Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
"I would argue that a revocation is a form of final settlement, not a form of extension, and as such can be agreed by qualified majority."

A revocation may be a consequence of some final settlement, but I don't think it can be regarded as simply an opening move in a dispute which can be resolved later and simply forgotten about afterwards. Otherwise, why wouldn't other members unhappy with something or other invoke A.50 to provide themselves with more leverage?

Invoking A.50 has certain consequences (and costs) in an of itself. (For instance the Irish stock market has been in marked decline despite a booming economy).

The A.50 process was therefore meant to be time limited and terminated after two years by default, after which the only remedy, if a departing member changes its mind, is to re-apply for membership under A.49.

But perhaps the Council itself has discretion, as a decision making body, to decide whether unanimity or weighted majority decision making is required. The ECJ may be reluctant to be prescriptive, given A.50's silence on the matter.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sat Sep 22nd, 2018 at 09:12:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

JakeS 4


Top Diaries

A Swedish government appears

by fjallstrom - Jan 16

What happens now?

by IdiotSavant - Jan 15

Too little, too late

by Frank Schnittger - Jan 12

A TITANIC success

by Frank Schnittger - Jan 7

Perils of a No Deal BrExit

by Oui - Jan 7

Review of 2018

by Frank Schnittger - Dec 26

Occasional Series