ECJ ruling confirms opinion from last week:
In some ways the actual ECJ ruling even clearer than the opinion - UK can unilaterally revoke A50 as a sovereign right until A50 period expires, including any extension, it says
ECJ says revocation “under terms that are unchanged” - ie no schengen, eurozone, rebate (though Commission is trying to axe all rebates generally)
ECJ: “To subject that right to revoke to unanimous approval of European Council as Commission and Council proposed, would transform a unilateral sovereign right into a conditional right -incompatible with principle a Member State cannot be forced to leave EU against its will”.
Full ECJ judgement: curia.europa.eu/juris/document… 
ECJ judgement on unilateral revocation rests on... wait for it... the “ever closer union” clause that Cameron tried to negotiate UK out of.
Non-abuse clause - revocation must be “unequivocal and unconditional” and “submitted in writing to the European Council”... ie not used as a negotiation tactic. “Brings Withdrawal procedure to an end”
... ie can’t unilaterally extend Article 50 - the ruling says that has to be done via the A50 provision — ie by EU Council unanimously. If it was extended, then period of potential A50 unilateral revocation is extended too...
That sets up something interesting for Feb/March - UK asks for A50 extension - more plausible at moment than revocation - one EU27 nation vetos it knowing that UK then has the choice to revoke or leave with no deal, tariffs etc
Lastly “revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements”... Though some on here have interpreted this as a need for an Act of Parliament to revoke ie reverse of post Miller trigger Act, I’m told legally that is not actually the case...
....see my story about my understanding of govt legal advice - this is more a legal point... politically vote would be inevitable, but legally Act may not be required, which a. Could be challenged in courts. B. Might make a difference if timing an issue.
Also - basis of Miller case now falls. Ie had this ruling been made two years ago (both sides agreed as common ground that in fact A50 was not unilaterally revocable) then I don’t think Miller case would have passed - and the Government would not have required Act to trigger
Miller often wrongly cited as evidence A50 not revocable - both sides decided to assume not. ECJ decision shows assumption wrong.
Net net, Miller case helped Brexit, say ministers. Without, many legal cases/judicial reviews in middle process.
makes mockery of attack on judiciary
Net net, Miller case helped Brexit, say ministers. Without, many legal cases/judicial reviews in middle process.
makes mockery of attack on judiciary
