EU Commission proposal for mandate to negotiate with UK re negotiations with Gibraltar. The text of the proposed mandate is not yet published.
Note that this is a proposal for the Council (ie Member States) to give the Commission the authority to negotiate on behalf of the EU. If the Council gives the mandate, any treaty, if negotiations were successful, would need to be agreed with the UK ->
...and also approved by both the Council and the European Parliament. It's not clear if national parliaments of Member States would need to approve it.
Lots of details on borders and immigration issues. Gibraltar government objects to Spanish government doing such checks, but the press release notes that Spain has asked for assistance from Frontex.
Rules on asylum responsibility - which otherwise are non-existent between the EU and UK.
Excerpts re level playing field - similar to EU starting position re the TCA, which was eventually subject to a compromise
Free movement of goods: a customs union with the EU, including alignment on EU internal market law relating to goods
Rules on cross border work between Spain and Gibraltar
Dispute settlement: CJEU jurisdiction over Gibraltar where there's a reference to EU law; independent arbitration but the arbitrators must send any EU law questions to the CJEU; penalties for non-compliance including interim measures (stronger than most of the TCA)
Negative response from the UK and Gibraltar governments
2/ EU/UK youth mobility treaty proposal - questions and answers
Note equal treatment in tuition fees, points re traineeships, visa fees, health surcharges, application to all Member States - would UK government accept all this? (Also a question to ask Labour)
3/ EU/UK proposed youth mobility treaty - text of proposed Council decision and explanatory memo
Note it would also include family reunion (not further detailed at this point). Dispute settlement system of the Brexit deal would apply (not the CJEU) commission.europa.eu/publications/c…
2/ The context of the bill is the recently agreed Rwanda treaty. The issues in clause 1.3 *might* be enough to convince courts to change their mind on the safety of Rwanda since the Supreme Court judgment, but as we'll see it's a moot point: the bill dispenses with courts anyway.
3/ clause 1.4.b is correct: an Act of Parliament that breaches international law is still valid *domestic* law. BUT it will remain a breach of international law.
(We are likely to hear from people who do not understand these basic points)
2/ The spiel in the link confuses the two EU courts, which is not impressive. In fact the applicants in this case lost earlier in the EU General Court, then lost their appeal this year to the CJEU. And this omits to point out that the CJEU had ruled on the substance in June 2022.
3/ My comments on the previous judgment: '.
Because the Court ruled here that Brits lost EU citizenship because UK left the EU, it said this year that Brits had no legal interest to sue the EU to challenge the withdrawal agreement to get it back.eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2022/06/its-en…
Profoundly ignorant on both points. A) the Good Friday Agreement requires compliance with the ECHR. That necessarily entails the Strasbourg Court. There's no legal route to saying that it applies but to the peace process only. 1/
2/ And the idea that it applies to the "peace process" but not "foreign nationals" is confused - for the obvious reason that some of those covered by the former ground may be Irish citizens.
3/ The Strasbourg Court jurisdiction is relevant to Northern Ireland for a very, very obvious reason: it had ruled that the UK had breached the ECHR in Northern Ireland after British courts had ruled that it had not. "Just rely on British courts" therefore misses the point.
1/ I see "gotchas" assuming that this interpretation of the scope of EU external power is correct. It's not obvious that it is correct: labour migration is not the same thing as trade (apart from short term provision of services), so is not necessarily an EU exclusive competence.
2/ Nor is Schengen necessarily relevant here, as it applies to short term visits and the issue is longer term stays. There's limited EU harmonisation on non-EU labour migration, and both the Treaties and EU legislation have carve-outs on aspects of the topic.
3/ There's no current legal framework requiring Member States to get the Commission’s approval on labour migration treaties. So the Commission would have to sue Member States in the CJEU, and for the reasons just given it's not certain it would win.