Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Steve Peers Profile picture
@StevePeers
Apr 18 • 7 tweets • 3 min read • Read on X
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…
4/ Next steps

First, *the EU Council (ie Member States ministers) has to agree to a negotiation mandate*. This is a crucial detail often overlooked by Brexity folks. The Council might not agree to negotiations, or might amend the proposed negotiation mandate.
5/ The Commission seems to assume that the Council would vote on this by a qualified majority. Denmark opts out and Ireland could opt in or out. But there would be no impact on the Common Travel Area. Note the Commission is *not* claiming that this is an exclusive EU competence.
6/ *If* there's a Council mandate, the Commission would be the negotiator, reporting back to Council (in the preexisting Council working group on the UK). *If* a treaty was negotiated, it would need approval from the Council and the European Parliament, plus weaker UK process.
7/ As there are no previous treaties on youth mobility between EU and non-EU countries, it's hard to predict how this might go. Ie it's possible that Member States would insist that they also be parties to it, which would entail unanimous voting and national ratification.

• • •

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
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
Steve Peers Profile picture
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
Steve Peers Profile picture
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
Steve Peers Profile picture
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
Steve Peers Profile picture
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
Steve Peers Profile picture
May 10, 2023
Here it is - the official govt U-turn on the retained EU law bill. But some employment law protections will be on the bonfire. Some points 1/
2/ The key point:

"To ensure that Government can focus on delivering more reform of REUL, to a faster timetable, we are amending the REUL Bill to be clear which laws we intend to revoke at the end of this year.... >
3/ ...This will also provide certainty to business by making clear which regulations will be removed from our statute book." So dropping the default of killing all EU law on the statute book at the end of 2023 except that which was explicitly saved.
Read 34 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!

Send Email!

:(