What this story told to @JamesCrisp6 *appears* to mean is that the Commission would no longer bring infraction proceedings against the UK in relation to NI (cases where the Commission brings a State before the ECJ where the Commission thinks it has breached EU law).
https://twitter.com/jamescrisp6/status/1461431842742181888
Article 12(4) of the Protocol means that the U.K. is subject to such proceedings (in relation to the application of customs, goods, VAT and State rules) under the Protocol as if it were a Member State. 
Wouldn’t that mean rewriting Article 12(4) (rewriting being ruled out by the EU)?
I suppose not, if the Commission simply agreed that it wouldn’t bring such proceedings. (It has a very wide and generally unreviewable discretion there).
Instead the Commission could use the arbitration mechanism - though since the issue would normally be about the interpretation of EU law, the panel would have to refer it to the ECJ - so all a bit smoke and mirrors.
Meanwhile the U.K. courts would remain bound to follow the ECJ on these matters and in some cases required to refer cases in the domestic courts to the ECJ.
All a bit of a fig leaf, though.
And on my own special subject of Article 10 (State aid) it really makes no difference, as that isn’t generally enforced against Member States by infraction proceedings, but by binding Commission decisions.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
