George Peretz KC
LightNews LightNews
banner
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
George Peretz KC
@georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
24K followers 2.1K following 2.9K posts
KC (E&W) BL (Irl): public/constitutional law, competition, subsidies, tax, trade. Chair of the Society of Labour Lawyers. Views mine and not those of Monckton Chambers.
Posts Replies Media Videos
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
But also note the fact that various UK/3rd country air services agreements also prevent the UK from taxing fuel supplied to that country’s aircraft (and vice versa). See eg Article 9 of the UK/US Air Transport Agreement. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60ae4a...
ARTICLE 9 Customs Duties and Charges On arriving in the territory of one Party, aircraft operated in international air transportation by the airlines of the other Party, their regular equipment, ground equipment, fuel, lubricants, consumable technical supplies, spare parts (including engines), aircraft stores (including but not limited to such items of food, beverages and liquor, tobacco, and other products destined for sale to or use by passengers in limited quantities during flight), and other items intended for or used solely in connection with the operation or servicing of aircraft engaged in international air transportation shall be exempt, on the basis of reciprocity, from all import restrictions, property taxes and capital levies, customs duties, excise taxes, and similar fees and charges that are (a) imposed by the national authorities, and (b) not based on the cost of services provided, provided that such equipment and supplies remain on board the aircraft. There shall also be exempt, on the basis of reciprocity, from the taxes, levies, duties, fees, and charges referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, with the exception of charges based on the cost of the service provided: aircraft stores introduced into or supplied in the territory of a Party and taken on board, within reasonable limits, for use on outbound aircraft of an airline of the other Party engaged in international air transportation, even when these stores are to be used on a part of the journey performed over the territory of the Party in which they are taken on board; b ground equipment and spare parts (including engines) introduced into the territory of a Party for the servicing, maintenance, or repair of aircraft of an airline of the other Party used in international air transportation; fuel, lubricants, and consumable technical supplies introduced into or supplied in the territory of a Party for use in an aircraft of an airline of the other Party engaged in international air transportatio…
November 8, 2025 at 1:42 PM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
Another judgment confirming that the ECHR is no barrier to interference with property rights that strike a fair balance, with a wide margin of discretion. As I argued here, attempts to claim that the ECHR is incompatible with democratic socialism are hapless. ukconstitutionallaw.org/2025/07/10/g...
Theoretical concerns about the potential impact of Article 1 of Protocol 1 or other ECHR provisions on such matters as nationalisation or taxation are not grounded in much, if any, case-law. The recent judgment in ALR and others v Chancellor of the Exchequer dismissing attempts to secure a declaration that the ECHR is inconsistent with the extension of VAT to private school fees - an attempt that no expert that I am aware of thought had any real chance of success - demonstrates how implausible such concerns generally are. It may also be noted that the main practical objection to nationalisation with no or inadequate compensation, the concrete example that tends to be provided, is not so much Article 1, Protocol 1, of the ECHR as the fact that it would amount to a huge "do not invest here" signal to the foreign investment on which any plausible UK economic strategy depends: and that even the concern, also sometimes raised, that the ECHR would prevent the abolition of private schools - a point which, as the High Court observed in ALR, at [591, is likely to be right in relation to a legal prohibition - does not as a matter of practical policy survive the empirical observation that, in many European countries, private education has largely withered away as a result of other social democratic education policies that run into no ECHR objections.
October 29, 2025 at 9:39 AM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
Those who wonder what the policy point of this distinction is have their answer.
23. It was noted that no previous Tribunal or Court has identified a discernible statutory purpose for the Excepted Item (see consideration in the Innocent judgment regarding accepted social policy underpinning Item 1 but the absence of a policy for the exceptions generally, paragraphs 20 - 21 and 23). As a consequence we are required to interpret the everyday language in context.
October 28, 2025 at 5:18 PM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
Fans of VAT food and drink cases will enjoy this decision, where the Tax Tribunal was entertained with two days of argument on whether Ferrero Nutella chocolate biscuits (pictured) are “covered in chocolate”. caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/202....
