Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
So an ECJ advisor gives his legal opinion that the UK can unilaterally
revoke A50 notifications, but this is not a formal ruling of the ECJ.
The media play this up by saying usually his opinion is what the ECJ
finally follows, and you elsewhere state that this happens 80% of the time.
All of which makes me wonder why any government would rely on this
option *prior* to getting an actual ruling from the ECJ that backs this
legal *opinion* up.
Especially when there's a case to be made that allowing *unilateral*
revocation by a state that triggered A50 would mean that triggering A50
initiated a course of action that was entirely in the triggering state's
control, as they could trigger and revoke it as and when it suited them,
and thus risks destabilising the EU, and removes much of the negotiating
advantage from the EU in favour of the triggering state.
I don't see this position on revocation of A50 as being in the EU's own
interests, and I wonder at the politics behind the releasing of the
opinion ahead of the ECJ's own judgement in this case.
It appears to me aimed at trying to persuade the UK to abandon brexit,
by saying 'hey, you can forget it ever happened', but without committing
to actually allowing unilateral revocation in practice, just as MPs are
being tasked to debate and vote on the deal.
In any case, ISTM a prudent person would wait for the court to make its
ruling before relying on this when there's a 1 in 5 chance (based on
your 80% claim) that the ECJ might decide otherwise.