Source: https://verfassungsblog.de/brexit-article-50-duff/?replytocom=656935
Timestamp: 2020-08-04 18:03:28
Document Index: 365160686

Matched Legal Cases: ['CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'Art. 19', 'CJEU ', 'Art. 50', 'CJEU ', 'art 16']

“[t]he European Court of Justice (CJEU) could well be asked to verify that the UK has acted ‘in accordance with its own constitutional requirements’”
I don’t think that the CJEU can adjudicate on the constution of the member states and determine if a member state’s ‘constitutional requirements’ are met. Doing this would result in the CJEU interpreting the constitution of a member state, and I don’t think that this could be reconciled with Art. 19 TEU (and would certainly be found ultra vires, because it would establish the CJEU as a “European Super-Constitutional Court”). In my opinion, the determination if the constitutional requirements are met is (and has to be) reserved for the national courts by Art. 50(1) TEU, and their decisions binds the CJEU in this regard.
At first sight, I also find it difficult to deduce a “duty to trigger Article 50” from Article 50, as the question whether and when a “Member state decides to withdraw” should be determined by the constitutional law of the respective state.
I agree with Chris’ and Luw’s remarks. The “royal prerogative” is a complex matter and I believe can be interpreted by “own constitutional requirements” in UK only.
Of course the UK would need to “leave
the room” when Brexit being discussed
What is not made clear here is that between the point of leaving the EU, ie after a withdrawal agreement has been signed and put into effect and the point at which a new trade arrangement has been agreed and effected the UK will be treated as a “third country” under WTO rules. This would mean tariffs on many UK exports, such as cars (10%) and an effective block on much service exports. This would be catastrophic for the UK for the duration of this hiatus, perhaps 3 to 5 years or longer. No Government could agree to press this nuclear button. Article 50 is therefore in practice inoperable as an exit mechanism.
@Hans Adler: “If I heard correctly and this is a breach of the UK’s obligations, then the UK may get a choice between legal reforms to become more compatible with the EU just before leaving, and harsh fines for not doing so.”
@ Alan Rayner: “b) No comments have been submitted on the
be undertaken and by whom.”
The UK exit or ejection violates basic supranational Community principles of Schuman’s democracy. The Community institutions should be MORE democratic, open and responsive than Member States’ constitutional democracies.
1. A finely-balanced referendum result, of itself, brings no obligation that a State should comply with its outcome, especially in the UK where it is consultative and Parliament is sovereign. That might raise the question of the legal status of referendums in general to the ECJ– a minefield for the Lisbon Treaty itself. The LT incorporated practically ALL articles from the Constitutional Treaty — which was rejected by referendums in France and the Netherlands (62% against vs 38% for). Further referendums in five or six States were refused or abandoned. The first legal instrument of the European Community system was the Europe Declaration or Charter of the Community of 18 April 1951. It said that no measure can be passed without the freely expressed will of the people (contrasting with the Soviet ‘People’s Democracies’). Who is to blame if ‘Brussels’ has actively undemocratic institutions, closed to the public in violation of the treaties, and national elections not one European election? (TEU art 16.8, 17.5, TFEU 15.2, 223)
Thank you for this article which was the first for “Commoners” to get a clue about the “Magical” article 50. When the people are denied true facts/information and, mainly, led by media “Manufacturing consent” then we have the tragedy we face.
Thank you very much for simplyfying your article in laymans’ term. It was informative and educational.
PM David Cameron said: ‘I (Parliament) will let the people decide in a referendum and whatever the people decide I (Parliament) will carry out.’
It was not a ‘narrow margin win’ as some people try to say, the majority to leave was 1,4Million people. Do not do as the REMAINERS did and underestimate the will of the people, we are not the cretins you would like to think us to be. Finally, if we have to pay into that unholy club for a further two years then we should have the same say as any other EU country or stop paying.The LEAVERS of the UK made it very clear what it wanted. No EU Funding, No EU laws\rules,No Freedom of Movement and NO Norway type deal. OUT means OUT.
Schreibe einen Kommentar zu Jerry Antworten abbrechen