Aren't you interpreting an EU treaty in accordance with England & Wales law there? That's not the way to read it, and nor are E&W legal principles the way to deal with lacunae in the drafting.GG. wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:26 pmThat's a very hopeful interpretation in my opinion. Another would be that if you invoke a mechanism to leave that mechanism runs its course. If the UK changes it mind it would have to re-join, unless the other members agree to let you terminate that mechanism in a way which is not expressly provided for. I'm sure you of all people know that if you don't provide for something in a contract or an agreement a court will be loathe to insert it after the fact without the agreement of both parties if your argument is based on a less than clear statement of what the complainant thought was the 'intent' was behind the drafting or the overall agreement between the parties.Jobbo wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:19 pmThey've already said they wouldn't allow it to be used as a negotiation tactic, but nowhere in the treaties is there stated an EU intention or desire to force out a member state which doesn't want to leave. And where a member state changes its mind after making an Art.50 notification, that's what would happen. Art.50 doesn't state anything about the notice being irrevocable.GG. wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:52 am I didn't see that there was an ECJ case ongoing on this point. It is very interesting but do you seriously think that the ECJ is going to establish legal precedent for a member state being able to submit an Art. 50 notice and then whip it back out again at the last minute (precipitating the negotiation that we've had for the past two years in the meantime)? I just think that's never going to be where they come out in their judgment.
Anyway, it's not me making the case in the ECJ; the legal arguments are available to you if you want to read them.