,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Interesting discussion
My view is that since the ECJ required revocation to be "in accordance with [the UK's] constitutional requirements" and also "in an unequivocal and unconditional manner" there is a decent argument that Parliament would need to confirm/approve the decision
My view is that since the ECJ required revocation to be "in accordance with [the UK's] constitutional requirements" and also "in an unequivocal and unconditional manner" there is a decent argument that Parliament would need to confirm/approve the decision
... because e.g. if the Executive decided to revoke when Parliament was against that (e.g. had voted against) that would arguably be neither unequivocal or (though this would have to be tested) in accordance with the UK's constitutional requirements
... Not clear from ECJ's judgment what "unequivocal" means. On one view it's just about the letter notifying being clear that the UK is maintaining membership on the same terms and not using this as a delaying tactic for Brexit
... but it could also be an evidential requirement, that the UK is serious about staying. A parliamentary majority (absent a referendum result) would be good evidence
... ultimately what is "in accordance with the UK's constitutional requirements" is a matter for UK Supreme Court ,not ECJ. Agree (having thought on it) that as Miller was about taking rights away, whereas revocation is about keeping them, less likely parliament's approval needed
