It doesn’t deliver on a “clear* Conservative manifesto commitment”. The Conservative manifesto and election campaign told us that the Withdrawal Agreement was a wonderful deal that would be ratified. Nothing about reneging on it. Image
(*Another example of use of “clear” being a tell that what is being asserted is anything but.)
The clauses do not protect the integrity of the U.K. internal market or the peace process.
They are a “cunning plan” (in the Baldrick sense of the term) to get the current government out of a commitment on State aid (Article 10) that it failed to look at properly, and now wishes it hadn’t signed because of its potential effect in GB.
A principled or sensible government would deal with the problem by putting on the table a robust UK subsidy regime and asking the EU to agree to amend or delete Article 10. But No 10 under its current occupation doesn’t seem to be brimming over with either principle or sense.

• • •

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

10 Nov
We may have a vaccine against Covid. That means a decision for the government (@theresecoffey at @DWP) on whether to extend the scheme under the Vaccine Damages Act 1979 legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/17/… to vaccinations against Covid.
A brief description of the scheme here. gov.uk/vaccine-damage…
You’ll see that it entitles anyone suffering severe disablement (60% disabled) caused by a vaccine against listed diseases to a payment of £120,000 from the state. Unlike a product liability claim, it’s irrelevant what the manufacturer knew or should have known about its effects.
Read 9 tweets
9 Nov
This, I’m afraid, misses the point. @SBarrettBar points to cases where national courts (the ECJ is a national court for these purposes) have identified a conflict between their domestic legal order & international law, and said that they have to follow their domestic legal order.
Such conflicts usually arise accidentally, in that the domestic legislature and executive have misunderstood what their own legal order, or international law, requires, and have ended up in a situation where the two don’t match up. Both of Steven’s examples are in that category.
Errare humanum est. These things happen. And what international law requires, or what the domestic legal order requires, are often unclear until a competent court has ruled.
Read 5 tweets
9 Nov
There is an argument that Part 5 of the IM Bill (the bit that permits breaches of the Withdrawal Agreement) doesn’t undermine the Good Friday Agreement - but not for the reason claimed by Eustice.
There are 2 elements to Part 5. The first (clause 44) permits breaches of rules about exit procedures from NI to GB. (Essentially some form filling.)
Far more important is clause 45 on State aid. The issue here is “reach back”: the effect that Article 10 has in Great Britain. See
Read 12 tweets
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
7 Nov
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.
Read 7 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

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!