3 ms·

Not easily. There is a court ruling that states that invoking Article 50 repeatedly can be seen as an illegal abuse of the rule to exert undue pressure on the E

Not easily. There is a court ruling that states that invoking Article 50 repeatedly can be seen as an illegal abuse of the rule to exert undue pressure on the EU. So if Britain wants to do it all again, they need to clear that bar.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> There is a court ruling that states that invoking Article 50 repeatedly can be seen as an illegal abuse of the rule to exert undue pressure on the EU So Britain would try to invoke Article 50, the EU would say “no,” and then...? Civil war? Hard Brexit?
- gmueckl 8y ago
  They would have to remain until they can negotiate a change of the Treaty that would allow them to exit.
matthewmacleod 8y ago
I'm not sure there's any "court ruling" of that sort. The only applicable case would be Wightman, which just confirms that revocation must be and “unequivocal and unconditional decision” on accordance with a country's “own national constitutional requirements”. You may be thinking of the Advocate General's initial opinion, which accepted that unilateral revocation would be possible only if it did not involve an "abusive practice", under which the idea of revocation followed be immediate re-notification might be considered "abusive". However, no reference to this appears in the final judgement of the CJEU.
- gmueckl 8y ago
  Please see the quote in my other response. In a way, the criteria are much harder: the withdrawal must the end of the endeavor to leave the EU. That is, if Britain withdraws, then only if it is the end of Brexit. They could not that with the intent to continue exit negotiations.
stordoff 8y ago
> There is a court ruling that states that invoking Article 50 repeatedly can be seen as an illegal abuse of the rule to exert undue pressure on the EU Citation needed. I have read the primary ruling on this[1], and I don't recall anything of the sort. As the Court notes: > Although, during the drafting of [Article 50 TEU], amendments had been proposed [...] to avoid the risk of abuse during the withdrawal procedure [...], those amendments were all rejected on the ground, expressly set out in the comments on the draft, that the voluntary and unilateral nature of the withdrawal decision should be ensured. [1] http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=208636&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1136027 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...
- gmueckl 8y ago
  The situation is more convoluted. You are partially correct. The key sentence is this: " In the second place, the revocation of the notification of the intention to withdraw must, first, be submitted in writing to the European Council and, secondly, be unequivocal and unconditional, that is to say that the purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end." This means that any withdrawal from Atricle 50 can only be proper if this is the true end of the procedure. Otherwise, it would not be "unconditional".
  - stordoff 8y ago
    This is not my reading at all. It brings _the_ withdrawal procedure to an end - the procedure under Article 50 is terminated. It does not preclude starting another. Indeed, it would be contradictory - the purpose of the notice is to confirm membership is "under terms that are unchanged" -- if the State loses its right to invoke Article 50, the terms _have_ changed.
    - gmueckl 8y ago
      No, the reading is very clear to me: a withdrawal cannot be lawful if it is made with the intent to continue exit negotiations. If negotiations were to continue the proceedings have not ended. A new invocation of Article 50 can only be made as the start a new and completely independent process. Everything that has been negotiated and decided so far would have to be ignored.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> There is a court ruling that states that invoking Article 50 repeatedly can be seen as an illegal abuse of the rule to exert undue pressure on the EU So Britain would try to invoke Article 50, the EU would say “no,” and then...? Civil war? Hard Brexit?

gmueckl 8y ago
They would have to remain until they can negotiate a change of the Treaty that would allow them to exit.

matthewmacleod 8y ago

I'm not sure there's any "court ruling" of that sort. The only applicable case would be Wightman, which just confirms that revocation must be and “unequivocal and unconditional decision” on accordance with a country's “own national constitutional requirements”. You may be thinking of the Advocate General's initial opinion, which accepted that unilateral revocation would be possible only if it did not involve an "abusive practice", under which the idea of revocation followed be immediate re-notification might be considered "abusive". However, no reference to this appears in the final judgement of the CJEU.

gmueckl 8y ago
Please see the quote in my other response. In a way, the criteria are much harder: the withdrawal must the end of the endeavor to leave the EU. That is, if Britain withdraws, then only if it is the end of Brexit. They could not that with the intent to continue exit negotiations.

stordoff 8y ago

> There is a court ruling that states that invoking Article 50 repeatedly can be seen as an illegal abuse of the rule to exert undue pressure on the EU Citation needed. I have read the primary ruling on this[1], and I don't recall anything of the sort. As the Court notes: > Although, during the drafting of [Article 50 TEU], amendments had been proposed [...] to avoid the risk of abuse during the withdrawal procedure [...], those amendments were all rejected on the ground, expressly set out in the comments on the draft, that the voluntary and unilateral nature of the withdrawal decision should be ensured. [1] http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=208636&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1136027 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...

gmueckl 8y ago
The situation is more convoluted. You are partially correct. The key sentence is this: " In the second place, the revocation of the notification of the intention to withdraw must, first, be submitted in writing to the European Council and, secondly, be unequivocal and unconditional, that is to say that the purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end." This means that any withdrawal from Atricle 50 can only be proper if this is the true end of the procedure. Otherwise, it would not be "unconditional".
- stordoff 8y ago
  This is not my reading at all. It brings _the_ withdrawal procedure to an end - the procedure under Article 50 is terminated. It does not preclude starting another. Indeed, it would be contradictory - the purpose of the notice is to confirm membership is "under terms that are unchanged" -- if the State loses its right to invoke Article 50, the terms _have_ changed.
  - gmueckl 8y ago
    No, the reading is very clear to me: a withdrawal cannot be lawful if it is made with the intent to continue exit negotiations. If negotiations were to continue the proceedings have not ended. A new invocation of Article 50 can only be made as the start a new and completely independent process. Everything that has been negotiated and decided so far would have to be ignored.