Share this page!

George Peretz QC Profile picture
Twitter logo
19 Oct, 5 tweets, 2 min read
Interested that I was quoted with approval by @melanielatest in this piece (not least because she blocked me on Twitter some years ago for disagreeing with her). thetimes.co.uk/article/domini…
Some sensible points in the piece (including of course that one).
But the idea that the “UK” system of common law (sorry, Scotland) created the “purest form of liberty in the world” is … dodgy. (Ask eg a Windrush victim, or someone on low wages who wants to live with their foreign wife in the U.K.)
Also ignores the political consequences for rights protection in the rest of Europe of walking out of the ECHR because we don’t like its rulings: and the belief that in those circumstances we’d create an equally effective system of domestic rights protection is … naive.
But she is absolutely right to point to the incoherence of Raab’s position.

• • •

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
20 Oct
Essential listening from @ProfMarkElliott on @attorneygeneral’s recent speech.
One point made well: the claim that it is somehow illegitimate for those who have “lost the [political] argument” to assert their legal rights is highly peculiar.
Take a case where a local authority, having entered into a contract eg to allow an organisation wanting to hold a conference to use its premises, decides (after a highly charged but fully democratic vote) that it doesn’t want to honour the contract.
Read 6 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
17 Oct
I agree with this thread (though there are real issues with the design of a scrutiny process - and a serious risk, very real with the current government - of executive interference).
The temptation is to pretend that court composition doesn’t matter and that judges don’t vary - on grounds that are “political” in any meaningful sense - in their approach to questions of how the law should apply in human rights cases or cases raising big societal questions.
The problem with that pretence is that it just isn’t true: and it’s always a bad idea to rely on a proposition that isn’t true.
Read 7 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
15 Oct
Good thread making important points.
A couple of comments on this point.
I’m not knowledgeable enough about NI politics to speak confidently about them, but it’s worth noting why some issues raised by the current UK government (in some cases for the first time) in its July paper aren’t playing out as practical problems on the ground there.
Read 7 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
12 Oct
No need to comment on this as there is nothing in it that is new or, apart from the irrelevant quotes from Burke, even interesting. The only thing worth commenting on would be the legal text that is being kept from us. Image
Because, as we know, it is legal text, not fluffy rhetoric, that matters.
But on the fluffy rhetoric: I don’t see much hope of a better relationship with the EU until we (a) admit the current government’s trust-destroying blunders to date and (b) stop lecturing our democratic neighbours on our allegedly greater democratic credentials.
Read 5 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
10 Oct
The Polish rule of law crisis obviously matters. But I don’t think this article by @SBarrettBar offers much help in understanding it or what (if any) U.K. “angle” to it there might be.
The article talks about the “Brexit deal” in a loose way: but it is (and to be fair makes clear when you read it thoroughly) that it’s talking about the TCA. So forget any thought that it might be relevant to the current government’s attacks on the NI Protocol that it negotiated.
The point being made is that Article 693 of the TCA (minor gripe: the piece uses the old numbering not the now correct one) allows either side to suspend the part of the TCA dealing with judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
Read 9 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
10 Oct
This article has as its thesis the idea that “triggering Article 16” would require legislation in order to avoid a “clash with the judges”. But it isn’t explained why. telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/…
The domestic legal position is that, under s7A of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018 (a new section added in 2020 as part of implementing Johnson’s “oven ready deal” on which he won the election) the Withdrawal Agreement is supreme in U.K. law. Including the Protocol.
The effect of that is that, essentially, as matters stand any power exercised by Ministers will be, in domestic law, of no legal effect if it infringes the Protocol. The courts could (and would have to) quash any such measure or declare it unlawful.
Read 17 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

:(