I love the smell of a leaked legal service opinion in the morning
The conclusion: the EU Council legal service says that it's OK for the Brexit deal to be concluded with the UK by the EU only, not needing Member States' participation
The reasoning: the legal service distinguishes between competences reserved to Member States, and competences shared with the EU. For the latter, the EU has the choice of concluding an EU-only treaty.
The legal service summarises the prior case law backing up its interpretation.
It refers to the Weddell case, concerning competence to conclude a treaty on the Antarctic environment, where Member States *could* be involved. But that was based on the particular legal features of the Antarctic treaty; and the UK is not Antarctica.
Applying this reasoning to the UK deal, the legal service says that there's nothing in it which involves exclusive Member State competence. Therefore the EU can choose to conclude it as an EU-only treaty.
In particular competence is shared as regards the social security and aviation parts of the treaty. But again: this means that there's a choice to conclude the treaty as an EU-only treaty, or also with Member States as parties.
The legal service also notes that the UK and individual Member States can sign bilateral agreements within the scope of the Brexit deal - subject to the limits set out in the agreement.
Just thinking of all the times people argued that the treaty would *have* to be ratified by all the Member States - and all the times I replied that we would have to wait and see.
An initial reaction to the legal service opinion from the Walloon Parliament...
The EU's press release on the new expert panel report on whether S Korea is in breach of its labour obligations under the EU/S Korea FTA: trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/i…
Also links to the full text of the panel report
tl;dr: the expert panel upholds some of the EU's complaints re S Korea (too limited definition of 'worker' and 'trade union'; limits on freedom of association) but not others (another freedom of association point; steps toward ratification of core ILO Conventions)
These trade/labour provisions of the EU/S Korea FTA are similar to those in other recent FTAs, including with the UK. They don't lead to trade retaliation but can put pressure on the other side.
New judgment - case referred from UK - social and financial support from clan/family is not sufficient to count as non-state protection to justify cessation of refugee status of Somalis: curia.europa.eu/juris/document…
This is the first UK case the CJEU has decided *after* the end of the transition period. It still has jurisdiction to decide cases which were referred from UK courts before the end of that period (about 18 are pending).
On EU retaliation under the Brexit deal, the test is not whether the reduced standards have a "material impact on competition" (as the article claims).
It's whether the reduction of standards takes place "in a manner affecting trade or investment".
Retaliation by the EU would be subject to the dispute settlement system of the Brexit deal. I discussed that process here: eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2021/01/analys…
Here's a summary of how the basic rules on dispute settlement work. But it's fast tracked for disputes like these...
In the "who proposed what re musicians' visas" argument, the Downing Street quote here is very vague independent.co.uk/news/uk/politi…
However this claim from the culture minister is untrue. The EU proposal to clarify the meaning of "paid activities" related to a limited number of people for a short term, not to free movement of workers generally.
Here's the proposed text, which as you can see only refers to certain groups of people. It refers back to the proposed text on short term travel, not to longer term migration.
New judgment: Dutch govt breached EU law by simply waiting to expel 15-17 year olds until they turn 18, rather than checking if there are adequate reception facilities for them.
New judgment: Ireland breached EU law by refusing asylum seekers who were subject to the Dublin system access to employment while they stayed in Ireland pending appeal against their transfer: curia.europa.eu/juris/document…
Note that some of the asylum seekers concerned were challenging their transfer to the UK, although this aspect wasn't addressed in the judgment.
Whether they can still be transferred is up to how UK/ Ireland deal with pending cases (withdrawal agreement doesn't address this).
Seeing a lot of this. Quite apart from the 🤡 argument that "the disadvantages of leaving justify leaving", it's implicitly ignorant/dishonest about the rest of the world.
The government wanted a "Canada deal". Ok: meat products must be hermetically sealed. Fruit and vegetables might be banned - inspection.gc.ca/food-safety-fo…
What about an "Australia style deal" (ie no deal), in which it was claimed we would "prosper mightily"?
No fruit. Probably not your own food. No food from the plane. Import permit for ham - abf.gov.au/entering-and-l…