which I'll try to explain in a thread. Take home message: in the EU-UK trade talks LPF is going to get very dirty...
1/ First big eye-opener is that the European Commission believes that big British firms with subsidiaries in NI will be caught under the ambit of the Irish Protocol if there is no free trade agreement by the end of the year...
2/ Under the Protocol, Northern Ireland remains subject to EU state aid rules. However, the Commission believes that a big British firm with subsidiaries in NI, which might get a bail out by the UK govt, would be subject to EU state aid rules by virtue of the Irish Protocol
Read 23 tweets
Profile picture
Paul Reynolds
@paulrey99
I’ve reviewed this vid released by BXP. I’m sorry to say, Nigel Farage does not talk much sense here. THREAD => /1
Farage complains that the PD talks about regulatory co-operation. This is *not* harmonisation following EU rules, it is co-operation to minimise regulatory trade barriers. He will find similar commitments in future UK FTA ‘s w/ USA, TPP etc. that I thought he was keen on. /2
EU really only offers 2 forms of regulatory relationship. You can be a rule-taker in the single market (e.g. Norway) or a third country outside single market (e.g. Canada). Nothing in Boris's PD suggests the rights or obligations of Norway. /3
Read 20 tweets
Profile picture
Michael Gray
@GrayInGlasgow
Back in Court of Session. Case before Lord Pentland by @JolyonMaugham claiming interdict against UK Ministers on grounds that the proposed Brexit Withdrawal Agreement breaches existing law on the customs status of Northern Ireland.
Aidan O’Neill QC appearing for petitioner. Will speak for 1 hour 30. Begins by stating that petition anticipated the contents of the Withdrawal Agreement - and was largely correct. Claims it breaches section 55 of Taxation (Cross border Trade) Act 2018 on Northern Ireland.
O’Neill: There is not yet an Agreement under EU Law - at it is not passed by the European Parliament as required. So this remains a live legal issue.
Read 30 tweets
Profile picture
David Phinnemore
@DPhinnemore
Is the #Brexit #backstop anti-democratic?

A persistent argument against it is the claim that it makes Northern Ireland a voiceless "rule-taker".

Here's a mega-thread based on research with @hayward_katy taking a closer look at this issue.

1/25
Boris Johnson insists on calling the backstop ‘anti-democratic’ noting that there is no ‘sovereign’ means of exiting it and it applies to ‘large areas of single market legislation in Northern Ireland’ over which the people of NI have ‘no influence’

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…

2/25
The DUP take a similar line.

Nigel Dodds has claimed that the backstop ‘would see laws made in Brussels impacting the economy of Northern Ireland with no-one in London or Belfast able to vote on them or even ask a question about them.

mydup.com/news/article/c…

3/25
Read 25 tweets
Profile picture
Polly Politics
@Polly_Politics
the European Commission may, within 4 years after the end of the transition period, bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union”. (Art. 87)
The jurisdiction of the ECJ will last until eight years after the end of the transition period. (Article 158).
The UK will still be bound by any future changes to EU law in which it will have no say, not to mention having to comply with current law. (Article 6(2))
Read 45 tweets
Profile picture
What have the Romans ever done for us?
@HaveRomans
EU State aid rules will continue to apply until the end of the transition period. However, for up to four years from the end of the transition period, the Commission will be able to bring a State aid case against the UK on facts arising before the end of the transition period.
Ben should also note that the state aid rules will be transposed into U.K. law via the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That’s the same act which ends our membership of the EU.
So in law the only path to achieve Bens desire is to pass the Withdrawal Agreement which include provision to end the state aid rules.
Read 6 tweets

Trending hashtags

#geopolitics #PeoplesVote #UNHRC #EU #exports #supplychains #Remain #Hypocrites #billions #tariffs #MikePompeo #France #scaremongering #Mercosur #energy #ElliotAbrams #PDVSA #tanker #OIL #Guaido #scrap #Kohleausstieg #imports #FTW #cheese
Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!