curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/do…
This is a link to the press release on today's AG Opinion.
This is a link to the press release on today's AG Opinion.
Key lines: In the view of Mr Campos Sánchez-Bordona, not placing obstacles in the way of the continued EU membership of a Member State that decides to leave the EU, but then changes its stance, in accordance with its constitutional requirements...
...and wishes to continue being a member, is an especially appropriate interpretative approach, which accords with the objective of advancing the process of integration.
Some more (from the press release):
However, that possibility of unilateral revocation is subject to certain conditions and limits. First,like the notification of the intention to withdraw, the unilateral revocation must be notified by a formal act to the European Council.
However, that possibility of unilateral revocation is subject to certain conditions and limits. First,like the notification of the intention to withdraw, the unilateral revocation must be notified by a formal act to the European Council.
Secondly, it must respect national constitutional requirements. If, as is the case in the UK, prior parliamentary authorisation is required for the notification of the intention to withdraw, it is logical that the revocation... also requires parliamentary approval.
There is also a temporal limit on the possibility of revocation, since revocation is possible only within the two-year period that begins when the intention to withdraw is notified.
The principles of good faith and sincere cooperation must also be observed, in order to prevent abuse of the procedure laid down in Article 50 TEU.
Quick comment: This is only the AG's Opinion. The Court may decide differently. But... this Opinion suggests that revocation is easier than many were predicting. The obstacles lie in UK politics, not in EU law.
