Share this page!

George Peretz QC Profile picture
Twitter logo
3 Jul, 6 tweets, 1 min read
This passage from last week’s judgment in Allister v SoS for NI (the NI protocol case) deserves some political attention.
The current Prime Minister was asked in PMQs whether the legislation implementing the Protocol had resulted in an implied repeal of Article 6 of the 1800 Act of Union (GB/Ireland).
The current PM gave his “assurance” that it *had not*.
But that was at the same time as *his own lawyers* were arguing, precisely, that it *had* (submissions accepted by the court).
The court wisely declined to comment on the current PM’s “assurance”: but since his “assurance” was flatly inconsistent with not just the court’s holding but *with what his own lawyers were arguing at that very moment* some form of apology to Parliament would seem to be in order.
None of this will increase the already somewhat tarnished value of “assurances” by the current Prime Minister.

• • •

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
26 Jun
These are troubling allegations. Being able to see who has decided what and said what to whom is essential to contract management and effective decision-taking. So this is about bad government.
It is also about unaccountable government (which leads to bad government). Government that can’t be held to account in Parliament, in the press, or in the courts for the decisions that it has taken.
It is sometimes said that “paper trails” are a luxury in a crisis. But it is precisely in a crisis that it is critical to keep a decent record of what decisions were taken and why.
Read 4 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
26 Jun
1. That is not what the judgment said, as I explain here. prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/the-j… The judgment provides no support for his thesis.
2. Cummings has never managed to distinguish problems with procurement law (and there are problems there with rules and procedures) from a head on attack on judicial review of all kinds (where his criticisms don’t land).
3. Cummings has never explained what reforms to general JR he has in mind or how they would address his criticisms while ensuring that government complies with the rules Parliament has laid down.
Read 4 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
25 Jun
Listening to Grant Shapps on @BBCr4today: the reason for maintaining test/quarantine requirements on those who can prove that they are double vaccinated seems to be that it’s unfair to exempt them vis a vis people who can’t be vaccinated or can’t easily prove vaccination.
I don’t see how that can be a lawful basis, under public health powers, for applying quarantine to those who can prove double vaccination, if the position is that they pose no health risk sufficient to justify quarantine.
The only relevant question is danger to public health. If some people pose a significant danger and others don’t, there is no justification for imposing the requirement on those who don’t.
Read 5 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
22 Jun
Harsh but fair.
Two case studies. On subsidy control, it should have been a U.K. priority to renegotiate Art 10 of the Protocol (which is going to cause problems).
But no discernible attempt was made to do that. Perhaps because that would have involved clear commitments up front that the U.K. would have its own effective subsidy control regime.
Read 10 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
18 Jun
This is an interesting talk. A few comments (they deserve an essay but I’ll do my best).
1. The thesis that the rule of law is a difficult concept that may be being over-extended has some force. But that may be because it’s being used to do jobs that in a mature constitution would have been properly articulated: such as the boundary between courts and legislature.
2. These claims are not alternatives: they can be (and are) both true. The U.K. executive in the 50s/60s had an extraordinary amount of power (Hailsham’s “elective dictatorship”). It was constrained by “good chaps” understandings of how that power would be used.
Read 16 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
18 Jun
Not obvious to me that this is a legally relevant consideration in imposing quarantine on return from an amber country on the double-vaccinated under *public health* powers.
The basis for imposing quarantine on a person under section 45F of the Public Health Act 1984 is that the requirement is for preventing danger to public health.
If quarantining P isn’t justified on the basis that (unless quarantined) P poses a danger to public health, then P can’t be quarantined: it’s irrelevant that it’s “not fair in many ways” that P isn’t subject to that obligation while others (who do pose that danger) are.
Read 5 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

:(