The author of this tweet is being misleading, in order to defend his or her previous lie. The current tariff on soya sauce from Japan is zero, due to the EU/Japan FTA which the UK applies until the end of the year. The UK and Japan do not currently trade on WTO terms.
Note that if there's no FTA with EU, some of the soy sauce imported into UK would conversely become *more* expensive. (Unless UK chooses to have a zero tariff on all soy sauce imports, in which case the boast about UK/Japan FTA would be triply misleading)
Again: the government implies that Brexit reduces the cost of soy sauce. In fact a) it retains the cost of Japanese soy sauce; b) if no deal with the EU, *most soy sauce imports will be MORE expensive*. Gaslighting charlatans.
As @ColinYeo1 has pointed out foreign national offenders from an EU country are nothing to do with the asylum system. But I'll add that since @ukhomeoffice officials surely know this, the authors of this tweet are therefore brazen liars who are unfit for public service.
I have emailed the permanent secretary to the Home Office to this end: "Frankly, I find it hard to see how this behaviour is consistent with the civil service code - in particular the requirements of integrity and honesty."
Judgment in @privacyint and French and Belgian cases: mass data retention is illegal in principle, but can be justified on national security grounds if temporary and subject to safeguards
EU courts have jurisdiction to rule on damages if EU foreign policy sanctions were illegal; but a breach of the obligation to provide adequate reasons does not give rise to damages liability
Commission: letter of formal notice sent to UK re the internal market bill and the withdrawal agreement. Invites the UK to reply within a month.
An explanation of the legal process - thread
The Commission is using the infringement procedure, which applies if Member States allegedly breach EU law. It applies to UK too for now, due to Art 131 of the withdrawal agreement, which gives CJEU its usual jurisdiction during the transition period, including over the agreement
Starting the infringement process doesn't establish by itself that UK has broken the law. It contains several pre-litigation phases. After the one month expires, the next phase is a reasoned opinion to the UK. Usually two months to reply to that, but the Commission can shorten.
The three overlapping tensions in the withdrawal agreement: between the approaches of EU and international law; the agreement as end point of membership, or future relationship; and the ambiguous position of Northern Ireland
The legal position of treaties in domestic law: unfortunately necessary to restate the basics, following the Attorney General's misleading statement
Legal texts (main communication, five legislative proposals, soft law, roadmap, staff working document) - https://t.co/4Ai5rcWD6n
Main points in today's EU migration and asylum package.
Not everything is new - the Commission is reverting back to its prior proposals on qualification of refugees, reception of asylum seekers, resettlement of refugees, the EU asylum agency, and return of irregular migrants
Key new/amended proposals - on fast tracked screening of asylum seekers at the border. Not automatic rejection but limited procedural rights etc. Likely to raise human rights concerns.