Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Like revoking notice to wisthdraw, procedure for extending the "negotiation period" is not "explicitly addressed" in TEU(50). This is what I mean by "illegal."
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Full Court)
75      In view of all the foregoing, the answer to the question referred is that Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State -- for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired -- to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. 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.
It follows, arguably, EU gov may not lawfully or legally impose conditions on or qualify an extension period in terms other than duration, granted by EU Council to a "negotiation period" that otherwise would terminate two year after A.50 notification absent WA ratified by a "possibly" withdrawing Member State.

Obversely, the EU Council might lawfully reject, without consideration, any conditional or qualified request for an extension from the "possibly" withdrawing Member State -- such as leave to modify, alter, or amend the WA ostensibly approved by its legislature in accord with constitutional authorities it may or may not exercise in the period contemplated.

Effectively and arguably, extending the period for the "possibly" withdrawing Member State to obtain agreement from its legislature offers no benefit but sovereign rights in itself to undermine EU legitimacy and "democratic" process.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Thu Feb 28th, 2019 at 08:03:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The highlighted passage in Para. 75 refers to a member revoking its A.50 notification - which must be done in an unequivocal and unconditional manner - not to the EU Council extending the A.50 notification period - which requires unanimity and could be subject to whatever political conditions the EU Council chooses to dream up.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Feb 28th, 2019 at 09:23:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I know that.

My remarks anticipate litigation.  I said that.

I'm applying ECJ logic to adjudicate lawful UK request to extend the period. I said that.

Neither procedure or its legality is "explicitly addressed" in TEU. I said that.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Fri Mar 1st, 2019 at 12:23:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Après May

by Frank Schnittger - Mar 22
33 comments

The gloves are off

by Frank Schnittger - Mar 20
32 comments

Brexit Fun: The John Bercow Show

by Oui - Mar 18
19 comments

Healing Earth (Through the Waters)

by gmoke - Mar 19
2 comments

People playing games

by Frank Schnittger - Mar 15
50 comments

No justice for Bloody Sunday

by IdiotSavant - Mar 14
2 comments

Occasional Series