I've seen a paper from the Slovenian Council presidency which seeks to carve out another one of the proposals for revised EU asylum law from the package of proposed new laws
(This has already been done for the revised EU asylum agency law)
2/ The suggestion now is to carve out the proposal for a revised law on 'Eurodac' - the EU asylum database.
At the moment it stores limited data on asylum seekers and irregular border crossers. The proposal would involve keeping far more data on more people ->
3/ In particular, it would collect data on:
- everyone over 6 (the current cut-off is 14)
- irregular migrants detected *on* the territory, not just at the border
- photos, names etc (currently just fingerprints are kept)
Time limits for storage of data would be increased
4/ It remains to be seen, however, if Member States agree to another carve-out from the 'package' (the other proposals concern asylum procedures, asylum-seekers' reception conditions, the definition of refugee, revised Dublin rules on asylum responsibility, and resettlement).
5/ Also the revised law would have to be negotiated with the European Parliament.
New judgment - one of final remaining UK cases - reference from Supreme Court - on food standards and judicial review: curia.europa.eu/juris/document…
CJEU, external relations law
Commission wins case against Council re adoption of EU position on implementation of treaty with Armenia - the treaty is mostly not about foreign policy: curia.europa.eu/juris/document…
This was the case where the lawyer got headlines by talking about "fraud" (which wasn't really what was being alleged): belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/co…
Like the lawyer in the challenge to the NI protocol talking about "Vichy", grandstanding doesn't necessarily help litigants
2/ Follwing this dispute the UK has dropped its obligation under the European Social Charter re non-discrimination in fees. The UK argument in the last sentence of para 20 is dubious: the Member States, not the EU, are party to the Social Charter.
3/ This argument from the UK takes some chutzpah: the UK sought to end the transition period, including the free movement of UK citizens in the EU, ASAP, and would not agree to a declaration on visa waivers for artists, falsely equating it with free movement.
Leaving aside Farage's absurd comments, the law does not provide for exemptions for countries unless they have a free movement deal with the EU, besides three microstates. 1/
2/ Here's the text of the exceptions. But hey, why don't I just cosplay as an Express journalist and make the law up?
"There's an exemption for Brits who jump naked into the EU wine lake, chanting their allegiance to von der Leyen."
Economists may have the stats on how much those Member States' economies are actually "dependent" on UK tourism. But do we seriously think many people who can afford a foreign holiday will be put off by an extra €7 every three years?
As @JMPSimor has pointed out, this is a false claim from Cummings about Vote Leave's breach of electoral spending law. Vote Leave in fact dropped its appeal against the fine imposed against them for their unlawful spending. 1/2
2/ Vote Leave was successful in a separate appeal against the EC to the Court of Appeal, but that doesn't affect the original finding of unlawful spending by Vote Leave, as Cummings falsely implies. electoralcommission.org.uk/electoral-comm…