Lord Frost has been the chief Brexit negotiator for some time. It's hard to believe such a basic error is accidental. Whether it's gross incompetence or a deliberate lie, either should disqualify him from his post.
The problem with Brexity untruths isn't merely historical. They are now being deployed by these fanatics to damage any prospect of a closer relationship with the EU *as a non-EU country* - even if it damages a British industry, as it does here.
Which is another reason why it's important for those on the opposite side of the argument not to distort the meaning of "free movement" either (ie it doesn't apply to 3000 Indian graduates for a two year period). It plays into the hands of those like Frost doing the same thing.
None of this may change a damn thing. But it's important to keep pointing out truth for its own sake.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Key reasons for the ruling in the press release - ECB and German government and Parliament have done enough to address concerns in the previous judgment
Very good summary of the legal background to today's ruling in this thread
Folks who hate the EU arguing in a non-EU court that the EU has breached EU law. The interesting wrinkle though is that courts in the UK *can* refer questions relating to much of the Protocol to the CJEU.
In fact, arguably UK courts *must* refer questions about the protocol's compatibility with EU law to the CJEU, if they think it's invalid. That's the obligation for EU courts (Art 267 TFEU & case law), and the protocol extends Art 267 to UK courts re much of the protocol.
As for the human rights points, the freedom of expression (Art 10 ECHR) point is weak for reasons set out here -
I'll be referring to the bill, the memorandum, and the explanatory notes.
The notes say (para 63) that the govt 'is publishing an ECHR memorandum which explains in detail its assessment of the compatibility of the Billʹs provisions with the Convention rights'
CJEU clarifies application of the 'double jeopardy' rule within EU. Once this person's criminal liability was ruled on in Germany, other Member States could not arrest him as regards the same facts, even on the basis of Interpol red notice issued by USA:
The CJEU also interprets the EU law on data protection and law enforcement (which is distinct from/parallel to the GDPR) in this context.
Interesting CJEU AG opinion on sanctions - not *EU* sanctions here, but US sanctions (in this case Trump's sanctions on Iran) vs. EU law intended to block companies from compliance with non-EU sanctions. Full text of opinion - curia.europa.eu/juris/document…