Share this page!

George Peretz QC Profile picture
Twitter logo
26 Sep, 4 tweets, 1 min read
Not really a thread - and haven’t checked the detailed statements: but Schedule 3 to the Competition Act 1998 contains appropriate powers. legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/41/…
(Order subject to annulment by either House: section 71(5)).
(These powers were, I think, used to allow certain types of cooperation between suppliers during the pandemic.)
Ah. Brigid has - as usual - the facts at her fingertips.

• • •

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 Sep
This is an important point on VAT post Brexit: that chancellors may well yield to pressure to extend exemptions and zero rates, reducing the VAT base.
NB too though that Brexit offers scope for tidying up often bizarre rules on food (biscuits/cake; crisps made from potato) without extending VAT to more food (something chancellors have been reluctant to do).
All though complicated by the NI Protocol, where the VAT directive still partly holds: change GB rules and the Irish Sea barrier gets that little bit higher.
Read 9 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
26 Sep
Questions of intra-party democracy are in the UK news: so interesting to read this German perspective from @Verfassungsblog. verfassungsblog.de/after-the-unio…
In Germany, parties are required by law to have “bottom-up”, democratic structures, and to choose candidates accordingly.
A couple of reflections on that.
Read 21 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
24 Sep
Would add to this excellent thread the point that using Article 16 as a response to complaints about Article 10 (as suggested by @eastantrimmp in the debate on the Subsidy Control Bill on Wednesday) is a non-starter.
The (relevant) threshold for using it is “serious economic difficulties that are likely to persist”. But it’s hard to see how such an argument could run in relation to Article 10.
The bottom line on Article 10 is that it requires certain measures to be approved by the Commission. But the Commission is able to take account of any “difficulties” to NI’s economy that the measure is designed to deal with in deciding whether to grant approval.
Read 4 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
24 Sep
Delighted to have contributed to this piece by @pmdfoster, in the excellent company of @CSBarnard24 and @SirJJQC. ft.com/content/e5a7c9…
Two main points about the current government’s proposals to revisit “retained EU law” (the mass of mainly technical but often important EU law that remains in force in the UK).
1. The somewhat hand-waving, “let’s seem to be doing something Brexity”, suggestion of changing its status vis-a-vis domestic legislation is simply unwise, for the reason well-summarised by Peter.
Read 11 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
17 Sep
I think that this by @IPPR is absolutely right. But NB the overlap with thinking about devolution and much stronger local government.
A critical devolution issue is local government finance: if you want seriously to devolve power to local level, you have to give it its own tax base, immune from Westminster’s tendency to grab power by fiddling around with finance.
And also immune to its tendency to concentrate all restrictions on public spending on local government, in the hope that Westminster will avoid responsibility for the consequences.
Read 12 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
14 Sep
For electoral reform specialists, this is a problem with the German (and Scottish and Welsh) system, as explained here. Essentially, that system fills ~1/2 the seats by FPTP, and then allocates the other half (list seats) so as to achieve an overall proportional result.
This is how it worked in Scotland last time: the SNP wins almost all the FPTP seats (fans of FPTP: note) but gets hardly any of the list seats, so as to bring its overall seat total to just under 50%.
But FPTP is easily capable of throwing up even madder results than that: in a multi party system, a party may win almost all the FPTP seats with ~30% of the vote, efficiently spread around, with the opposition split.
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!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @GeorgePeretzQC has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @GeorgePeretzQC!

Read all threads by @GeorgePeretzQC

:(