George Peretz KC

The first time as tragedy, the second as farce Suella Braverman's plans for leaving the ECHR display the same arrogant and reckless disregard for the consequences - particularly in Ireland - as did the plans of Brexiters for leaving the EU.

… and on (b) georgeperetzkc.substack.com/p/the-first-...

George Peretz:  The Labour Case for the ECHR In a series of posts on this blog, the legal historian Sanjit Nagi has outlined both a history of Labour scepticism about the European Convention of Human Rights (“ECHR”) (and in particular about t…

See on (a) ukconstitutionallaw.org/2025/07/10/g...

The key is (a) to be loud and proud about the case for the ECHR/HRA as a check on bureaucrats/ministers; and (b) hammer home the point that ECHR leavers/Brexiters fooled you last time - don’t fall for it again.

Very interesting. No need for despair about the Tories/Reform making the ECHR an election issue. It could well hurt them.

Sam is very good on this. bsky.app/profile/samf...

Thank you.

Relevant to NI under the Windsor Framework (in terms of any diminution of rights under the Reception Conditions Directive as they stood on exit day).

Britain is not a broken society The country has serious problems but the right’s vision of it has become hysterical

on.ft.com/4mg0FL9

One like, one opinion about devolution in the UK (until I run out of shareable opinions about devolution in the UK).

It’s a good one.

The day we put the 'common law protection of rights' fantasy at bed, it will always be a day too late

The first time as tragedy, the second as farce Suella Braverman's plans for leaving the ECHR display the same arrogant and reckless disregard for the consequences - particularly in Ireland - as did the plans of Brexiters for leaving the EU.

In which I am not impressed by Suella Braverman’s plans for leaving the ECHR. open.substack.com/pub/georgepe...

How the UK could reform the European convention on human rights Politicians have long raised concerns about the extent to which international human rights law affects UK migration policy.

Worth a read from @joellegrogan.bsky.social on the false promises of magic solutions in the reform of the ECHR or it's domestic application in the UK for politicians perceived problems with migration in an unstable world:

theconversation.com/how-the-uk-c...

Now turned into a short piece. open.substack.com/pub/georgepe...

I’m coming to the view that he is just wilfully ignorant on the topic.

As I said, it annoys judges!

Now turned into a short piece. open.substack.com/pub/georgepe...

William the Conqueror and Harold Hardrada, as well as the Algerian raiders who kidnapped Cornwall villagers in the 17th century, would all like a word.

Oh, and if you *really* want the elite to control what “the plebs” get to see and hear, follow the US down the road of allowing oligarchs to take over all the political airspace.

Esattamente.

And whatever you do, don’t read his piece. It’s an hour of your life you’ll never get back.

Oh, and her late Majesty died nearly three years ago. Time to catch up.

All yet another reason why no one should bother to wade through his turgid, verbose, and unstructured rants.

Cummings’ claim reveals either a lazy failure actually to read what I said, a deliberate attempt to distort what I said, or a very odd and politically-uninformed understanding of what is a “fringe left view”. None of those alternatives are to his credit.

That view is and has never been a “fringe view”, let alone a “fringe left view” on either side of the Atlantic. Such restrictions have been part of our law, uncontroversially, for decades if not centuries. (Not always effectively, as Cummings well knows: but certainly there.)

But it’s all tosh. As you can see, the point I was making is that I wouldn’t want to be subject to an interpretation of “free speech” that strikes down all controls on the ability of the ultra-rich and mega-corporations to throw money at their favoured politicians and political causes.

Cummings ignores my reference to the “right to bear arms” - which virtually no one supports outside the US - and suggests that I want “MORE restrictions” (his scare capitals) on free speech. To read him, I’m obviously some censorious left-wing answer to Mary Whitehouse.

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.

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):

Here we see an eminent QC, G Peretz - very Remain/Rejoin, extreme pro-ECHR/HRA - state clearly 'many, if not most, supporters of the ECHR would not want to be subject to the US Bill of Rights'. For Peretz et al the ECHR is preferable because, for example, it allows MORE restrictions on free speech. Such comments from such lefty QCs were almost unthinkable 5-10 years ago, it was a very fringe view. But like many fringe left views it's gone mainstream among Insiders who now openly say that the state must return to norms of censorship from centuries ago which they justify as 'protecting democracy against fascism' (i.e protecting/enhancing their own powers over the plebs).

Then I found this gem.

A talk on regime change Going: Kemi, Reeves, McSweeney then Rayner replaces Starmer? National Security Secretariat briefs No10 about imminent ethnic violence (and, not reported yet, financial crisis)

I was wondering whether to carry on ploughing through this lengthy rant by Dominic Cummings (at the Bar you learn fast that meandering prolixity just annoys judges: the ministers he worked for were obviously far more patient). open.substack.com/pub/dominicc...