Thread by @StevePeers

@KillBrexitNow @ProfJeffKenner @eyejosh 1 the right comes from the Treaties, and the conditions for it are defined therein
2 legal personality is irrelevant to the conditions
3 'additional to' means that EU citizenship is founded on nationality of a Member State, not separate from it ->

@KillBrexitNow @ProfJeffKenner @eyejosh MS nationality is a house, while EU citizenship is a loft. You can have a house without a loft, but not a loft without a house.
4 Use of Art 9 TEU is circular; issue is whether UK citizens retain EU citizenship in the first place. Application of Art 50 is compatible with EU law

@KillBrexitNow @ProfJeffKenner @eyejosh 5 CJEU says citizenship is fundamental status *of nationals of Member States* - realllly dodgy to leave that out
- Rottman etc confirms that EU citizenship is only for nationals of Member States - otherwise why does CJEU require review of loss of the the latter in this context?

@KillBrexitNow @ProfJeffKenner @eyejosh 6 The route to "losing" EU citizenship via withdrawal is set out in Art 50 - so up to national constitutional requirements to determine whether proportionality applies to that process
7 Art 50 necessarily provides for no EU citizenship any more, no need to refer to Art 20

@KillBrexitNow @ProfJeffKenner @eyejosh 8 Territorial scope is irrelevant
9 The argument about some rights being kept/but some are lost is incoherent
10 VCLT is irrelevant to jurisdiction. So is Art 174 WA which applies to the parties only. Jurisdiction comes from ordinary EU law in EU; ditto in UK during transition >

@KillBrexitNow @ProfJeffKenner @eyejosh 11 - and for 8 years afterwards re citizens rights provisions and UK. Art 6 ECHR doesn't apply to citizenship disputes.
12 Polling/EP resolution not a legal argument
13 Health and safety risk with the non-reciprocity argument - judges might die laughing. Really, what an argument