Share this page!

George Peretz QC Profile picture
Twitter logo
Feb 12 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
Basic constitutional law: we elect a House of Commons, not a PM. It is the HoC that has a mandate, not the PM.
NB too that Nixon - who really did have a personal mandate - also believed that it trumped the criminal law. He was wrong.
That is because, in a democracy, no personal mandate is ever unconditional: it comes with strings, one of which is complying with the law.
To believe otherwise is to believe in elective dictatorship.
And see this classic passage by Constant, refuting the idea that a “personal mandate” above the law plays any part in representative government. Image

• • •

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 14
This is unlikely to work. The rules varied, but if we look at June 2020 (the “ambushed by cake” birthday sing-song, that Johnson admits attending for up to 10 minutes), the rule was that it was generally unlawful to participate in a “gathering” with people from another household.
An exception was where the gathering was “reasonably necessary for work purposes”.
So the test wasn’t “is the purpose work-related” (saying good-bye to a colleague; cheering everyone up with a birthday sing-song and cake); it was “is the gathering reasonably *necessary* for work”.
Read 5 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
Feb 13
Good reminder that (shades of Watergate and many other career-ending scandals) the issue of whether Johnson deliberately misled the HoC in the cover-up is at the heart of the matter.
I’d add that I cannot see how this particular claim on 1/12/21 - given his already admitted participation in and hence knowledge of some of the “gatherings” (the key concept) - could have been anything other than deliberately misleading. Image
As Alexander says, the constitutional position when Ministers deliberately mislead the HoC is quite clear. They have to resign.
Read 11 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
Feb 11
As is clear from my timeline, I don’t often agree with Lord Moylan: but I do (subject to using slightly different language every now and then) very much agree with him on this.
It is deeply unsatisfactory that we have ended up in a situation where there is a second class of citizens whose citizenship can be removed at the wide discretion of the Home Secretary.
It is also wrong that people with a right to citizenship (or, I’d add, anyone who wants to be naturalised) has to pay extraordinarily high fees - effectively a tax - to register or apply.
Read 5 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
Feb 10
Claim: the Ireland/NI Protocol is “starving NI of medicines”. A very serious claim, if true. But it isn’t. Thread: and trigger warning - contains nuance and detail.
Start with some basics. Article 5.4 of and para 20 of Annex 2 to the NIP apply all EU legislation on medicines to NI. That provision overrides Article 7.1 NIP (U.K. law to govern what goes on market in NI) as Art 7.1 is subject to Annex 2.
Arts 7.3, 12 and 13 together have the result that the MHRA operates in NI in broadly the same way as the national competent authorities of EU member states do in theirs. Eg it can approve medicines in NI under EU law where national authorities can do so in the EU (most medicines)
Read 19 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
Feb 9
Good piece illustrating the trade-offs involved in getting rid of retained EU law in the shape of complex regulatory regimes. 2 points.
1. These are really important and difficult policy choices. These should be made by primary legislation, scrutinised by Parliament, with those affected given a chance to be heard. Not by barely-scrutinised flicks of a Minister’s pen.
2. One other problem with the unilateral “we’ll let in products approved by countries we trust” options floated by Sam is loss of U.K. regulatory capacity and accountability. That matters when things go wrong: which, in this area, they can - very badly. Remember breast implants.
Read 4 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
Feb 9
Late to this by @alexinlaw and @john_vassiliou1: Home Office dictionary. freemovement.org.uk/joke-home-offi…
If you think that that’s making it up, try freemovement.org.uk/10-of-the-most…
One pillar of the case for judicial review and scrutiny is that, left unchecked, all bureaucracies administering complex systems with real impact on lives will tend to this cocktail of poor decision-making, unfairness and cruelty.
Read 4 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

:(