This attempt to contrast a “common law” approach to regulation with an EU “civil law” approach is wholly unconvincing. (And I have read the detailed paper on which it is based.) express.co.uk/comment/expres…
There is no consistent “common law” approach to regulation that fits Reynolds description of a judge-led, principles rather than prescriptive approach. Look at regulation that the UK has introduced without any EU involvement (from planning to merger control).
None of it fits Reynolds’ “common law” typology.
Nor is there any attempt to explore how regulation works in countries like Australia - equally “common law”.
Nor can EU regulation be typecast as “civil” (as if that categorisation gets you very far when discussing legal systems as different as eg France, Germany, and Sweden.)
Indeed, no less an authority than Sir David Edwards, Scots lawyer and former ECJ judge, has pointed out that EU law - faced with a set of new supranational issues not faced by any previous legal system - can’t sensibly be described in terms of any national legal system.
What the suggestion that we adopt a “common law” approach seems to mean - when you get into the thickets - is adopting a more US approach. It would perhaps assist clarity if it were put that way - though one can see why it isn’t.
As to the merits of the Reynolds approach: well I am no expert on financial services regulation.
But more generally I observe that attempts to legislate for “principles based” regulation to be developed by judges in individual cases are usually met with pleas by those subject to those principles for greater certainty (detailed rules) and statutory guidance.
And it is also worth remembering how much EU legislation was shaped by UK input and even (as in medicines) based on UK legislation. The idea that EU law was “alien” rather than something into which the UK had a major input is flawed from the start.

• • •

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

18 Feb
The idea that there is a distinctively “common law”
approach to to regulation (presumably opposed to EU law, said to be “civil law”) is a bit of a Brexiter trope. No real basis for it.
If you look at our planning control system (the basic elements of which are entirely domestic), it’s a bit hard to describe it as based on broad principles with interventions only where necessary.
And some EU legislation - eg medicines - was pretty much based on UK regulation. Indeed, most important EU regulation is characterised by a pretty heavy UK input.
Read 4 tweets
16 Feb
The current government claims that its proposals to safeguard the ability of musicians and other creatives were devised in consultation with the sector. But its proposals were always a non-starter, for reasons explained here.
And no-one seems to know who it consulted with on its doomed proposals.
The simple fact is that it was the current government’s blinkered refusal to discuss *any* mobility arrangement with the EU - its “we are going to treat you as foreigners just like everyone else” dogma - that led to the current impasse.
Read 5 tweets
15 Feb
Note: the freedom not to invite someone to speak at a student event because of their views is also part of the right to free speech. It is the same right used by the owners of the Daily Telegraph when they decide not to run a daily column by (eg) Owen Jones.
You could argue that some platforms are so important that that they should be offered to speakers with a balanced range of views. But then you have to explain why that applies to a student society but not to the Daily Telegraph.
Universities (as opposed to student societies) may be a harder case: they are (essentially) public bodies. You can mount a good case for saying that they must offer a diverse range of views in teaching controversial topics.
Read 9 tweets
14 Feb
I don’t know Louise’s circumstances, but one of the problems with the Withdrawal Agreement is that it gives UK citizens living in the EU rights only in their state of residence.
So if you are a UK musician resident in Germany you have lost your free movement rights to sing/play in (eg) Austria.
(You may be able to get German citizenship. But I think that now means giving up your UK citizenship.)
Read 4 tweets
13 Feb
This piece by @jpianomiddleton sets out the problem. The government’s explanation of how we got here was set out by the DCMS minister, Caroline Dinenage, in a debate last week on the petition about this issue. committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1…
Let’s look at it.
The UK proposals, she says, were straightforward and just involved adding musicians to the list of permitted short term business visitors.
Read 16 tweets
12 Feb
This article by Jim Spellar for @LabourList misses the point about why Labour needs to think seriously about constitutional reform - and have a programme for it ready for government.
The state of our constitution is a bit like the state of the neglected electric wiring in an old house. If you are moving into the house, sorting it out is a bit tedious. Couldn’t you spend the time and money on a new sound system?
But if you ignore the wiring, you’ll find that you can’t safely install the new sound system. And your house may well catch fire.
Read 9 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!