40. We agree with the Appellant that the test cannot be one which is determined by whether the chocolate like substance is visible. However, having considered the detail of HMRC's case we do not interpret HMRC's case as one founded only or materially on the visibility of the Ring despite the language used in the Decisions and the review of them. 41. We have carefully considered the arguments put to us and consider that the statutory test requires us to examine the outer surface of the finished product as a whole (see in particular the approach adopted in BN Tartelettes) to determine whether chocolate or a similar substance has been laid over the surface of the finished product so as to thereby form the outer surface of that finished product. In so concluding we do not strictly impute a purpose test for the cover, rather it is a test which can be objectively discerned by the informed consumer by asking: is the chocolate like substance laid over the other elements so as to form, in whole or in part, the outer surface of that finished product viewed sensibly? Picture of the biscuits
October 28, 2025 at 5:18 PM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
Some important guidance yesterday from the Competition Appeal Tribunal for crowdfunded litigation and - many BlueSky users will want to note - for those who donate to such litigation. www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/cat/fi...
H. 52. CROWDFUNDING Mr Henry has sought to use crowdfunding in order to support the Appeal. For that purpose, Mr Henry established a crowdfunding website (the "Website") which is to be found at: https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/support-legal-fees-for-a-scottish-tv-channel#start. At the time of the hearing, some 24 donors had contributed the sum of £778 in order to help to defray Mr Henry's legal costs associated with this Appeal. As at the date of this ruling, 13 further donors have come forward, and the sum of €1,376 has been raised. 53. 54. Crowdfunding - involving the raising of finance for a specific litigation matter via an online platform - is a legitimate and potentially very useful source of funding. As a concept, crowdfunding has been recognised for several centuries indeed, Mozart crowdfunded a tour of 1783 by offering concerto manuscripts to those who agreed to finance the tour), while the crowdfunding of litigation emerged in England in the early 2000s.' In its recent report, Review of Litigation Funding, published 2 June 2025, the Civil Justice Council recognised the utility of crowdfunding, albeit that it recommended regulation of such funding, regardless of whether or not the donors had provided the funds on the basis that they would receive a financial reward if the funded litigation was successful. 1º Presently, however, crowdfunding in England remains unregulated, except for a system of voluntary self-regulation by the UK Crowdfunding Association and by judicial scrutiny and comment ex post facto. Certain aspects of Mr Henry's crowdfunding campaign on the Website were of concern to the Tribunal and merit some cautionary comment. At the time of the hearing, it was stated on the Website that, "Ofcom the UK broadcast regulator has been in breach of its statutory duties by allowing a company called That's TV to operate 20 local TV licences including 5 in Scotland that do not deliver a minimum statutory requirement of local news" (per the "Overview" tab). This statement was incorrect. Ofcom had not committed any statutory infringements in transferring the Scottish L-DTPS licences to That's TV in June 2018. This inaccuracy was pointed out to Mr Henry at the hearing, whereupon the Website was subsequently amended so as to state that, "Ofcom the UK broadcast regulator has failed to prevent a company called That's TV who operates 20+ local TV licences including 5 in Scotland that do not deliver a minimum statutory requirement of local news." Hence, the assertion of a breach of statutory duty by Ofcom was removed from the Website by Mr Henry (or at his direction) following the hearing. 55. However, there are other statements which persist on the Website and which remain of concern to the Tribunal. For example, it is stated that "Ofcom is fighting against the case even though the evidence is very clear", and that if Mr Henry is successful in this Appeal, "then That's TV will see all of their local broadcast licences end on the 25th of November this year" (per the "Updates" tab). In respect of the former statement, it is for the Tribunal, and not for the crowdfunded litigant, to consider the cogency of the evidence being adduced in support of any application which is made before it. In respect of the latter statement, there is no question of That's TV's L-DTPS licences ending on 25 November 2025, for, as set out earlier in this ruling, Ofcom has exercised its power, legitimately, to extend the period for which those L-DTPS licences continue in force by 12 months under section 19ZA(1) of the 1996 Act. The subject matter of the Appeal is not whether Ofcom had power to extend those licences (as it clearly does), but whether Ofcom should be prevented from renewing That's TV licences, pursuant to section 19ZB of the 1996 Act, from 26 November 2026 onwards. The inaccuracies referred to in the previous two paragraphs are directed toward the "pitch" of the Websi… ramifications for the proper administration of justice." While the Tribunal does not consider that the inaccuracies on the Website match the level of seriousness which has been identified by the courts in other cases, it is important to emphasise that a crowdfunding page should never be used as a "weapon" in a dispute as part of some sort of "lawfare", to adopt a phrase used by the Court of Appeal in Re A (a child) [2022] 4 WLR 25, [2021] EWCA Civ 1749, at [41]. The proprieties which the litigious process demands must be observed by both the crowdfunding host and by the litigant who is the beneficiary of the funding, in the interests of fair and proper justice. 