UK government strategy paper on immigration policy now published - gov.uk/government/pub…
One headline yesterday said EU citizens would be subject to travel authorisation. Misleading as some form of travel authorisation will apply to *all* visitors, except UK and Irish citizens.
There are no further details besides the scope and planned date of the rollout. Note that similar systems in the EU, US and Canada provide for a travel authorisation valid for several years, ie no need to apply for each visit during that period.
We know more about how the EU equivalent travel authorisation process will work, since the law setting it up has been passed. My earlier summary and overview here: eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2018/04/brave-…
To answer a frequent question, it's not clear if the UK travel authorisation rules will apply to legal residents (either EU or non-EU) who travel abroad then return. The EU equivalent exempts them.
Good point re the UK travel authorisation system - although the issue would not arise on the Irish side unless Ireland sets up its own travel authorisation system (it opted out of the EU/Schengen system)
...I haven't found out the source of *those particular* crazy claims. But thanks to @EmporersNewC I have some news about some *similar* crazy claims.
Last night someone tried to prove that FB post was correct by er, just quoting it again. But then she linked to the "eutruth" website. I followed the link and...
New AG opinion: minister's power to remove secondment of judges to higher courts in Poland breaches judicial independence: curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/do…
CJEU, asylum law
New judgment: EU Member States cannot reject an asylum application as inadmissible simply because Norway previously rejected it - curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/do…
Although Norway applies Dublin rules, crucial point for CJEU is that it does not apply *other* EU asylum law
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.
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'