Share this page!

George Peretz QC Profile picture
Twitter logo
25 Jul, 5 tweets, 2 min read
Before you’re impressed by this, worth noting that well over 60% of our wine comes from the EU, and that as an EU member and as a temporary measure since, this red tape did not/doesn’t at the moment apply to imports from there. gov.uk/government/new…
Much of this is therefore not so much “saved” as “additional Brexit burden avoided”. (More knowledgeable heads than mine can tell you about any safety implications.)
I have to say that I think that this … Image
… raises issues under the Government Communications Code. ImageImage
Some background here. the-buyer.net/insight/wine-i…

• • •

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 Jul
What to do about a Prime Minister who persistently says things to Parliament that aren’t true? fullfact.org/news/dawn-butl…
One lesson from civil trial advocacy is that it’s generally not worth getting into a debate about whether someone is lying (deliberate dishonesty): that is hard to prove, and what matters is whether they say things that are incorrect.
So I think the discipline of not throwing around accusations of lying is generally a good one: the focus should be on the error rather than the state of mind of the maker of the statement.
Read 9 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
26 Jul
On @Dominic2306’s “it worked” claim on the Internal Market Bill threat to breach the NI Protocol: remember that the heart of that “threat” related to State aid (Article 10). What did the “threat” achieve? A declaration worth more or less nothing. See eurelationslaw.com/blog/the-case-…
NB too that the House of Lords refusal to agree the “threat” - which it was pretty obviously going to do, given the blatant breach of promise - meant that the “threat”
was always a paper tiger. Main effect was to further damage the current UK govt’s credibility.
Which makes it even more difficult to get changes in the Protocol or easements within it.
Read 4 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
25 Jul
The point is - as I suspect @Dominic2306 well knows - that large parts of the NIP are opaque in the sense that the casual/lazy reader won’t work out what is going on. But they are *not* opaque in the key sense i.e. that there is any legal doubt about what they mean.
A classic example is Article 10, on State aid. Image
Unless you bother to look up Annex 5 (which is the panoply of EU State aid law) and check what the threshold for “affect trade” is in EU law (so low you won’t trip over it) you won’t realise that it continues to apply EU State law to many U.K. measures (eg on tax).
Read 6 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
21 Jul
A discussion between @bricksilk and @JoshuaRozenberg that suggests that clause 1 of the JR and Courts Bill (remedy may be prospective-only) may be less harmful that feared. Watch this space, though.
Interesting to note that the MoJ press release chose to highlight this somewhat lukewarm endorsement from Ekins, of the Judicial Power Project (sometimes referred to as the Executive Power Project).
Pretty clear from that that he would have wanted to go much further (and indeed at the end eggs Parliament on to go further).
Read 5 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
21 Jul
A reminder that an agreement with the EU on food health standards wouldn’t just help in relation to the NI Protocol: it would make 🇬🇧 food exports to all our close neighbours easier.
It would also reduce the costs and difficulties (which will be reflected in prices) that U.K. importers of food from the EU will soon face.
Since the current government promises not to reduce food standards and is unable to explain what (if any) divergence from EU standards it actually wants, its case against is pure dogma, unleavened by any consideration of U.K. public interest.
Read 4 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
21 Jul
On the day on which the current government’s Bill on judicial review comes out, this is a really important article by Paul Craig on why there is no foundation for its claims, backed by its outriders in the Judicial Power Project, about “judicial overreach”.
As it may be TLDR I will try to pull out the key points.
The JPP’s speciality is to produce short and misleading summaries of so-called problematic cases. But in looking at these, you need a sense of scale. There are ‘000s of JR cases over decades. What does a list of ~50 selected cases tell you, when you stand back?
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

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

:(