Share this page!

George Peretz QC Profile picture
Twitter logo
4 Oct, 8 tweets, 2 min read
This article is confused. Important to separate out two things.
1. Use of Article 16 does not “replace the Protocol”: it allows a limited and conditional suspension of parts of it. And for other “problematic” parts (eg Article 10 on State aid) there is no arguable legal basis for Article 16 measures.
See my threads here …
… and here.
2. Renegotiation of the Protocol is always possible - any international treaty can be renegotiated, just as any contract can.
As it happens, in my own specialist subject (State aid/subsidies) I agree the UK has a good case for renegotiation. See
But renegotiation is not a right that any party to a treaty or contract can assert: it requires the other party to agree. That requires persuasion, not bluster.
(And since many of the proposed replacement terms involve large elements of “trust us on this”, displaying trustworthiness might be a sensible strategy.)

• • •

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
1 Oct
Those who call for “triggering Article 16” need first to understand the Article and its limitations. On its own, it’s not a call that makes much sense.
In particular, they need to understand that Art16 is not a simple “trigger” that can be pulled at will along the lines of Article 50 TEU. Nor does it have any general effect on the UK’s obligations under the Protocol (again, unlike Art 50).
Rather, Article 16 is a basis for particular targeted measures that are “strictly necessary”, including in scope and duration, (not just “expedient”) to deal with serious disturbances or trade diversion. They must be the minimum necessary to deal with the issue.
Read 10 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
1 Oct
As usual, a perceptive piece from Peter. A couple of comments on his point about lack of clarity on what “fixing the holes” in the TCA actually means.
In thinking about what Labour’s policy should be on that there are two sorts of uncertainty. One is uncertainty about where the country will be - and where the public mood will be - in 2 or 3 years time.
That is, to an extent, fair enough: provided it doesn’t stop Labour from trying to shape that mood rather than simply responding to it.
Read 11 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
30 Sep
Before people get over-excited by what @RachelReevesMP says here, worth a pause for reflection. telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/…
“Free movement of people” is a creation of EU law: part of the single market. It only has meaning as part of the EU or EEA.
But plenty of neighbouring states have agreements allowing wide mobility outside that EU law framework. Very close to home: Ireland and the U.K. Further away: Australia and NZ. And other examples of states allowing wide mobility between them.
Read 6 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
30 Sep
It’s a really good piece by @dsmitheconomics - and raises the question of whether we now need a department charged with labour force issues: what used to be (until the 90s) the Department of Employment.
My answer would be “yes”: and also to take immigration policy away from the “just say no” culture of the Home Office and give it to the revived department.
(Immigration obviously raises wider issues than just labour force ones. But it is a key part of any rational labour force strategy. And you are likely to get a saner and more humane policy if you start with a labour force perspective than a “keep foreigners out” one.
Read 4 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
26 Sep
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.)
Read 4 tweets
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

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

:(