George Peretz QC 🇺🇦 Profile picture
QC (E&W) BL (Irl): public/constitutional law, competition, subsidies, tax, trade. Exec member @SocLabLaw. Views mine and not those of Monckton Chambers.
LittleGravitas 🇺🇦 🌻 🇪🇺 💙 #FBPE Profile picture Peter McCormack Profile picture Dame Chris🌟🇺🇦😷 #RejoinEU #FBPE #GTTO🔶️ Profile picture Hugh Sainsbury #FBPE Profile picture Birger Leth Profile picture 29 added to My Authors
May 18 20 tweets 4 min read
Some thoughts, in no particular order, on this. 1. @SuellaBraverman is right that AG advice is very rarely published (though Lord Goldsmith’s advice on the Iraq war was published at some point before or during the Chilcott inquiry, which discusses it in some detail).
May 17 15 tweets 4 min read
A brief legal commentary on Liz Truss’s statement today. hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-0… “Clear” playing its usual role as a “tell” that the claim being made is not clear at all (in this case, a claim regarded with incredulity by every expert in the field of whom I am aware).
May 14 4 tweets 1 min read
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).
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…
May 12 12 tweets 3 min read
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
May 11 4 tweets 2 min read
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-…
May 11 5 tweets 2 min read
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).
May 10 6 tweets 2 min read
Indeed. Largely, though unfortunately not wholly, performance art. As @rafaelbehr points out. ImageImage
May 8 4 tweets 1 min read
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.
May 7 7 tweets 2 min read
This is incorrect. The @EU_Commission has not refused “any kind of negotiation”: and NB that the FCDO only says that the Commission has taken a “rigid and hardline” negotiating position, which is not the same thing. The use of the term “rigid and hardline” is a bit hard to sustain given the Commission’s October package (very important ameliorations on eg medicines - an area in which pretty well all the issues that caused concern about security of supply in NI have now been resolved).
May 7 6 tweets 2 min read
This seems to me to be the key point. It is (I think) legally irrelevant whether a gathering for the purposes of work/voluntary services featured take aways/drinks being taken in at some point, or whether they were taken in at the end of the meeting rather than mid way through. The contrast is with a gathering that was not for a work purpose at all, or was not reasonably necessary for work purposes (eg to celebrate a birthday or to have a bit of fun).
May 7 7 tweets 3 min read
Worth noting here that under the Constitution of the 5th Republic (a) the choice of PM lies with the President (Art 8) and (b) the National Assembly can only remove that choice by a no confidence motion supported by over half the Assembly (abstention = voting against) - Art 49. Unless the President faces a party/coalition holding an absolute majority against him (as Chirac did from 1997-2002, when he had to accept Jospin as PM) the President is in a strong position to appoint a PM to his liking (and to refuse to appoint a PM he regards as unacceptable).
Apr 30 4 tweets 1 min read
This needs a bit of editing to be true. Edits in **. 2 'You will never get rid of the backstop *unless you allow a trade border between NI and Great Britain*': Done
'An *adequate* FTA will take many years to do': *An inadequate one* done in ten months.
Apr 28 10 tweets 2 min read
Odd and incoherent piece. If your position is to “champion free speech” don’t you have to accept that there is no problem in debating this issue?
Apr 27 4 tweets 1 min read
Generally wise to read a judgment before commenting on it. Long judgment: but these are the legal issues.
Apr 25 4 tweets 2 min read
I agree. As well as Tom’s overarching point, a further problem is that this slips from what the wording of the rule tells you is the necessary inquiry as to the *purpose of the gathering* into an irrelevant discussion of things that might be said at a gathering.
Apr 25 9 tweets 3 min read
A couple of comments on this piece by Martin Howe QC on the Protocol. He supports a Bill that would remove its primacy in U.K. law (currently achieved by s7A of the EU Withdrawal Act, inserted by the Johnson government in 2020). telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/2… No. That isn’t the root of the problem. The root of the problem is that divergence in customs and regulations between the EU and UK requires a border with checks between them. That could be (1) along the Irish border or (2) in the Irish Sea.
Apr 23 14 tweets 3 min read
Oh dear. Let me explain why I think this legal analysis is misconceived. The relevant question at the relevant time was whether the gathering was “reasonably necessary for work purposes”. That involves an inquiry into (a) whether the gathering was “for work purposes” and (b) whether it was “reasonably necessary” for those purposes.
Apr 21 11 tweets 3 min read
This story by @pmdfoster isn’t about the use of Article 16 - which is limited in scope, effect, and time, and would be subject to powerful domestic and international legal challenge if it had any substantial effect on the operation of the NIP. Rather, it is about primary legislation that would repeal or modify section 7A of the EU Withdrawal Act (a section drafted and inserted by the Johnson govt) so as to permit current ministers to make laws that were inconsistent with the NIP.
Apr 21 13 tweets 3 min read
This highly political defence of Johnson misses key points. First, Johnson’s claim to to Parliament was that not just *law*, but that all *guidance* was followed in No 10. @SBarrettBar ignores that point: but it makes the (legally implausible) “Crown property” defence irrelevant on any view (the guidance did not vary in Crown properties)
Apr 21 9 tweets 3 min read
Who are “we”? This claim is relevant only if “we” means “both sides”- ie that both the EU and the Johnson govt signed the NIP on the basis that “it would be reformed”. If “we” just means the Johnson govt, then the reasons why it chose to sign it are not relevant to anything. The problem with the “both sides” claim is that it is wrong (and certainly has no support in the text). And, as I said, the problem with the “that’s what the Johnson govt thought it was doing” claim is that it’s irrelevant to anything.