George Peretz KC 🇺🇦🌹 Profile picture
Apr 30, 2021 11 tweets 3 min read Read on X
Worth reading this response by the Administrative Law Bar Association to the current government’s latest consultation on “reform” to judicial review. adminlaw.org.uk/wp-content/upl…
(Disclosure: I had a very minor hand in it - but not in any of the paragraphs I’m going to quote.)
Opening salvo. The current government’s description of the findings of the independent review is simply false, in critical respects. ImageImage
Opening comments on the proposal to make JR remedies “prospective only”. Image
Unimpressed with the quality of drafting and analysis in the consultation paper. Image
Why there should be no presumption against annulment of statutory instruments found to be in excess of Ministers’ powers: the Parliamentary veneer on them fails to conceal that they are exercises of executive power with no real Parliamentary scrutiny. ImageImage
On muddled proposals on ouster clauses (muddled but generally tending towards making it easier to defend them.) Image
(“Ouster clauses” are provisions that try to restrict judicial review of certain decisions.)
Why Conservatives really need to reflect before suggesting that ouster clauses are a good idea. Image
(I enjoyed “specific and limited”.)
But there’s plenty more here: a comprehensive demolition of a set of proposals that managed, in critical respects, to be simultaneously incoherent and sinister.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with George Peretz KC 🇺🇦🌹

George Peretz KC 🇺🇦🌹 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 @GeorgePeretzKC

Jun 12
Others - see eg - have dealt with the “no big negative impact” claim here (and it isn’t “assume”: it’s looking at the evidence and applying standard analysis). But a couple of points on “and so little use has been made of the opportunities [Brexit] offers”
The current government has taken - in rafts of legislation since 2019 - enormous powers to change EU regulatory rules. That was so even before the Retained EU Law Act (REULA) gave them even greater powers to do so, largely without needing to involve Parliament.
Have they used them? Despite the huge political pressure on them, and every incentive on individual ministers, to find “Brexit opportunities”, hardly at all.
Read 14 tweets
May 18
The concerns set out by @GeorgeMonbiot here have powerful and authoritative backing from the 2022 @CMAgovUK report into children’s care. Its conclusion:
Image
Further backing from the President of the Family Division. judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…
Image
Since then, the inability of the children in care system to deal adequately with children in care with complex needs has led to an explosion in “Deprivation of Liberty Orders” (DOLs) - so many that there is now a special court to deal with them. judiciary.uk/launch-of-nati…
Read 9 tweets
Apr 19
Some brief comments on the European Commission’s proposal to get a mandate to negotiate a youth mobility agreement with the UK. ec.europa.eu/commission/pre…
1. The EU is not there yet. The mandate has to be agreed by the Council of Ministers: probably by qualified majority. And it isn’t clear whether a final agreement would need to be ratified by all Member States as well as the EU itself.
2. If the EU does agree a mandate, that is likely to slam the door on any attempt by the UK to negotiate youth mobility agreements with individual Member States (because they have a duty of sincere cooperation). So any agreement would have to cover (say) 🇧🇬 as well as (say) 🇫🇷.
Read 17 tweets
Apr 1
A bit of background on this. (And if you don’t want to £ for The Times, the i has the same story here ) independent.co.uk/news/uk/scotti…
See also @scotgov’s letter to @DefraGovUK here. gov.scot/publications/g…
As you can see, the Scottish Parliament wants to pass a law banning the sale of glue traps.
Read 36 tweets
Nov 17, 2023
Even as realpolitik, this “plan” by @Dominic2306 fails. It ignores basic realities.
1. No plan to “stop the boats” (chase them into French waters, destroy them on (French?) shores) or to send refugees who do land here to other countries (safe, because otherwise UK public opinion, let alone law, won’t wear it) works without cooperation of those countries. Esp. 🇫🇷
2. Those countries won’t do deals or cooperate just because it suits the UK. And France is (and French voters are) well aware that France takes many more refugees than we do.
Read 13 tweets
Jul 27, 2023
Not a serious contribution by @DavidGHFrost, because it produces no serious policy proposal. But a couple of points first.
1. It is of course true that big business (and the professions) can be a bit politically uniform. When I started out in the early 90s, the commercial Bar ( the profession I know best) was pretty much solidly Conservative (and certainly conservative).
To the point that aspiring pupils were sometimes advised not to mention eg chairing their university Labour club in their application.
Read 16 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(