Share this page!

George Peretz QC Profile picture
Twitter logo
28 Oct, 4 tweets, 1 min read
There are serious issues here for @ChtyCommission: charitable status should not be conferred on lobbyists or political campaigning groups.
The boundary between education (including in political ideas) and campaigning/lobbying can be tricky. But I’m not sure that @ChtyCommission spends enough time defining or policing it.
Charitable status is a form of public subsidy. If you are going to advocate public subsidy for political parties and campaigns, fine.
But if you decry that idea, you have to accept that you can get public subsidy only if you stay firmly on the “non-partisan education” side of the boundary, and can demonstrate that that is the case.

• • •

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
26 Oct
This is right: but the reason why Westminster ratchets power to itself is that local government has no constitutional protection. (And - as the IM Bill shows - even the constitutional protection for devolution is a paper tiger when Westminster decides to ignore it.)
If you are going to decentralise in a real and lasting way, you need to remove the possibility - which politicians at the centre will always use - of using legislation to centralise power.
You could do that by a constitutional protection immune to Westminster override. Or you create a sort of Bundesrat - a body largely representing local government - to replace the House of Lords.
Read 4 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
24 Oct
The Protocol expressly provides that NI is in the territory to which the EU Customs Code (including checks and all tariffs apart from cases agreed by the JC) applies, and that that is true “notwithstanding” any other provisions of the Protocol. Article 13(1).
(The text is designed not to reveal its meaning until you check the cross-references: but when you do, that’s what it means.)
NB: if the author of that tweet were right that the Protocol “expressly” prevented a GB/NI border, it is hard to see any reason why the IM Bill would need to contain provisions that allow the current govt to infringe it in order to prevent a GB/NI border.
Read 4 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
22 Oct
“Loophole” is never a helpful phrase. The point is that (in tier 2) you can “gather” indoors (and having lunch together with people outside your household is gathering) if it is “reasonably necessary for work purposes” (and some other purposes).
See
I don’t see that it is right to say that *any* business lunch is covered. It has to be “reasonably necessary” for work purposes. That means there as to be a pretty good reason why the business couldn’t sensibly be done on a Zoom call.
Read 6 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
22 Oct
Thread. As he says, progress on subsidy control/level playing field will come only when the principals get involved.
On that issue, this by @DavidGHFrost is meaningless. The live question is what kind of 🇬🇧 subsidy regime the “independent and sovereign” UK is prepared to agree to.
As so often, Tony gets it right: this is what Johnson will need to accept.
Read 4 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
21 Oct
I’m old enough to remember an occasion where a certain Conservative candidate for Mayor of London in 2008 won election on the basis of a promise to scrap a relatively modest extension of the congestion charge into west London. theguardian.com/politics/2008/…
On scrapping it, he said: “In doing we can offer hope to hard pressed businesses when they most needed but also we have shown Londoners that when they speak we will listen. The people of London have spoken. We have listened. In the words of General de Gaulle 'Je vous ai compris'”
See theguardian.com/politics/2008/…
Read 5 tweets
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
(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

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