Share this page!

George Peretz QC 🇺🇦 Profile picture
Twitter logo
May 12 • 6 tweets • 3 min read
Have to admire how @SuellaBraverman can manage to keep a straight face while claiming on #bbcqt that it’s “the EU’s application” of the Protocol that leads to checks and barriers in the Irish Sea rather than the text of the Protocol itself.
It was pointed out by eg HM Treasury *at the time it was negotiated* that East-West checks were an inevitable consequence of the Protocol. See eg politico.eu/wp-content/upl…
Unfortunately, as Stephen Weatherill pointed out in March 2020 (well before any “application” of the Protocol), UK ministers misrepresenting what the Protocol actually says is something of an ingrained habit, and comes from the top.
See eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-pr…
And as Steve says.
And see

• • •

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
May 14
Odd point given that the majority of votes in the Assembly elections went to parties broadly supportive of the Protocol (and would vote “keep it” in a “keep it or scrap it” referendum).
Given that position, the plausible “no consent” argument isn’t that the majority oppose it (a claim you would test in a referendum) but that a *minority* community opposes it (a claim to which a referendum is irrelevant).
We will never know whether that would have been different had we had a government that had been honest from the start about what it had agreed and concentrated on winning over support and making it work rather than egging on opposition and blowing hot & cold about reneging on it.
Read 4 tweets
George Peretz QC 🇺🇦 Profile picture
May 12
As I said yesterday, the existence of “social unrest” (said here to be the basis of Braverman’s advice that the Protocol is not now binding on the UK) is not a basis for getting out of treaty obligations: it sounds more like an argument for invoking Art.16.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi…
See
Could “social unrest” amount to a “fundamental change in circumstances” allowing the U.K. to say it was no longer bound? Unlikely, since the hurdle there is very high indeed, as I explained in a different context here. eurelationslaw.com/blog/does-covi…
Read 12 tweets
George Peretz QC 🇺🇦 Profile picture
May 11
This is all a bit confused (which may be any or all of the reporter, the source, or the current AG’s advice). The grounds cited (“trade diversion”/“societal unrest” sound like purported grounds for action under Article 16. They are not grounds for breaching a treaty obligation.
If this is all about Article 16, it’s unlikely to stack up in international law (or domestic law unless savagely amended and got through the Lords) as the basis for significant action. See eurelationslaw.com/blog/what-are-…
Incidentally, on the very unsafe assumption that anyone in the current government pays any attention to the Ministerial Code issued by one B Johnson, this advice can only have been leaked with Braverman’s agreement.
Read 4 tweets
George Peretz QC 🇺🇦 Profile picture
May 11
Ties up with the points I made at the time about the “grouse shooting” exemption.
As you’ll see from my thread, government lawyers (clever people) found a way of exempting grouse shooting that didn’t look too obvious (though the device was rumbled).
The key point is that the absence of proper Parliamentary scrutiny leaves legislation vulnerable to special and secretive pleading to ministers. That lesson is critical, and should be borne in mind whenever ministers try to grab from Parliament yet more power to (de)regulate.
Read 5 tweets
George Peretz QC 🇺🇦 Profile picture
May 10
Indeed. Largely, though unfortunately not wholly, performance art.
As @rafaelbehr points out. ImageImage
And, as he points out, part of the broader picture. Image
Read 6 tweets
George Peretz QC 🇺🇦 Profile picture
May 8
My own take on the beer affair: I haven’t yet seen evidence of a breach of the rules (explanation of how I think the rules were on my timeline) - but obviously everything depends on the facts. Nor did he mislead Parliament.
But if Starmer is found to have breached the rules he will take responsibility and resign.
In contrast Johnson has been found to have broken the rules (and effectively admits that he did), did knowingly and repeatedly mislead Parliament about his and his office’s conduct, but will stop at nothing to cling to the office that he occupies.
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!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(