Share this page!

George Peretz QC Profile picture
Twitter logo
Jan 31 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
Contrast with Johnson’s claim to Parliament on 1.12.21. Clearly untrue. The only question is whether Johnson believed it to be true. Image
The claim that he believed it to be true involves an assertion of extraordinary incompetence in leadership. It is also impossible to reconcile with detail - not in the report - that No 10 has already admitted about Johnson’s involvement.
Knowingly misleading Parliament should - by strong convention, the Ministerial Code and as the keystone of government’s accountability to Parliament- be a resigning matter.
Hold onto those points. The rest is craven/self-serving/disingenuous distraction.

• • •

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
Feb 2
It is not perhaps the ideal time (🇺🇦/🇷🇺) for a UK government to be demonstrating a cavalier attitude to its international obligations.
As for the idea that this is a matter for the NI executive: (1) that is irrelevant as a matter of international law (assuming that the current government accepts that NI is part of the U.K.); and
(2) s.26 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 gives it all the powers the current government needs to intervene. Image
Read 4 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
Feb 1
Interesting use of coy language (“make it easier …)” to hide what @SuellaBraverman is actually suggesting: that Parliament hand over its powers to decide what critical parts of our law should be to Ministers, to exercise as they want without any proper Parliamentary scrutiny. Image
To be noted by Tory MPs - such as @SteveBakerHW and others - who have pointed that ministerial law-making without proper scrutiny during Covid has not exactly been an unalloyed triumph. And also by Tory MPs who might want to scrutinise what Labour ministers do with these powers.
Given that proposal, this complaint about EU law shows some front. Image
Read 5 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
Jan 31
This report of Johnson’s latest manoeuvre needs translating into English. theguardian.com/politics/2022/…
As matters stand, “bridging law” (retained EU law) can be removed as easily as any other law - by an Act of Parliament, subject to Parliamentary scrutiny, debate, and to suggest amendments.
What this proposal means is that Ministers will grab power to rewrite rules on eg product safety, the environment, and consumer and employment rights, by a flick of their pen and with minimal scrutiny by Parliament. No point in writing to your MP: there’ll be little they can do.
Read 9 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
Jan 24
Johnson on 10 June 2020. gov.uk/government/spe…
Nine days later
The law at the time. Note 7(2)(d)(i) and (3). No gatherings - defined as 2 or more present together in order to engage in any form of social interaction or activity with each other (even for 10 minutes). Includes wishing happy birthday and consuming cake.
Read 9 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
Jan 24
Helpful analysis here.
But it’s also important to look at Johnson’s claim on 1.12.21. Regardless of what he knew/understood when he went into the garden on 20.5.20, is it credible that *after* that event, he still believed that guidance had been completely followed in No 10? Image
Is it also credible that - months after the party on the eve of Prince Philip’s funeral - he still knew so little about it (or other similar events) that he genuinely believed on 1.12.21 that “guidance was followed completely”?
Read 8 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
Jan 23
Insisting that a serving Prime Minister should not knowingly mislead Parliament, and that if he has he must resign, is *defending* our democracy, not “undermining” or “belittling” it.
We do not elect our governments or MPs with carte blanche to do anything they like. That would be episodic autocracy. We elect them to operate within the rules of our constitution. Which is representative democracy.
And one of the few hard-edged conventions with hard-edged consequences in our constitutional arrangements is that if Ministers knowingly mislead Parliament, they resign.
Read 5 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @GeorgePeretzQC has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @GeorgePeretzQC!

Read all threads by @GeorgePeretzQC

:(