57. 58. It is also important that donors to crowdfunding sites do not conduct themselves in any way that could be viewed as "improperly stirring up [another's] litigation", as it was described in In Re Trepca Mines Ltd (No 2) [1962] 3 All ER 351, [1963] Ch 199 (CA) at 219, for any such conduct could potentially be regarded as constituting maintenance. Although conduct amounting to maintenance or champerty has not constituted either a tort or a crime since the enactment of the Criminal Law Act 1967, sections 13(1) and 14(1), it remains the case that a funding contract which is so tainted may be "treated as contrary to public policy or otherwise illegal" (per section 14(2)). To that end, it is inadvisable for donors to publicly express views about the merits of a case on a crowdfunding website, or to make statements which could be perceived as having the aim of helping a crowdfunded litigation to secure more funding. It is plain from the Website that Mr Henry's stated purpose in bringing this application is to establish a Scottish TV channel himself. The Website states that, "[e]veryone who donates will be invited to the launch of the new Scottish TV channel that I am planning to launch using the 5 Scottish Local TV licenses. I have a detailed business plan for the TV channel and have attracted interest from po… "independent, truthful, TV service [which] is vital for Scotland's cause. I hope the tribunal decision is favourable"; further, "[let's bring these licenses into Scottish ownership and give people the service they deserve", and that "[w]e really need an independent news channel to get us over the line". While the Tribunal does not consider that these or any other of the statements made by the donors on the Website reach the level of "improperly stirring up" Mr Henry's litigation, it is nevertheless inadvisable for donors to express views on matters which go beyond the scope of the application in question which is being funded. Mr Henry's application in the instant case was for interim relief in order to prevent Ofcom from renewing any That's TV L-DTPS licences, and whatever the ultimate aims of Mr Henry's application might be, any comments from donors which go beyond the application in question must be cautioned against.
October 22, 2025 at 8:38 AM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
Absolutely agree with @paulmason.bsky.social on this. @soclablaw.bsky.social, which I chair, is up for doing what we can to help.
open.substack.com/pub/htsf/p/s....
But Labour is not yet set up to carry out that work systematically - and one consequence of Starmer's decision to make this a "them or us" battle is that the party must urgently start providing its members with guidance, materials and training - because we are up against a foreign funded and, whether Farage knows this or not, foreign manipulated far right ideology, which has a global disinformation network behind it. In the aftermath, we need every granular action of the Labour Party, and the activism and online comms of our hundreds and thousands of members, to reflect these principles. It can be about the t-shirt you wear down the pub, the words you use on the doorstep, the cultural content you create. One of the things that needs to change urgently is the way Labour and trade union supporters communicate online: we seem terrified of making original and spiky content, leaving the field open to the right, whose activists produce it at industrial scale, so that the Russian and MAGA bot farms can boost it into the faces of the electorate.
October 1, 2025 at 6:49 AM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
Indeed, when it is sued, it turns up in court as “The Secretary of State … acting as the Licensing Authority”: example here (from a case where I represented it/him).
?
September 23, 2025 at 10:35 PM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
Also keen on football.
Picture of FIFA World Cup US.
September 21, 2025 at 7:17 PM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
Idea for next UK ambassador to the US: someone who’ll open doors, has no connection to Epstein, will Trump’s attention and respect, and for whom it would be perfect preparation for his future job.
Picture of the Prince of Wales
September 21, 2025 at 7:16 PM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
To my younger readers: this is what happens if you draft pleadings like that.
But Judge Steven D. Merryday, of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, said the president's 85-page complaint was unnecessarily lengthy and digressive. He criticized Mr. Trump's lawyers for waiting until the 80th page to lodge a formal allegation of defamation, and for including, ahead of it, dozens of "florid and enervating" pages lavishing praise on the president and enumerating a range of grievances. "A complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective," Judge Merryday wrote. "Not a protected platform to rage against an adversary."
