1/ Some general legal points about the EU/UK agreement on implementation of the N. Ireland protocol.
First, it's not about a trade deal as such, but application of the existing withdrawal agreement - although there may be political links between the two.
2/ The agreement will take the legal form of Joint Committee decisions on aspects of the NI protocol. We'll see the text soon - likely proposals for an EU position (which will have been pre-agreed with the UK) before the Joint Committee (which consists of Gove and Sefcovic)
3/ These decisions will be legally binding. There might be other more informal parts to the agreement too. EU Council (Member States) has to sign off on EU position; European Parliament is informed but doesn't usually vote on measures implementing treaties.
New proposal re Channel tunnel - would unilaterally extend safety and licencing measures for two or nine months while France negotiates amendment to relevant treaty with UK: data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/S…
(EP and Council still need to agree to this proposal)
Brexit law II
Proposed EU position on withdrawal agreement Joint Committee decision extending EU/UK citizens' rights social security rules to Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein from 1 Jan 2021: data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/S…
EU law amending current law on dual-use goods (goods with both civilian and military uses) to simplify exports to UK ready for adoption: data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/P…
New judgment, EU General Court: Hannan's outfit largely unsuccessful challenging European Parliament decision to repay over €500k in funds - curia.europa.eu/juris/document…
The political foundation won its argument relating to a conference in Kampala (worth €91k) and as regards restrictions on budget advances.
It lost as regards conferences in Miami and London, a survey, and donations from an Armenian party.
It has to pay 2/3 of its costs.
Either the political foundation and/or the EP can appeal this judgment to the CJEU.
More on the background to this case - and the outfit some called "Daniel Hannan's travel agency" - in a piece by @JenniferMerode when the dispute first arose: theguardian.com/politics/2018/…
There's no legal possibility of an extension to the transition period as such, without an amendment to the withdrawal agreement or something in a future relationship treaty.
When Cummings went on his Barnard Castle trip, Borisbots claimed that he had to be saved because only he could stop the UK agreeing to an extension to transition. This sounds like a rehash of that argument, although it's now legally weak as the extension deadline has passed.
And as Dom (no, not that one) points out, the reference to "Remainers" is gratuitous gibberish