Yes, and this was the part of the sentence which Wickham omitted in his translation (without even an ellipsis...) - and the letter then goes on to call for the Commission to use the dispute settlement rules in response to the alleged breach.
Moreover, Frost has also referred to invoking the Brexit deal's dispute settlement rules. These are variations on other forms of international dispute settlement - similar to the WTO rules, in fact - which Frost sought and has congratulated himself for negotiating.
In other words, rather than "punishing for leaving", the content of the letter focusses on applying the provisions of the Brexit deal which are there because the UK left the EU - which the UK sought and wishes to use itself.
You might even say that the French government wants to 'get Brexit done'.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Steve Peers

Steve Peers Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @StevePeers

28 Oct
EU and UK recognise each other's covid certificates
ec.europa.eu/commission/pre…
EU Commission decision on validity of covid certificates issued by the UK is now published
ec.europa.eu/info/publicati…
More details on the EU covid certificate law here
ec.europa.eu/info/live-work…
Read 4 tweets
28 Oct
These are the rules on retaliation re 🐟 which France has requested the EU Commission invoke against the UK, assuming that the dispute solely concerns the Channel Islands. However, the retaliation must immediately be followed by a request for arbitration 1/2
2/2 ...and here are the rules which apply to the arbitration process in such cases.
Retaliation could concern access to fishing, fish tariffs or other tariffs. It must be proportionate. It must be notified a week in advance. An arbitration request has to follow within 2 weeks. Arbitration is fast tracked...> 3/2
Read 5 tweets
21 Oct
CJEU, criminal law

New judgment interprets EU law on confiscation of criminal assets - scope of the law is broad, but if assets are transferred to third parties, they must have fair trial rights to challenge its confiscation: curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/do…
CJEU, disability discrimination law

New judgment: complete ban on blind person being employed as a juror breaches EU equality law, interpreted in light of UN Convention on persons with disabilities: curia.europa.eu/juris/document…
CJEU, fair trials law

New judgment: Member States must have system in place to correct any errors made when criminal suspects were informed of accusations against them; national courts must try to interpret national law consistently with EU law
curia.europa.eu/juris/document…
Read 7 tweets
20 Oct
This action for damages against Frontex follows the action brought against it for failure to act (because it did not end its participation in alleged human rights breaches) back in May: curia.europa.eu/juris/document…
So EU courts can now clarify how much Frontex is legally accountable.
Note that an action for damages is subject to different standing rules than a failure to act claim. An action for damages needs to prove that an unlawful action by Frontex caused damage to the applicant. This unlawful action must also meet a threshold...>
...namely, it must be a sufficiently serious breach of a superior legal rule (presumably the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, in this case).

Frontex might argue that it is only assisting national authorities with expulsions etc, so cannot be liable.
Read 5 tweets
19 Oct
The suggestion to denounce the ECHR, if carried out, would mean that the EU ends criminal justice cooperation with the UK under the Brexit deal 1/
2/ Here's the EU commitment to this end, as part of my recent thread on human rights and the Brexit deal
3/ As for the "common law is world beating at protecting human rights" view, here's the classic debunk by @conorgearty
ukconstitutionallaw.org/2014/11/13/con…
Read 7 tweets
11 Oct
It seems that a very very basic point has to be made again: international treaties are binding on the UK in international law, even if they are not incorporated in (or breached by) domestic law. Here's the Supreme Court confirming this in Miller. 1/
2/ This very very basic feature of the law applies in spite of any statements by Brexity lawyers who write for the Spectator.

Equally it means that a bill which would breach a treaty is not "illegal", still less criminal, as a matter of domestic law.
3/ And a very basic constitutional convention is that the Queen signs bills passed by Parliament. Spare us from the "deus ex regina" discourse this time, please.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(