Share this page!

Steve Peers Profile picture
Twitter logo
24 Nov, 14 tweets, 4 min read
The full text of the EU proposal on sanctioning transport companies re moving people to the Poland/Belarus border is here: ec.europa.eu/transparency/d…
Some comments 1/x
2/ First of all, it's a transport law proposal, rather than a foreign policy proposal (which would need unanimity) or an immigration law proposal (which would entail Irish and Danish opt-outs). So it would be ordinary EU law that would apply to all Member States.
3/ As it's a proposal for legislation, the full legislative process has to apply in order to adopt it. However, it's possible for the EU institutions to fast-track the process and adopt legislation within a month or two if they can agree on it quickly.
4/ The sanctions relate to transport operators that facilitate or engage in these activities re smuggling or trafficking in persons Image
5/ Smuggling of migrants and trafficking in persons are further defined Image
6/ Here are the potential sanctions, which would be adopted by the Commission - quite significant commercial impact Image
7/ As the Commission would be adopting the sanctions, its decisions could be challenged directly in the EU courts with no standing problem.

This is a separate issue from whether those challenges would be successful on the merits though.
8/ nb legal challenges to EU foreign policy sanctions, by analogy, are sometimes successful - it isn't the case that the EU courts always back the EU political institutions.
9/ The transport companies would have procedural rights (which they would surely argue were breached in any legal challenge). There would be attempts to coordinate action with non-EU countries. Image
10/ Passengers' rights aren't affected; in particular the transport companies would *not* be exempt from liability due to cancellation of flights, etc Image
11/ There would be some input from Member States into the Commission decisions, via a "comitology" process Image
12/ nb at this stage it's a proposal, so it might possibly not be adopted, or might be amended before its adoption - the Council (Member States' ministers) and the European Parliament would need to agree to it in order for it to become law.
13/ The proposal for emergency measures on asylum is a separate planned proposal that hasn't been tabled yet - as ECRE says it's important to ensure that it's compatible with human rights
14/ The Commission paper on the Belarus border issue refers to disinformation from Russian and Belarussian state media - ec.europa.eu/info/sites/def…
But does not mention false claims about migrants and bestiality made by Polish ministers - politico.eu/article/dont-b…

• • •

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

Steve Peers Profile picture
25 Nov
The UK is now offering less to the EU in return for a readmission treaty than it offered in 2020 - when it offered a (weak) treaty on unaccompanied child asylum seekers in conjunction with it.
And even if it's true that, as Johnson claims, the French EU Council presidency will prioritise an EU/UK return deal (and I wouldn't trust Johnson to tell me the time of day), it would need sign off by the Commission, European Parliament and other Member States.
The UK's prior proposal for a UK/EU readmission treaty is analysed here -
eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2020/08/analys…
Read 5 tweets
Steve Peers Profile picture
25 Nov
Some thoughts from me on the loss of lives during Channel crossings mailplus.co.uk/edition/commen…
A couple of points
I've been very critical of the Mail in the past and probably will be again, but I wrote for Mail+ because I don't think we can just preach to the choir on this or any other issue. I think it's important to make this point to Mail+ readers, for instance. Image
If it doesn't look like my writing style it's because my text was edited somewhat. But all the key points I wanted to make are there.
Read 6 tweets
Steve Peers Profile picture
24 Nov
There's no such rule in the Refugee Convention. Sometimes two or more supposedly 'safe' countries agree to allocate responsibility for asylum seekers, which may include such a rule between them, but the UK left such a system (the Dublin rules). More here: ukandeu.ac.uk/the-dublin-reg…
A 'safe third country' rule may also exist in national law, as it has for awhile in the UK, as well as in some EU Member States (partly harmonised by EU law - see Art 38 of the procedures directive: eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/…)
BUT...>
...a unilateral 'safe third country' rule is unworkable in practice without the other country agreeing to take the asylum seekers, as the EU legislation expressly recognises (see Art 38(4), which in that case requires the Member State to consider the application).
Read 4 tweets
Steve Peers Profile picture
9 Nov
You're complaining about an agreement you voted for, while proving that you don't understand it.
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.
Read 5 tweets
Steve Peers Profile picture
3 Nov
The "anti-corruption champion" embarrasses himself
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.
Read 6 tweets
Steve Peers Profile picture
31 Oct
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.
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

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @StevePeers has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @StevePeers!

Read all threads by @StevePeers

:(