September 19, 2025 at 9:07 PM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
Touchy, or what? (This is what the claim against the NY Times is all about.)
14. Nonetheless, unwilling to let reality stand in the way of sensational fiction, the New York Times, Craig, Buettner, and Penguin maliciously peddled the fact-free narrative that Burnett somehow "discovered" President Trump for "The Apprentice" and magically transformed him into a celebrity-even though at and prior to the time of publication Defendants knew that President Trump was already a mega-celebrity and an enormous success in business.
September 16, 2025 at 6:15 AM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
For aspiring barristers: don’t draft pleadings like this. (As my pupil supervisor taught me: beware adjectives.)
12. To try and falsely and maliciously tear down President Trump's worldwide reputation for success, the New York Times, Craig, Buettner, and Penguin decided to try and confront, head-on, what remains to this day one of the 9 Case 8:25-cv-02487 Document 1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 10 of 85 PagelD 10 President's most well-known successes-in addition to his decades of magnificent real estate achievements, winning the Presidency, and then winning the Presidency again—his remarkable performance as the star of "The Apprentice," one of the top- rated shows of all time and a trailblazer in American television. Thanks solely to President Trump's sui generis charisma and unique business acumen, "The Apprentice" generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, and remained on television for over thirteen years, with nearly 200 episodes. "The Apprentice" represented the cultural magnitude of President Trump's singular brilliance, which captured the zeitgeist of our time. THE DONALD TRUMP is the Boss. APPRENTICE 101
September 16, 2025 at 6:15 AM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
I’m pretty much at the bottom of the dip.
?
September 16, 2025 at 5:54 AM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
Tempted.
T-shirt with slogan “Openly calls itself an affiliated Socialist Society”
August 29, 2025 at 8:14 PM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
There’s an interesting assumption in Straw’s comments that if you left the UK courts to approach the text of the ECHR unencumbered by Strasbourg authority, the result would be less liberal.
The "use or misuse" of the convention was "never anticipated when we were discussing in great detail how we incorporated human rights into British law in the mid-gos," Straw said. The instruction for the UK to "take account" of ECHR judgments has "been interpreted as 'follow', when that was never the intention", he added. Straw added that the Human Rights Act could be amended to state that British courts do not have to take account of the ECHR. This would be preferable to triggering a complete withdrawal from the convention, which would take many years to accomplish, he added.
August 27, 2025 at 9:32 AM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
The full quote:
"The Reform party's policy is simply not rooted in reality. They want to institute a mass deportation programme with no real, or workable, idea of where people would be deported to. Reform's policy would require a returns policy to be negotiated with regimes such as the Taliban and Iran, and may, by their own admission, involve paying those regimes to do so. Which is impractical and extremely concerning, as well as unlawful (as our own courts ruled in the Rwanda case). Leaving the ECHR and repealing the Human Rights Act is excessive and dangerous and would put the UK in the company of Russia and Belarus, outside of the ECHR, whilst also undermining rights at home and our international agreements, not least the Good Friday Agreement, our treaties with the EU and our returns agreement with France. It would also, in all likelihood, preclude further cooperation and law enforcement in dealing with small boats coming from the continent and so increase, rather than reduce, the numbers reaching our shores. Instead of pursuing dead end and counterproductive policies, the Labour Government has negotiated a returns policy with France, and is committed to exploring how the ECHR might be reformed, on a multilateral basis, to better deal with the reality Britain, and its neighbours face."
August 26, 2025 at 2:09 PM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
I do have to point out here that we don’t have a constitution that includes this (among other) nuggets of Catholic teaching.
1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. 2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.
August 25, 2025 at 10:35 AM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
… or to the appointment of *anyone* to the Supreme Court who has been involved with a highly partisan charity.
