Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
A few clues today about how ECJ sees the A50 puzzle. A truly unilateral revocation seems to be excluded on basis EU needs a mechanism to ensure the system isn't abused. Lenaerts made novel suggestion of a "reverse QMV" decision to reject rather than approve a cancellation

— Mehreen (@MehreenKhn) November 27, 2018

A suggestion that a revocation should not be unilaterally possible - to prevent abuse - but that it could be accepted by the EU Council by qualified majority vote: More or less in line with my argument... or does it mean the EU Council would have to muster a QMV to actually reject a cancellation. That would be a tall order.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Nov 29th, 2018 at 03:41:18 PM EST
That's my takeaway, and I hope it's what he will advise next week.

The EU is some sort of meta-state (some would say, a metastasis).

If it were a thing of mere intergovernmental treaty, then the principle of a cooling-off period for exit would apply pretty much automatically, and the UK would need no permission to change its mind and stay in.

If it were a federal state, then unilateral secession would certainly not be an automatic right (no more than it is for Catalonia or Scotland); the consent of the federation would also be required.

We have a rule for leaving, and no rule for remorse. It seems fair and reasonable that the ECJ should determine one. (I aspire to fairness and reason, however unfashionable that may be)

It would also be richly ironic if May had to eat her hat and humbly request leave to remain... based on  ECJ advice.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Thu Nov 29th, 2018 at 04:37:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series