Share this page!

George Peretz QC Profile picture
Twitter logo
16 Oct, 5 tweets, 3 min read
This is savage criticism of every aspect of the Internal Market Bill.
Powerful criticism of the devolution aspects of the Bill. Like me, the Committee considers that the @Michaelgove claim that this is a “power surge” to devolved governments is “surprising”: their Lordships’ euphemism for “complete tosh”.
As to the aspects of the Bill dealing with the Protocol and breaching international law, they are damning. They have this to say about @SuellaBraverman and her advice.
And this is interesting about the position of the civil service and @GovernmentLegal lawyers.
And this is a strong dispatching of the (with all due respect) desperate claim that there are precedents for such an avowed breach of international law.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with George Peretz QC

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!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GeorgePeretzQC

George Peretz QC Profile picture
18 Oct
I looked at this piece by @michaelgove in an effort to understand what it is that prevents the current government from agreeing a free trade agreement with the EU. thetimes.co.uk/article/michae…
I find this as “explanation”. ImageImage
What are these “restrictions” and “arrangements that tie our hands indefinitely” that we are being asked to sign up to? Oddly, given that we are asked to be shocked and outraged, no details are provided.
Read 12 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
16 Oct
This, by @iainmartin1, is a hopeless misreading of the real problem: the failure of the U.K. government to make any acceptable proposal on a subsidy regime.
See
As I explain in the thread, the current government’s position on a subsidy regime has veered all over the place over the past year. Slight move back to the original position recently, but still hedged around by hopelessly ambiguous language (“administrative” regime).
Read 4 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
16 Oct
It is, I think, rather an over-statement by @SBarrettBar to describe this as a “consensus”: especially on a day when @HLConstitution said that it was an “open question”.
See
Nor, I think, is it right to say that the issue of whether there is a measure is straightforward.
Read 4 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
16 Oct
I agree with @SteveBakerHW: the way out of the subsidy control impasse is for the current government to agree to “robust guarantees” on an independent and enforceable subsidy regime in the U.K./EU FTA.
The reasons why such a regime is in the U.K. interest anyway were set out in the letter linked to here (the signatories include committed Brexiters). The proposal builds on Conservative commitments in the election (also linked to). uksala.org/leading-uk-law…
It is (genuinely) surprising that @DavidGHFrost is “surprised” that the EU might expect UK movement back to a position flagged up by the Conservative manifesto.
Read 5 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
15 Oct
A good answer to this question is “The Judge over your shoulder”, (JOYS), @GovernmentLegal’s guide to judicial review for civil servants. Looking at that guide again, I was struck by the opening passage. It’s very relevant to the current government’s review of administrative law
Here it is. (Full guide at assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…)
Contrast that with this passage in the terms of reference of the current government’s review (IRAL). assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
Read 16 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
12 Oct
@NigelBiggar I made it clear (2nd tweet) that you don’t need to be a lawyer to avoid your mistake: you just need to be able to read a complex text with a bit of care. (A skill you’d think a professor of theology might have.)
@NigelBiggar And your attack is even more odd since your defence, that “a Supreme Court judge read my book”, is (on any view) an appeal to professional authority.
@NigelBiggar I actually explain my argument that you’ve misread the judgment. If you have a counter-argument (as opposed to an appeal to authority), please explain it.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

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

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/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!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get email notifications when new thread is out from this Author!

Check out other threads from this Author!

Read all threads by @GeorgePeretzQC