I love the smell of a leaked legal service opinion in the morning

The conclusion: the EU Council legal service says that it's OK for the Brexit deal to be concluded with the UK by the EU only, not needing Member States' participation
The reasoning: the legal service distinguishes between competences reserved to Member States, and competences shared with the EU. For the latter, the EU has the choice of concluding an EU-only treaty.
The legal service summarises the prior case law backing up its interpretation.
It refers to the Weddell case, concerning competence to conclude a treaty on the Antarctic environment, where Member States *could* be involved. But that was based on the particular legal features of the Antarctic treaty; and the UK is not Antarctica.
Applying this reasoning to the UK deal, the legal service says that there's nothing in it which involves exclusive Member State competence. Therefore the EU can choose to conclude it as an EU-only treaty.
In particular competence is shared as regards the social security and aviation parts of the treaty. But again: this means that there's a choice to conclude the treaty as an EU-only treaty, or also with Member States as parties.
The legal service also notes that the UK and individual Member States can sign bilateral agreements within the scope of the Brexit deal - subject to the limits set out in the agreement.
Just thinking of all the times people argued that the treaty would *have* to be ratified by all the Member States - and all the times I replied that we would have to wait and see.
An initial reaction to the legal service opinion from the Walloon Parliament...
Full text of the Council legal service opinion on the Brexit deal now here - https://t.co/zqemdVtQNn

More from Legal

Last night TPD arrested and charged two known organizers, @DailyTacoma and our own @ohdamn_jam.

So many people acted quickly, and we were able to make sure they both made bail.


You can read @ohdamn_jam's account of what happened here


If you remember, back in August we were made aware that Pierce County diverted COVID funds to monitor us. We know for sure they monitored and reported on this account and anyone associated with it, such as @DailyTacoma

Side note: They were not read their rights until munch later.
By corrupting global institutions, promoting hysterical data, publishing fraudulent science, and deploying propaganda on an unprecedented scale, Beijing transformed the snake oil of lockdowns into “science,” the greatest crime of the 21st century to

2/ The purpose of this letter is to request an expedited federal investigation into the scientific debate on major policy decisions during the COVID-19 crisis.

Downloadable PDF:
https://t.co/gOX6sTSFbT

Archived Medium article:

3/ In early 2020, the public turned to the advice of scientific authorities when confronted with an apparent viral outbreak. Soon after, most nations followed the advice of prominent scientists and implemented restrictions commonly referred to as “lockdowns.”


4/ While the policies varied by jurisdiction, in general they involved restrictions on gatherings and movements and the closure of schools, businesses, and public places, inspired by those imposed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in Hubei Province.


5/ SECTION 1 - LOCKDOWNS ORIGINATED ON THE ORDER OF XI JINPING, GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY, AND WERE PROPAGATED INTO GLOBAL POLICY BY THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION WITH LITTLE ANALYSIS OR LOGIC

You May Also Like