In the 1970s, Sumption served as an adviser to the Conservative MP and Cabinet Minister Sir Keith Joseph. 14][151 In 1974, Joseph and Margaret Thatcher together founded the Centre for Policy Studies to act as a think tank for the Conservative Party, and Sumption became one of its earliest employees, working as a speechwriter for Joseph. [16] Sumption and Joseph co-wrote a 1979 book, Equality, seeking to show that "no convincing arguments for an equal society have ever been advanced" and that "no such society has ever been successfully created". [15] Are judges really acting on personal politics rather than the law? Absolutely, Jenrick says: "I have exposed a number of examples of this, judges who have in the past tweeted highly political, partisan messages. "Judges who, in the past, have been trustees of charities which are highly partisan. I think that is bringing the historic independence of our judiciary into serious disrepute, and we've got to change that." So what exactly is Jenrick proposing to do about it? Two things: Tighter checks for partisanship on appointment and a more robust system for removals if political meddling is proved.
August 18, 2025 at 2:54 PM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
I assume that Jenrick, to be consistent, would oppose someone being appointed to be a tax judge who had ever acted for free for a taxpayer payer …
A judge who allowed a migrant convicted for drug dealing and sexual assault to stay in the UK is a former executive of a pro-asylum charity, it has been revealed. Judge Fiona Beach ruled that Christian Quadjovie was not a threat to the British public at a hearing last year. French-born Quadjovie has spent a total of 963 days behind bars in UK prisons since arriving in Britain at the age of 10. Quadjovie, who was set to be deported, was granted a reprieve by Judge Beach, an ex-director at Asylum Aid who represented migrants for free on behalf of the Bail for Immigration Detainees charity. Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said Judge Beach's apparent conflict of interest "undermines confidence" in the courts.
August 18, 2025 at 2:49 PM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
Can’t see any basis in the Windsor Framework (or EU law generally) for this assertion.
According to the legal argument, removing agricultural property relief (APR) and business property relief (BPR) from NI farmers, while their EU counterparts retain them, would fall foul of rules prohibiting discrimination and unfair competition in the broader UK-EU trade deal.
August 14, 2025 at 10:04 PM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
⬇️
61. Given the defects in the compensation scheme to which I have referred, it is not surprising that it produces anomalies of the kind referred to in paragraphs 12 to 14 of Mr Megaw's first witness statement and those shown by the annex to this judgment. The figures in the annex show very considerable variations between the proportions of the farmers' total compensation represented by the compensation for the residual value of their breeding stock. Those variations have not been justified. 62. It was implicit in the duty imposed on, and the authority given to, the Secretary of State by section 5 of the Act that the compensation scheme should be fair and rational. The Secretary of State accepts that the Claimants' businesses were possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, and that they were deprived of those possessions by the Act. The Convention requires that compensation should be reasonably related to the value of the property taken: Lithgow v UK (1986) EHRR 329. The provisions for compensation must not be so inflexible that they fail to take account of substantially different situations: see the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Papachelas v Greece (1999) (application no. 31423/96). 63. The provisions of the Order as to compensation for the residual value of breeding stock fail on every count. By reason of the matters set out above; they operate unfairly as between different farmers and generally; they fail to take account of the different values of premium breeds and thus discriminate between brown mink farmers and farmers of premium breeds without justification; and they produce arbitrary effects. Reasons have been put forward to justify provisions of the order that do not bear scrutiny and are irrational. The consequences of the defects in the Order are too great to be contained within a permissible margin for workability or approximation.
August 14, 2025 at 12:20 PM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
As is this. (Though NB that the question at the bottom is a misprint.)
YouGov also found that over two thirds of the British public consider voting to be a duty. This suggests a widespread acceptance of the basic normative principles underpinning the idea of compulsory voting.
August 14, 2025 at 8:49 AM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
This (from David’s paper linked to in the report) is interesting.
More recent polling conducted by YouGov presents a similar picture: in a representative survey of British adults conducted for the Constitution Society in April 2025, they found that compulsory voting was supported by a margin of 48% to 42%, with only 21% strongly opposed. Figure 10. Would you support or oppose making it compulsory for people to vote in UK general elections? Data source: YouGov for the Constitution Society. (YouGov Survey, Sample Size: 2007 GB adults, Fieldwork: 14th - 15th April 2025)
August 14, 2025 at 8:49 AM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
You should mention Jack Williams’ blog: not often that a blog post gets several paragraphs of attention in a Supreme Court judgment (caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uksc/2024/24).
