Share this page!

George Peretz QC Profile picture
Twitter logo
Jan 15,, 5 tweets, 2 min read
There really isn’t any more to be said. Johnson lied to Parliament. Johnson’s Ministerial Code sets out the consequence of that lie.
(From theguardian.com/commentisfree/…)
The central pillar of our system of parliamentary democracy is ministers’ accountability to Parliament. That pillar is built on sand if ministers - especially the PM - lie to Parliament without having to resign.
Any Tory parliamentarian who lets such conduct pass without demanding Johnson’s resignation is vandalising the constitution that they purport to uphold.
In case anyone says “Lying is something only lawyers worry about. The Great British Public couldn’t care less.”

• • •

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
Jan 13,
A typically excellent survey by @cath_haddon of the limitations on the Gray inquiry and what happens next. instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/downing-s…
The interesting question is what happens politically if she says that the PM's behaviour raises questions outside the scope of her inquiry and recommends/suggests that he refers himself to Lord Geidt. As I read it, that recommendation/suggestion would be in scope.
(And in any event, the facts may well make it obvious that there are serious questions under the Code - as matters stand, it’s hard to see how there aren’t.)
Read 7 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
Jan 11,
This is an excellent piece on the recent UK case-law on the extent to which UK courts should, under the HRA, regard themselves as bound by Strasbourg ECtHR case law. It is relevant to a key aspect of the current government’s consultation on HRA reform.
First, the current U.K. case law.
There are some problems here. First, if you say that the U.K. courts applying the HRA should never go beyond the ECtHR, does that mean you can’t find an HRA breach just because the ECtHR has not ruled on that particular issue, even if it has found a breach in analogous case?
Read 12 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
Jan 11,
As @BarristerSecret has already dispatched this article in @spectator by @SBarrettBar, there is perhaps no need to plunge a further dagger into its corpse. But there is a bit more to be said.
As SB says, this passage is difficult to reconcile with how (much) law actually works. Let’s start with the case referred to (on blocking highways).
It’s DPP v Ziegler in the Supreme Court. supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uks….
Read 15 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
Jan 10,
Important point on government record-keeping. Government by WhatsApp is unaccountable government, vulnerable to corruption. opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocra…
At the moment, the Ministerial Code says nothing on the topic: though the danger is recognised in the guidance on face-to-face meetings, and guidance given.
There is government guidance on the use of private email and other electronic communication. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl….
Read 12 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
Jan 8,
On the same topic of how the current government’s (and, to be fair, past governments’) approaches to citizenship have gone badly and fundamentally wrong, see this piece by Sonia Spencer in @prospect_uk. prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/how-y…
The Home Office’s idea that citizenship is a “privilege” that can be removed - or bought - in the same way as membership of a golf club is a category mistake: it purports to turn a matter of identity and belonging into a contractual relationship.
The same error underlies the ludicrous fees charged to those applying for British citizenship: British citizenship should not be something you can get only if you have the (significant amount of) money, but a recognition of commitment, belonging, and identity.
Read 4 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
Jan 6,
I don’t often agree with @danielmgmoylan: but putting aside partisan swipes, and the first couple of minutes on general philosophy of immigration law, he then makes a good conservative case against the ability of governments to remove nationality.
It comes from a Tory perspective that isn’t mine: but ends up in much the same place. And I absolutely agree that citizenship isn’t just a travel document, or a contract that can be torn up by either side at will.
I’d add (he may or may not agree with me) that the fact that the provision bites on those with family or personal connections with other countries (eg Jews or Northern Irish entitled to another country’s citizenship: those with a foreign born parent) is a further deep iniquity.
Read 8 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

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

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

:(