I've seen an advance copy of the proposal to amend the Schengen Borders Code that the Commission is due to table tomorrow. Some key excerpts follow. (It's possible that there will be some last-minute changes to this draft).
There would be new rules dealing with Belarus-type situations, defined here. This is on top of the temporary changes to asylum law proposed two weeks ago.
The substance of the proposed new Belarus rules - the limitation of border crossing points. Note that the right to asylum is protected. (What happens in practice might be different)
Also possibly some new border surveillance rules and recommendations by the Frontex boss
Covid! Currently there's soft law (ie non-binding) on external border control re covid. Commission says it's not applied consistently in practice. Proposes a framework for the Council to adopt binding law.
Some groups of people would be exempt
Further details of external borders and covid
An overhaul of the rules on internal border checks. Still banned in principle but changes to the exceptions, including more police checks *near* the border
A new possibility to return unauthorised entrants quickly to another Member State. The returns directive would be amended to match. The annex includes a right to appeal.
Remember all this would have to be agreed by the Council (qualified majority vote) and European Parliament, which is not guaranteed. They failed to agree on the Commission's last proposal re internal border checks, tabled in 2017 (to be withdrawn).
At first glance there's nothing here of specific relevance to Brexit. Those Brexit supporters who wanted the UK to be a non-EU country without free movement will presumably still be refraining from whining that they got what they asked for /s
Full text of the draft proposal to amend the Schengen Borders Code here
Note that there will be *two* proposals today - not only the amendments to the Borders Code, but also a separate proposal on the Belarus situation. Both are separate from the emergency temporary proposal on that situation tabled two weeks ago.
Official version of proposals to a) amend the Schengen Borders Code and b) to set up a permanent framework to respond to Belarus situations by suspending some EU immigration and asylum law - ec.europa.eu/commission/pre…
The latter proposal is very similar to the proposal for temporary exceptions to EU asylum law which the EU Commission tabled two weeks ago.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
EU Commission proposal re emergency measures for Poland, Latvia and Lithuania re asylum applications at border with Belarus - ec.europa.eu/commission/pre…
Creates temporary exceptions re EU law asylum procedures, fast-track returns, reception conditions
I'm absent from Twitter in principle during the USS strike action - but I'm making an exception to tweet about this, as it's an emergency proposal on the human rights of people starving/freezing to death on the border.
More when the full text is available
Full text of proposal for emergency measures re EU asylum law and Poland, Lithuania and Latvia re Belarus border now published - ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/p…
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.