On subsidy control, note that the solution apparently proposed by the EU is pretty much along the lines suggested by numerous U.K. lawyers expert in the field as a landing place between the legitimate concerns of the EU and the current UK government’s antipathy to “alignment”.
There are some differences between those proposals: but the basic structure of each of them is along the lines apparently now proposed by the EU. The current UK government should now bite the bullet and accept this sensible way forward.
NB a sting in the tail: there is now no way that a new UK regime can be up and running by 1/1/21: as I explain at the end of this piece, that means that for a period after 1/1/21 we will have to operate a tweaked version of the EU State aid regime. competitionlawinsight.com/incoming/state…
Fortunately, in best Blue Peter fashion, there is a statutory instrument prepared in 2019 that will do the job. legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2019/978….
If the current govt had bitten this bullet earlier and used 2020 to develop a new regime - as @michaelgove said they would in March 2020 - then that delay in moving to a new regime would have been avoided. But there we are.

• • •

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

8 Nov
If the current government does accept the stripping out of Part 5 of the Internal Market Bill (that’s the breach of the NI Protocol bit) then the case for putting forward a robust UK subsidy regime grows even stronger.
That is because Article 10 of the Protocol does have “reach back” effects into Great Britain. Any UK or GB subsidy or tax discount that could be said to have potential knock-on effects on NI/EU trade patterns in goods will be caught.
Examples: a UK corporation tax discount benefitting companies active in the goods sector in NI. A Covid-19 loan guarantee scheme applying to all UK businesses.
Read 8 tweets
6 Nov
For weekend reading (or listening) on law and politics, highly recommend @GreshamCollege lecture by Thomas Grant QC on “the Political Lawyer”. s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/content.gresha… (or listen at podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/gre…).
Great pen portraits of Bram Fischer QC (an inspiration and hero) and Maître Jacques Vergès (not so much).
And a well-justified swipe at Patel and Johnson’s attacks on lawyers for doing their jobs.
Read 4 tweets
6 Nov
Exactly. And the FTA sought by the U.K. isn’t just about tariffs/quotas. It includes eg fly-in rights for service providers (pretty critical - and a nightmare if not sorted); road transport; etc.
There is a lazy line among some political journos (not Nick) that the difference between no FTA and an FTA along the lines being discussed doesn’t matter much. It does matter.
And if there is no FTA those same journos will be writing stories about UK farmers/service providers/ordinary citizens taking very unwelcome and significant (and in many cases enormous) hits to their businesses and personal lives as a result.
Read 6 tweets
5 Nov
Lawyers may - and indeed must - seek legal remedies to which their clients are, or are arguably, entitled if their clients instruct them to do so. It is their duty to do so whether or not that can be seen as achieving political ends. Her answer skirts round that critical point.
@SuellaBraverman’s answer refers to the point that Counsel sometimes rebuked for pursuing politics by other means. That reflects the fact that - in the absence of an arguable legal remedy - the courts aren’t there to decide political questions.
Read 11 tweets
5 Nov
“Fully respect UK sovereignty” is a chameleon phrase that can mean anything (in a sense, any treaty constrains sovereignty). Both here and elsewhere, Frost’s language leaves open the necessary UK concessions on subsidy control: as I explain here.
See competitionlawinsight.com/incoming/state… for the rest of my piece.
But it is being left very late. With two problems. One is this.
Read 5 tweets
28 Oct
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.
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!