Share this page!

George Peretz QC Profile picture
Twitter logo
3 Dec, 5 tweets, 1 min read
Must-read piece by @ProfMarkElliott on the current government’s proposed repeal of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. publiclawforeveryone.com/2020/12/02/rep….
TLDR
Other questions: is it really appropriate in a democracy for those who are accountable to us to choose the time at which they are prepared to be made accountable?
Is it right that a government elected on a term that is due to expire on 2 May 2024 to use legislation to extend that term, potentially to the end of 2024?
Do we really want to return to the days of endless tedious speculation, starting around 3 1/2 years from the previous election, as to when the next election will be?

• • •

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
4 Dec
An important update: the government has announced that COVID-19 vaccines *will* be brought within the Vaccine Damages Act 1979 regime. gov.uk/government/new…
A sensible and well-crafted announcement: getting the language right here isn’t straightforward.
As my article points out, however, there are some serious problems with the VDPA regime. A review is called for.
Read 4 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
2 Dec
This isn’t right.
See
I don’t like legal inaccuracy: a lawyer’s professional deformation. But I particularly dislike it when the subject is vaccines, and Ministers like @NadineDorries are going to be asking us for trust. Nothing destroys trust more than inaccuracy and puff.
Read 4 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
2 Dec
I think an explanation is needed. Here goes.
The UK is still entirely within the EU medicines regime. Under that regime, licensing of the Covid-19 vaccines is reserved to the EMA (technically the Commission advised by the EMA, but let’s simplify): only the EMA can license biotechnological products for medical use.
However, the Medicines Directive (2001/83) allows national medicines regulators (the MHRA) to approve unlicensed products for use in response to the spread of pathogens (Article 5(2)). That is what the MHRA has done here.
Read 9 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
30 Nov
One point worth making, because I think there could be some confusion about this (the point is implicit in Jon’s article but not spelt out). It’s about what sort of vote there will be.
As Jon points out, there is no requirement for an “meaningful vote” (on the principle of the deal). That requirement only arose in the last Parliament because that Parliament insisted on one in relation to the Withdrawal Agreement (and wrote it into the EU Withdrawal Act).
The current Parliament has placed no such requirement on the current government. Funny, that.
Read 15 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
29 Nov
Hypothesis 1: a sub-national approach to COVID-19 restrictions works well where the decision is actually taken by sub-national governments. Means that restrictions are well tailored to local circumstances and priorities.
Hypothesis 2: A national government can’t effectively operate different rules in different regions because it cannot ever fully justify differences of treatment. No objective mathematical formula can work: and judgment will always be questioned by those who feel worse treated.
Germany (or the UK when thinking about 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 vs 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 and NI) may illustrate hypothesis 1: England when considered on its own may well illustrate hypothesis 2.
Read 4 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
28 Nov
This is why I disagree with voting against an FTA with the EU that the current government decides to sign.
But I also disagree with voting for it: any deal will be a bad one, driven by the current government’s incoherent obsession with “sovereignty” (an obsession that appears to apply only to agreements with the EU). theguardian.com/politics/2020/…
Labour should promise to go back and renegotiate this bad FTA when it gets into government. Its inadequacies will reveal themselves pretty swiftly over the next year or so.
Read 10 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 emails when @GeorgePeretzQC has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @GeorgePeretzQC!

Read all threads by @GeorgePeretzQC