A great piece on the inadequate provision in the EU/U.K. Trade and Cooperation Agreement for services.
A summary of the problems.
Why didn’t the current government do more to get a better deal in the TCA? My theory: taboos against going anywhere near mobility of people (very linked to services); and against asking the EU for anything for fear of having to make concessions in return.
A nice refutation of the trope - still trotted out on occasion - that the EU internal market in services was unimportant (incomplete is not the same as unimportant).
A core problem - the cat’s cradle of reservations.
Especially for regulated professions (which often includes professions that are not regulated in the U.K.)
The consequences of the current government’s refusal to look at any provisions on mobility (remember, an offer on mobility was made by the EU). And the problems are real, as we’ll discover: questions at airports about why you are travelling.
Some mitigation possible.
But it’s really helpful to be Irish. (The difference in opportunities open to U.K. only nationals compared to the Irish nationals in the next door office or competing band is going to be a very noticeable thing.)
And that’s the problem: even if you can manoeuvre your way round the obstacles, most EU clients just won’t want the hassle when you can get an EU provider instead (again, great for the Irish).

• • •

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

9 May
It’s important that general political commentators like @peston get to grips with precisely what is at issue here, and don’t shove it off to legal correspondents as a technical legal matter.
Effective judicial review is about ensuring that government decisions - from small planning decisions to decisions to close down half the economy - are within the powers we (through Parliament) have given them and meet the standards of fairness and thoughtfulness that we expect.
Effective judicial review is not anti-democratic: rather, it is a vital mechanism to ensure that those whom we elect (and their officials) comply with the rules debated and set by Parliament and the standards we want them to live up to.
Read 8 tweets
7 May
The Scotland Act 1998 says that legislation is outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament if it “relates to reserved matters”.
See section 29(3) in the above quote for some help as to what “relates to” means. You look at the purpose of the legislation at issue and its effect in all the circumstances.
Read 7 tweets
30 Apr
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
Read 11 tweets
23 Apr
In the context of imaginative proposals to put the Union on a solid footing, it is worth reading this letter from Lord Salisbury to party leaders on the @ActofUnionBill proposal, here reaction.life/constitution-r…
The draft Act of Union Bill is here. constitutionreformgroup.co.uk/publications-2/
There is a lot in the Bill to chew on: but its vision of a Union between the four nations, set out on a basis that limits the powers and functions of the Westminster parliament seems to me to be along the right lines.
Read 5 tweets
21 Apr
Oh dear, more of this “EU law is code-based and inflexible, English law is flexible and pragmatic” trope. It’s poor stuff. telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/…
This is a re-hash of a paper published by @PoliteiaUK a couple of months ago, accompanied by an equally poor Express article. Brief reasons why it’s hopeless here.
As I explain, what this is really about, to the extent that it makes any real sense, is moving to a US rather than an EU model of regulation. But one can see why, forensically, that call is dressed up as a “common law” (English) v. “civil law” (foreign) issue.
Read 4 tweets
20 Apr
A good summary. But it misses a point that, I think, has caused a lot of trouble: the smoke-and-mirrors drafting of the Protocol.
The problem (to use Stephen Weatherill’s terminology) is the disconnect between what the Protocol *says* (at least on a casual reading) and what it *does* (on a detailed reading that looks carefully at the whole text).
This, on customs, the Protocol *says* that NI remains part of the UK customs territory, but what it actually *does* is to apply the whole of the EU Customs Code to imports into NI (incl. imports from GB), with a carve-out for the level of tariffs (but not checks) on some goods.
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!

:(