Redwood's misunderstanding is twofold. 1) the test in Article 16 is that application of the protocol has led to trade diversion; "the EU has trashed the Agreement by diverting trade" is gibberish. 2) "disproportionate action on the GB/NI border" is not an Article 16 issue.
In both cases, Redwood frames the issue as blaming the EU, whereas the test in Article 16 in fact refers to application of the protocol - ie the treaty text that both parties ratified, and that Redwood voted for.
The irony is that the test Redwood made up in his head might in some ways be harder to satisfy than the test which the actual Article 16 sets out. To the extent he has thought about it at all, this may be because he prefers to frame the issue as blaming the EU...>
...rather than accept a scintilla of consequences for his own actions.
With great power comes great irresponsibility.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The comparison with other walks of life doesn't work. A suspension is not a firing; rather (if it is long enough) it triggers a political process in which voters decide if there will be a by election, and if so, who will win it.
This reflects the distinct status of MPs, who did not get their job via an interview but via an election, and who can lose their job via further elections - not employment law processes - in future.
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.
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
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…
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.