Steve Peers Profile picture
Feb 27, 2023 29 tweets 9 min read Read on X
Windsor Framework legal text published. Some initial comments 1/
gov.uk/government/pub…
First, a UK government command paper which summarises and defends the package
3/ next, a joint declaration of the EU Commission and the UK, which summarises the main points. Includes reciprocal commitments to drop NI protocol bill on one side and legal proceedings on the other. Joint Committee will meet soon to adopt legal texts.
4/ A statement of the UK government legal position. Unilateral, not binding, but interesting. Pours an ocean full of cold water on the NI protocol bill
5/ we pause for the thoughts of John Redwood
6/ There are thirteen more documents, mostly soft law non-binding declarations.

But the key to the package is a draft Joint Committee decision, which will be binding and will *amend the protocol*. It uses the Joint Committee powers to amend the withdrawal agreement (see para 3)
7/ The amendments to the protocol start with a new bit added to its Article on UK internal trade
8/ next, the protocol is amended to add the "Stormont brake" on amended or replaced EU law. Note the threshold of "significant impact on everyday life" etc
9/ I've summarised this new procedure in a gif
10/ VAT. The protocol is amended, not to drop requirements on VAT fully, but to add more flexibility for the UK (re NI) in an Annex
11/ A similar approach is taken with excise tax. A specific exemption including "alcoholic beverages packaged in large draught containers served for immediate consumption in hospitality venues". The drafters are clearly party animals.
12/ the drafting is full of complex cross-references to EU tax law, so what can I say except "Tax Lawyers Assemble!"
13/ the biggest bit of the Joint Committee decision will replace a previous Joint Committee decision. This is the part that will reduce checks on goods going from GB to NI. (I am not screenshotting all of it)
14/ more on the Stormont brake - a unilateral declaration by the UK, but added as an annex to the Joint Committee decision. Bit of a soft/hard law hybrid. Note the condition that the NI executive is operational, assembly members act in good faith, and the minority veto
15/ moving on to the soft law. Joint declaration: the whole protocol should be called the "Windsor Framework" from now on. Renaming things always works well. Just ask Brandon!
16/ next, a joint committee recommendation on what happens if the UK pulls the Stormont brake and the arbitrators rule that the UK has abused it. (Not quite as sexy as I've made it sound)
17/ a joint declaration, also on the Stormont brake
18/ the next thing is binding: a change to the rules of procedure of a working group, so NI stakeholders are more involved
19/ similarly, a joint declaration on involving stakeholders in the work of the committees
Unilateral UK declaration on review of the consent mechanism, ie the possibility of a majority of members of the NI assembly to vote to end most of the protocol - the consent mechanism isn't changed though
21/ a couple of soft law measures on the possibility of cross border smuggling
22/ unilateral UK declaration on goods moving from NI to GB - when export rules of EU law will apply
23/ unilateral UK declaration on parcels *until* the new Joint Committee decision takes effect - that decision will simplify parcels moving between GB and NI
24/ Joint declaration on possibly agreeing further amendments to VAT rules in future
25/ State aid: EU State aid law *continues to apply to NI* - despite UK government implying otherwise. The protocol is *not amended* on this point, but there is a joint declaration interpreting it.
26/ note also parallel proposals for EU legislation and other measures on medicine and food checks (SPS) etc
commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-p…
27/ the SPS proposal includes rules on the movement of pets from GB to NI, although tbh it looks a little more complicated than putting doggo on the back seat and driving onto the ferry
28/ on the CJEU, there is *no change*, even in soft law - see the Commission Q and A. This refers to the general commitment to try to settle disputes politically (see the joint declaration in tweet 3)
29) any interest in a blog post version of all this?

• • •

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

Apr 18
1/ Brexit law- proposal to negotiate a youth mobility treaty between the EU and the UK

Press release - note basic rule would be a 4-year stay for 18-30 year olds who meet the conditions

But wait, there's more ec.europa.eu/commission/pre…
Image
2/ EU/UK youth mobility treaty proposal - questions and answers

Note equal treatment in tuition fees, points re traineeships, visa fees, health surcharges, application to all Member States - would UK government accept all this? (Also a question to ask Labour)
Image
Image
3/ EU/UK proposed youth mobility treaty - text of proposed Council decision and explanatory memo

Note it would also include family reunion (not further detailed at this point). Dispute settlement system of the Brexit deal would apply (not the CJEU)
commission.europa.eu/publications/c…
Read 7 tweets
Dec 8, 2023
Summary of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act just agreed #AIAct
europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-…
Agreed EU rules on law enforcement use of artificial intelligence #AIAct Image
Further details of the newly agreed #AIAct in the Council press release
consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press…
Read 5 tweets
Dec 6, 2023
1/ Here's the Rwanda bill - my thread with the main points follows
2/ The context of the bill is the recently agreed Rwanda treaty. The issues in clause 1.3 *might* be enough to convince courts to change their mind on the safety of Rwanda since the Supreme Court judgment, but as we'll see it's a moot point: the bill dispenses with courts anyway. Image
3/ clause 1.4.b is correct: an Act of Parliament that breaches international law is still valid *domestic* law. BUT it will remain a breach of international law.

(We are likely to hear from people who do not understand these basic points) Image
Read 26 tweets
Aug 26, 2023
1/ I am seeing this being shared. A few points. Image
2/ The spiel in the link confuses the two EU courts, which is not impressive. In fact the applicants in this case lost earlier in the EU General Court, then lost their appeal this year to the CJEU. And this omits to point out that the CJEU had ruled on the substance in June 2022. Image
3/ My comments on the previous judgment: '.
Because the Court ruled here that Brits lost EU citizenship because UK left the EU, it said this year that Brits had no legal interest to sue the EU to challenge the withdrawal agreement to get it back.eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2022/06/its-en…
Read 9 tweets
Aug 14, 2023
Profoundly ignorant on both points. A) the Good Friday Agreement requires compliance with the ECHR. That necessarily entails the Strasbourg Court. There's no legal route to saying that it applies but to the peace process only. 1/
2/ And the idea that it applies to the "peace process" but not "foreign nationals" is confused - for the obvious reason that some of those covered by the former ground may be Irish citizens.
3/ The Strasbourg Court jurisdiction is relevant to Northern Ireland for a very, very obvious reason: it had ruled that the UK had breached the ECHR in Northern Ireland after British courts had ruled that it had not. "Just rely on British courts" therefore misses the point.
Read 5 tweets
Jul 23, 2023
1/ I see "gotchas" assuming that this interpretation of the scope of EU external power is correct. It's not obvious that it is correct: labour migration is not the same thing as trade (apart from short term provision of services), so is not necessarily an EU exclusive competence.
2/ Nor is Schengen necessarily relevant here, as it applies to short term visits and the issue is longer term stays. There's limited EU harmonisation on non-EU labour migration, and both the Treaties and EU legislation have carve-outs on aspects of the topic.
3/ There's no current legal framework requiring Member States to get the Commission’s approval on labour migration treaties. So the Commission would have to sue Member States in the CJEU, and for the reasons just given it's not certain it would win.
Read 12 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(