4 ms·

> 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 Citatio

> 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.
    - stordoff 8y ago
      > Everything that has been negotiated and decided so far would have to be ignored. I'm not disagreeing. The current procedures are brought to close. IF new proceedings were brought, the EU would be well within its rights to say no and that anything it agreed to previously no long applies if the UK tried to rely on anything negotiated previously. It does not, however, prevent those new, independent proceedings starting at all.
      - gmueckl 8y ago
        The question is whether it is even possible to get to the initiation of new proceedings from where we are now. I doubt it. Any restart in the near future would imply that the preceding withdrawal was unlawful.

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.
  - stordoff 8y ago
    > Everything that has been negotiated and decided so far would have to be ignored. I'm not disagreeing. The current procedures are brought to close. IF new proceedings were brought, the EU would be well within its rights to say no and that anything it agreed to previously no long applies if the UK tried to rely on anything negotiated previously. It does not, however, prevent those new, independent proceedings starting at all.
    - gmueckl 8y ago
      The question is whether it is even possible to get to the initiation of new proceedings from where we are now. I doubt it. Any restart in the near future would imply that the preceding withdrawal was unlawful.