Share this page!

George Peretz QC Profile picture
Twitter logo
19 Oct, 6 tweets, 2 min read
This essay on judicial review, democracy, and the Left is now online at @thefabians website. fabians.org.uk/wp-content/upl…, from page 23.
One of the points made is along the lines of my recent thread here: it’s that the alleged tension between effective government and judicial review/human rights protection is illusory.
The vision of the state that is at the heart of the social democratic/Fabian tradition is a state that provides people with the services and support that they need in order to flourish. Such a state needs to be effective.
To be effective, a state needs to be accountable to and respectful of all those whom it serves. Without that it will take bad decisions and won’t win the basic level of trust on which its effectiveness depends.
Judicial review and human rights are essential to accountable and respectful government, and hence effective government: an essential supplement to accountability through elected representatives.
So judicial review and human rights aren’t an optional extra for the democratic left. They are at the core of the project.

• • •

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
19 Oct
The first sentence is (subject to (b) below) correct: Article 12(1) of the Protocol. But the second is false, because (a) EU officials have the right the EU is seeking (Article 12(2) of the Protocol) and Image
(b) Article 12(1) is “without prejudice to [Article 12(4)]”, which gives EU bodies in the UK the powers as regards the Protocol that they have in the EU under EU law.
So Moylan’s third sentence is also incorrect: the answer is “yes”.
Read 4 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
19 Oct
This is very good indeed. A couple of comments (with the odd excursion into subsidy policy, as that’s my hobby).
1. I’m pretty sure Edgerton isn’t saying this, but there’s a danger of looking back at 1950s-1970s corporatism (subsidies/weak competition policy) with rose-tinted spectacles. The British state wasn’t much good at it: the Tories and then Labour abandoned it for good reasons.
2. But I think he is on the nail in pointing out the deep lack of capacity now of the British state. That is one reason why I don’t think a “trust us to be competent” (or even “trust us to be honest”) approach to subsidy policy is sustainable.
Read 9 tweets
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”.
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
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.
Read 5 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