Claudia Webbe is not currently a Labour MP, as @TanjaBueltmann correctly pointed out. Yet rather than correct his error, Mr Neil goes for mindless ad hominem.
The thing about Andrew Neil's tweet is not just its inaccuracy - or his subsequent doubling down and ad hominem.
It's that it's simply just basic mediocre partisan journalism.
A little bit of journalistic activity would have shown that the Labour shadow home secretary has done a 'both sides' tweet, while MPs broadly on the Labour left have been more critical of the police - although their tone is quite different from Claudia Webbe's.
That might be worthy of an analysis in itself. But instead Mr Neil goes for the cheap inaccuracy of implying that a comment by someone who is no longer a Labour MP is typical of Labour.
We'd expect this from a pub bore partisan - and indeed at least one Tory MP tweeted out a basically identical comment, even including Neil's mistake.
But Neil is *not* a Tory MP: he purports to be non-partisan, and gets angry when people suggest he is not.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
AG opinion - Romanian decisions re judiciary did not infringe principle of judicial independence, but do infringe EU rules re fraud against EU budget: curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/do…
CJEU, football and State aid
New judgment: CJEU upholds Commission decision that special tax regime for FC Barcelona and three other Spanish clubs was illegal State aid: curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/do…
EU reacts to latest UK unilateral measures re the Northern Ireland protocol. States that they are a breach of the withdrawal agreement and that it will react using the "legal means" in that agreement and the Brexit deal.
What are those "legal means"? The EU reacted to the internal market bill by starting an infringement procedure for breach of EU law. That was during the transition period; the position re dispute settlement under the withdrawal agreement has since changed.
Since Jan 1st, the main means of settling disputes about the withdrawal agreement is its dispute settlement system. A party which thinks that the other side is in breach holds consultations, then goes to arbitration if there's no settlement.
EU Council agrees on decision concluding the Brexit deal, and officially asks the European Parliament for its consent: consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press…
Links to the agreed text of the decision on conclusion, which differs from the Commission proposal. Some points 1/
2/ The Council agrees that the EU alone, *not* the EU and its Member States, will be a party to the Brexit deal. So no ratification by national parliaments, Walloons etc. Agrees with its legal service on this point. Text of the legal service opinion: eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-br…
3/ Council agrees to approve the treaty on the EU side as an association agreement. This means it needs a unanimous vote of the Member States and consent of the European Parliament, which has not voted yet. Remember the withdrawal agreement is a separate treaty, already in force.
AG opinion: employer rule banning large-scale displays of faith, likely to apply to headscarves among other such displays, is not a breach of EU equality law: curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/do…
CJEU, data protection law
New judgment: Spain must pay €15 million for failure to apply EU law on data protection in law enforcement by the deadline, and €89k/day as long as this failure persists: curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/do…
Latest EU infringement proceedings - includes possible return to EU court to request fines re Polish forest protection and Hungarian law on NGOs; also includes environmental law, racism hate speech law, European Arrest Warrant
Some highlights from the infringement proceedings: details of the Commission allegations about failure to apply EU criminal law on racism and xenophobia, which includes Holocaust denial
The Commission alleges that three Member States have tried to shelter their own citizens from the application of European Arrest Warrants
It may well be the case that the UK govt tactic of talking to Member States about this, instead of the EU, has a political motive - ie avoiding the appearance of renegotiating the Brexit deal as such. But there's also an ironic legal angle. 1/
2/ If the issue is seen as an aspect of market access for services - which is how the *UK govt* framed it during the Brexit deal talks - then it's an EU exclusive competence. That means individual Member States can't negotiate with non-EU countries without EU authorisation.
3/ If the issue is seen as an aspect of visa policy - which is how the *EU* framed it during negotiations - then it's not an EU exclusive competence, because EU law leaves it to Member States whether to require a visa for paid activities during a short-term stay.