125. The two possible analyses we have discussed are considered more directly in blog-posts by Jack Williams. In his fourth post on the topic (5 January 2022) he supports the Interpretation Act analysis. He argues that as there is no suggestion that the repeal of the ECA 1972 was intended to apply retrospectively, accrued rights will continue by virtue of section 16 of the Interpretation Act. He therefore appears to regard the decision of the Court of Appeal in Tune-In as having been mistaken in debating whether to depart from retained EU case law. Because the facts arose before IP completion day it seems he would regard the Court of Appeal as being bound by pre-Brexit CJEU case law. Mr Williams describes the three delayed flight cases (Lipton, Varano and Chelluri, above) as examples of cases "where things have unfortunately not worked as they should have". He also disagrees with the CAT's decision in Umbrella Interchange because the tribunal rejected the Interpretation Act analysis: see his blog of 5 September 2023 "The CAT goes astray on accrued EU law rights". . The reason Mr Williams gives for adopting the Interpretation Act analysis is that section 4 of the Withdrawal Act 2018 brings forward only the EU instrument and not the rights accrued under the instrument. 187. It follows from what has been said above that the correct interpretation of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is that accrued EU law rights are retained EU law. However, some commentators (in particular, Jack Williams in a series of carefully and tightly reasoned blogs on these issues: see, especially, "Accrued EU law rights: a guide for the perplexed" posted 5/1/2022) have argued that accrued EU law rights remain valid (and have not been swept away) but are not covered by the EU (Withdrawal Act) 2018 and are therefore not retained EU law. That is because, so it is argued, there was no need for them to be covered: without any express mention, they simply fall within section 16(1) of the Interpretation Act 1978 which lays down that, without clear provision to the contrary, legislation (here the EU (Withdrawal Act) 2018) does not take away accrued rights. On this "not retained EU law analysis", ', accrued EU law rights are therefore not retained EU law. By reason of section 16(1) of the Interpretation Act 1978, they validly exist independently of the EU (Withdrawal Act) 2018. This "not retained EU law analysis" is also the one favoured by Lord Lloyd-Jones in his judgment on ground 2. 198. Before turning to these matters in detail, I also note that my view is consistent with the approach followed in a number of decided cases, although I accept that the issue may not have been fully canvassed there (R (Fratila) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] UKSC 53; [2022] PTSR 448, para 1; News Corp UK and Ireland Ltd v HMRC [2023] UKSC 7; [2024] AC 89, para 7; R (Open Rights Group Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWCA Civ 800; [2021] 1 WLR 3611, paras 12- 13; Revenue and Customs Comrs v Perfect [2022] EWCA Civ 330; [2022] 1 WLR 3180; Anan Kasei Co Limited, Rhodia Operations SAS v Neo Chemicals & Oxides (Europe) Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 11; [2023] FSR 14, para 85.) (The decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal in Umbrella Interchange Fee Claimants v Umbrella Interchange Fee Defendants [2023] CAT 49 is to the opposite effect.) Similarly, this view has support in academic writing (Chitty on Contracts, 35th ed, paras 1-031-1-034; Whittaker (2021) 137 LQR 477 at 486-8; Halford and Whitehouse (2021) Tax Journal, Issue 1533 at 8-11; Williams, "Accrued EU law rights: a guide for the perplexed" in EU Relations Law (blog) 5 January 2022 at https://eurelationslaw.com/blog/accrued-eu-law-rights-a-guide-for-the-perplexed). 63
August 6, 2025 at 6:26 PM
georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
Cummings is right that one reason I gave for not wanting to be subject to the US constitution as interpreted by its Supreme Court is about the First Amendment and free speech. But read what I actually said (georgeperetzkc.substack.com/p/making-a-c... if you want to check for yourself):
That point must be right in principle. For example, many, if not most, supporters of the ECHR would not want to be subject to the US Bill of Rights (think about the Second Amendment) and would certainly not want to be subject to the US Supreme Court's idiosyncratic and politicised interpretation of those rights (think of the catastrophically bad decision in Citizens United, that has effectively precluded any serious attempt in the US to restrain the power of the mega-rich to buy their way to political dominance by spending unlimited amounts on their favourite campaigns and candidates). Not wanting to have anything to do with that particular charter of rights or that particular court does not make anybody an opponent of human rights.
July 26, 2025 at 10:53 PM