Eleanor Sharpston Profile picture
Amateur musician, karateka, language nut - oh, and EU lawyer. RT with comment: self-explanatory. Plain RT means, ‘interesting’.
RobinK Profile picture Globalbizdynamics Profile picture Andre Delicata Profile picture richard walsh Profile picture JJ Armstrong Profile picture 6 added to My Authors
18 Oct 19
1.The following comments attempt to stand back a little from the immediate swirl surrounding the new draft Withdrawal Agreement (‘WA2’) and reflect on what has (and has not) really happened over the last few days.
2.As many have already pointed out, about 90 percent of WA2 is exactly the same as the November 2018 draft Withdrawal Agreement (‘WA1)’. From a EU27 perspective, that is entirely unsurprising.
3.The EU’s negotiating guidelines have not altered and nor has the need to protect the integrity of the EU single market, safeguard citizens’ rights and obtain payment of money already committed in the existing financial framework.
Read 24 tweets
20 May 19
1. Writing in the Sunday Times yesterday, the Prime Minister announced, ‘My Withdrawal Agreement Bill will be a bold new offer to MPs’.
2. Self-evidently, it is highly desirable for there to be further, well-focused debate in Parliament so as to make intelligent use of the extension (until the end of October) to the period under Article 50 TEU before the UK automatically – with or without a deal – leaves the EU.
3. It may be helpful to recall the parameters for that debate.
Read 18 tweets
29 Mar 19
1. The Opinion produced yesterday by David Anderson QC and 5 other specialists in EU law (available at daqc.co.uk/2019/03/28/art… ) is an important and thoughtful contribution on a difficult subject.
2. The approach they have taken is different from that explored tentatively in my earlier tweets. So much the better.
3. Rather than getting bogged down in how to get UK MEPs to the European Parliament (EP) otherwise than by the obvious and normal method of electing them, they have taken a step back and looked at the underlying issues of democratic representation and legitimacy.
Read 11 tweets
20 Mar 19
1. A short further reflection on the vexed question of UK participation (or non-participation) in the European Parliament (EP) elections .
2. If the UK is still an EU Member State when the new EP begins to sit in July 2019, there should be UK participation in that new EP.
3. The normal way of complying would that requirement would, of course, be to hold elections over the period when the next EP elections are due to be held (23 – 26 May 2019).
Read 12 tweets
17 Mar 19
1. Always instructive to see what responses are triggered by a long tweet that tries to provide information to enrich the Brexit debate. Here is a follow-up (much shorter, I promise!) on the specific issue of European Parliament elections.
2. Is it really ‘inappropriate’ for the UK to hold elections for the new EP during an Article 50 extension period?
3. Holding such elections allows citizens of Member States participating in the ‘European project’ to exercise the valuable democratic right directly to choose MEPs who will, over the next five years, represent their strand of thinking about where that project should be heading.
Read 17 tweets
13 Mar 19
Chain continues!
25. Article 50 TEU (withdrawals from the EU) is the mirror provision of Article 49 TEU (accessions to the EU). Article 49 TEU served as the legal base for the 2011 Treaty of Accession of Croatia to the European Union.
26. Croatia was joining at a date (1 July 2013) that did not happen to coincide with the date for holding EP elections. However, as soon as Croatia was a Member State, it needed to have democratic representation in the EP.
27. The solution adopted was to use the Treaty of Accession, based on Article 49 TEU, to make the necessary adjustments to the EU Treaties to deal with inter alia this problem.
Read 9 tweets
13 Mar 19
1. Following two successive votes rejecting the draft withdrawal agreement (DWA) (432-202 against and 391-242 against) and this evening’s vote (321-278) to reject any no deal Brexit, here is a personal reflection/contribution on possible extensions of time under Article 50 TEU.
2. If the existing DWA ever ends up being approved, it is near-certain that the UK will have to seek a short (2-3 month) extension, in order to put in place the necessary measures to implement that agreement.
3. Since there would be obvious mutual interest in granting such an extension, it is unlikely that obtaining it in that context would present major difficulty.
Read 25 tweets
2 Jan 19
1. Reading tweets over the (notional) Christmas Brexit truce, I’ve been struck by the repeated confusion about what the UK can / cannot do over the three months to 29th March 2019.
2. As Parliament resumes and the surrounding discussion heats up, it may therefore perhaps be helpful to offer a little (further) clarification about how the process under Article 50 TEU works.
3. Once Article 50 is triggered – as was done by the Prime Minister’s letter on 29th March 2017 – the two year time period specified by Article 50 runs down automatically.
Read 22 tweets
21 Dec 18
1. On 10 December) the CJEU (aka the ECJ) gave its ruling in Case C-621/18 Wightman. It held that a Member State may unilaterally revoke the notice that it has given under Article 50 TEU to leave the EU, in accordance with its constitutional procedures.
2. I was not involved in the case in any way. Having seen some of the tweets on the subject over the last ten days, I offer – for what they are worth – the following short personal comments.
3. First, the Court of Session, which made the reference, had heard and rejected the UK Government’s argument that the case was hypothetical. The CJEU does not second-guess national courts on the application of national law.
Read 22 tweets