From 9am, ECJ judges will be hearing cases for and against the UK unilaterally withdrawing its Article 50 notice. Chances are stacked against the anti-Brexit campaigners ft.com/content/a54cf3… 
Case begins for the unilateral A50 supporters who want to take back control of the exit clause. Campaigners are pushing back against the Brits, the EU Commission and the EU Council
A key argument against cancelling Article 50 is that it would encourage EU governments to trigger "tactical" exits and withdraw them whenever they like. Supporters say it is purely "hypothetical" and shouldn't stop ECJ judges ruling in their favour
Listening to ECJ hearings is a nice reminder that EU law isn’t really like anything else in the world. Anti-Brexit campaigners argue that only a unilateral cancellation of Article 50 can respect the EU’s fundamental treaty obligations: for a more integrated European society.
UK government argues that the campaigners who want to revoke Article 50 are using the ECJ as"political ammunition to pressure the UK parliament" to reverse Brexit. UK arguing this is an abuse ofthe principle of the separation of powers and want the case to be inadmissible
UK government QC: "Pandora was given a large box on her wedding which she was told not to open. We respectfully plead the court should not open this box" #Article50
Hubert Legal, the EU's top laywer, argues Article 50 needs the consent of the EU to be withdrawn: "There is no parallelism between the right to notify and the right to take back. National processes cannot suffice to pull the carpet on which everyone has been forced to stand on"
Killer argument from H. Legal: The two year article 50 process would be transformed if a government could just take it back. Negotiations would be used "to charm the notifying sheep back to the flock" with opt outs and blandishments that would ultimately weaken the EU project
Lawyer making the case for the EU Commission says any ECJ/A50 decision is about far more than just what happens with the UK and Brexit. It sets a legal precedent for the entire validity of the exit process for every member state
And yes, the EU Council's top lawyer is called Hubert Legal. No-one does nominative determinism quite like the EU
The hearing is coming to an end. Key thing to watch is any suggestion that the ECJ may skip issuing a non-binding advocate general opinoin and go straight to a judgement in order to accelerate the final ruling
EU Commission lawyer admits that any judgement from the ECJ could give ammunition to anti-Brexit MPs: "It will be of interest to those who have to decide whether to accept the current [withdrawal] agreement"
We are having a slight break in proceedings. Judges will come back and quiz lawyers from both sides a bit more and maybe hint at the end at how fast they are willing to give their final ruling (reminder that the 'fast' average is 3-6 months)
We are in the slightly topsy turvy world today where the EU institutions are arguing that an Article 50 revocation is inherently political. And the anti-Brexit case is that this all simply a matter of legal process 🤷♀️ #ECJ #Article50
Lots of questions directed to the EU Commission from ECJ judges but sadly nothing yet for H. Legal (EU Council) who has already delivered some absolute zingers today
Is a 2nd UK referendum for Remain legitimate grounds to revoke Article 50? Yes, says EU Commission. But it can't be unilateral "because someone has to check [against abuse]. There has to be a control mechanism because you have no guarantee it would be done in [the right way]"
Chief ECJ judge is quizzing the commission on why a "control" mechanism for Article 50 cannot just be the Council accepting revocation and reversing it only if they can detect an abuse. This would stops a government vetoing a revocation. A reverse control mechanism, sort of
ECJ judge grappling with the ambiguities of Article 50: “We are in a moment of constitutional construction. It is our Marbury v Madison moment. There is a textual vacuum that needs to be filled"
H Legal admits the EU Council could use a reverse qualified majority to reject a unilateral cancelling of Article 50- rather than have a unanimous vote to accept it. But he makes point that UK could easily "find an ally "to help it cancel A50 even in the case of bad faith
H. Legal makes the point that getting the EU27 to unanimously accept cancellation of Article 50 would be "rather easy to get". "It would be very hard for a member state in the European Council to oppose that. There would be a huge pressure all around the place"
Hubert Legal, who is French, says it would be pretty bold of any "member state to take the responsibility" to veto an Article 50 withdrawal. "It would contain huge political difficulties"...Wonder who might be that brave/obstinant? 🇫🇷🧐🇫🇷
Speaking of the French, H Legal is posed a question in his mother tongue. He's told he's not allowed to reply in French (all proceedings in English for today)
From Keon Lenearts, president of the ECJ today, on Article 50 as the EU's constitutional and existential moment
Just FYI, Legal gave zero fucks and did a little bit in French anyway (it's the ECJ's official working language) 🇫🇷
Petitioners say an ECJ decision after the meaningful vote on Dec 11 wouldn't make it "moot". They think any ruling could influence MPs if there is a second vote or on the drafting of the Withdrawal Act.
Laywer for the anti-Brexit campaigners sums up his argument: "Pandora’s box was not just about knowledge of the world’s evil, but hope in and for dangerous times " #ECJ #Article50
All sides are now doing their closing argument. UK QC urges the ECJ to rule the case as inadmissible as it constitutes political interference for the parliamentary and political process in the UK
H. Legal says the UK's "meaningful vote" day is not so meaningful for the EU institutions. "Nothing changes. What happens in parliament - we are not going to comment on"
It's all over. ECJ president assures the "opinion will come quickly and so will the judgement". Optimists would say that means something before the end of the year. But significant that there will be a non-binding opinion first. Some suggestion it could have been circumvented
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
ECJ judges also sound like they are relishing the opportunity to fill the gaps left by the drafting of Article 50 once and for all. ECJ president called it the EU's "Marbury v. Madison" moment (reference to US Supreme Court ruling on the pre-eminence of the constitution)
Next step is a non-binding opinion from the ECJ's Spanish advocate general Pedro Cruz Villalón. He's promised it will happen "quickly"
Got this wrong. Advocate General's name is Campos Sánchez-Bordona
This is Hubert Legal's full reasoning on why allowing EU government's to change their mind - unilaterally - about reversing Article 50 would be a "disaster" for the EU
Final thought on A50/ECJ case. Petitioners argue a unilateral revocation is an act of sovereign democracy. As is notification. But the latter is more harmful than the former purely because it risks the overriding teleology of the project: ever closer union. A Brexiters' dream
And finally finally. Much being made of "good faith" arguments for why you can protect Article 50 from abuse. Seems to ignore that entire legal edifice of EU is based precisely on mistrust of the actions of sovereign nations, rather than their "sincere cooperation". See: Brexit
