It seems like the Telegraph has completely lost the plot with this story. But, as it cites the Treaty, lets have a look at what this means and what the legal consequences might be. /1
Article 8 TEU says: "1.The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation." /2
This article was inserted by the Treaty of Lisbon, as was Article 50. But it was not meant to apply per se to a leaving state: rather, it reflects the growing importance of the European Neighbourhood Policy (2004) and framework for the Western Balkans in EU external relations. /3
This can be understood by the reference to "prosperity and good neighbourliness" and values of the Union rather than "shared values" (I've written more about this here: kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?a… /4
Although eventual membership of the EU (for the Western Balkan states) can be seen to underline this article, the EU's neighbours also include states with little or no membership prospects: North Africa from Morocco to Egypt, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Ukraine, Belarus /5
Does Art 8 impose a legal obligation, as the Telegraph says? Yes, but hardly one which could be the basis of legal action. For a start, it is the general part of the Treaty which is somewhat aspirational. There is also no single template for relations: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111… /6
Article 8 (2) says "For the purposes of para 1, the Union may conclude specific agreements with the countries concerned". Key here is "may" not "must". So if there is/are no agreement(s), then the Treaty cannot be said to have been breached. The opposite would be illogical. /7
We also know this because of the extent of the agreements the EU has with all its neighbouring states: from deep (Switzerland, EEA states) down to limited or non-existent (Syria, Belarus, Libya). /8
For the UK, Art 50 is much more important because it details the precise process currently being followed. Whilst it does say that "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State" it also says the UK ceases to be a member 2 years after Art 50 notification. /9
The Union has been negotiating, and even Liam Fox or David Davis surely cannot deny this. The UK decided when to notify to leave. There is no obligation to put in place any particular agreement: in theory, it could be EEA-like, or just cover (e.g.) security aspects. /10
And EVEN IF the UK felt it has legal grounds to allege a breach of EU law, where is it going to take the case to - the Court of Justice under Article 263 TFEU? That might be ... tricky, for obvious reasons. /11
In short, trying to scare the EU member states and institutions into believing that their relationship with the UK amounts to a breach of EU law is laughable. All it will do is further convince the UK government and the UK press has no clue about how the EU works. /END
