1/ Ah, "you just have to fill out a form". Against stiff competition, the stupidest Brexity trope. For a start, UK students moving to EU countries to study would no longer have the right to equal treatment in tuition fees or conditions of access to education.
2/ There's EU law on admission of non-EU students. Of course *some* UK students would still study in the EU; the issue is whether the terms are the same. They're not. Apart from tuition fees, work by non-EU students can be restricted. (Note the impact on less well-off students)
3/ The possibility of non-EU students staying to work *after* graduation is also more restricted as compared to EU membership. (Nothing at all on *dropping out* and starting work, as an EU student can do).
4/ In principle, applications have to be made outside the country or while already a resident. A fee for the application may be charged. Unlike EU students, there's no right of family reunion for spouse and kids; that's up to national law.
5/ The "just fill out a form" trope is applied to migration of UK citizens in general. These folks actually believe their own falsehoods about uncontrolled immigration. If this is true, why are irregular migrants detained and expelled? Why do thousands drown in the Mediterranean?
6/ Again: of course some UK citizens after Brexit will be allowed to move to the EU, just as some are allowed to move to non-EU countries. But it won't be on the same terms, meaning it will be harder or impossible for some in practice.
7/ Feel free to use this thread to reply to the "fill out a form" trope if you see it.
1/ Imagine taking this guy seriously as a source of interpretation of EU law. In my field, the ultimate example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Let's look at the claim in more detail.
2/ "illegal": Digital Services Act expressly provides for the possible negotiation of commitments from the platform
"Secret": Art 80 DSA expressly requires publication of those commitments
"Other platforms did a deal": according to the Commission, all other cases are pending
2/ "illegal": Digital Services Act expressly provides for the possible negotiation of commitments from the platform
"Secret": Art 80 DSA expressly requires publication of those commitments
"Other platforms did a deal": according to the Commission, all other cases are pending
2/ EU/UK youth mobility treaty proposal - questions and answers
Note equal treatment in tuition fees, points re traineeships, visa fees, health surcharges, application to all Member States - would UK government accept all this? (Also a question to ask Labour)
3/ EU/UK proposed youth mobility treaty - text of proposed Council decision and explanatory memo
Note it would also include family reunion (not further detailed at this point). Dispute settlement system of the Brexit deal would apply (not the CJEU) commission.europa.eu/publications/c…
2/ The context of the bill is the recently agreed Rwanda treaty. The issues in clause 1.3 *might* be enough to convince courts to change their mind on the safety of Rwanda since the Supreme Court judgment, but as we'll see it's a moot point: the bill dispenses with courts anyway.
3/ clause 1.4.b is correct: an Act of Parliament that breaches international law is still valid *domestic* law. BUT it will remain a breach of international law.
(We are likely to hear from people who do not understand these basic points)
2/ The spiel in the link confuses the two EU courts, which is not impressive. In fact the applicants in this case lost earlier in the EU General Court, then lost their appeal this year to the CJEU. And this omits to point out that the CJEU had ruled on the substance in June 2022.
3/ My comments on the previous judgment: '.
Because the Court ruled here that Brits lost EU citizenship because UK left the EU, it said this year that Brits had no legal interest to sue the EU to challenge the withdrawal agreement to get it back.eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2022/06/its-en…
Profoundly ignorant on both points. A) the Good Friday Agreement requires compliance with the ECHR. That necessarily entails the Strasbourg Court. There's no legal route to saying that it applies but to the peace process only. 1/
2/ And the idea that it applies to the "peace process" but not "foreign nationals" is confused - for the obvious reason that some of those covered by the former ground may be Irish citizens.
3/ The Strasbourg Court jurisdiction is relevant to Northern Ireland for a very, very obvious reason: it had ruled that the UK had breached the ECHR in Northern Ireland after British courts had ruled that it had not. "Just rely on British courts" therefore misses the point.