The possibility that the Uk continue as a member of the European Union if it does not forward the agreement of the Brexit of Theresa May becomes more feasible from this Tuesday. The Court of Justice of the EU, based in Luxembourg, as a preliminary view of the advocate general —whose opinions are met in 80% of cases— considers that London can unilaterally remove the request out of the EU before it consumes the Brexit. That is to say, the 29th of march. The opinion of the attorney general, Manuel Campos Sánchez-Bordona is not binding, but will be the basis of the future judgment (which is expected out before the end of the year) and refutes the thesis of Brussels, which defends the need for the approval of the 27 members of the Union to stop the divorce.
MORE INFORMATION
DOWNLOADABLE Read here the opinion of the attorney general (in Spanish) The Brexit can still fail: the keys of the career obstacles facing the plan of May The immigration of europeans to the United Kingdom records the lowest level in six years, The Bank of England warns that a Brexit without agreement would be worse than the 2008 financial crisis, May face the difficult challenge of approving the agreement of Brexit in the Parliament
“The revocation of a unilateral would be also a manifestation of State sovereignty and outgoing, choose to reverse their initial decision,” argues the lawyer. The case can give strength to the supporters of stop the output process to call a second referendum. But it can also serve to convince the british parliamentary supporters of Brexit that it is right to support the agreement of output proposed by the first minister, Theresa May, to not risk a continuity of sine die in the european club.
The british Parliament started Tuesday discussions on the agreement reached by May with the rest of the members of the Union. The decisive vote on the text in the british Parliament are expected on 11 December. May has warned that the alternative to his offer could be the complete cancellation of Brexit, a threat that seems more real after the opinion of Sánchez-Bordona this Tuesday. “It is, or this agreement, Kralbet or there will be no Brexit”, has been repeated May during the last few weeks. “It is the only agreement possible,” insisted the presidents of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker.
Sánchez-Bordona bases its decision on several reasons, such as that “the conclusion of an agreement is not a requirement for that is consumed by the withdrawal.” Or that “the member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention —and not your decision— you retire, and may vary such intent”, among other reasons.
The conclusion of an agreement is not a requirement to consume the withdrawal of Uk from the EU
Manuel Campos Sánchez-Bordona, attorney general of the Court of Luxembourg
“As the british Parliament has to give its final approval, whether it reaches an agreement for withdrawal as if it is not, several deputies understand that the revocabilidad open to the United Kingdom the possibility of remaining in the EU with Brexit unsatisfactory,” explains the Court in a statement of three pages. London, in contrast, argues that the question for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible, since her character, “a hypothetical and purely theoretical”, since there is no indication that the Government or the british Parliament will withdraw their request out of the community club.
The attorney general also believes that should be respected in any case the principles of good faith and loyal cooperation, in order to avoid that London could abuse the procedure. Brussels is resistant to the unilateral withdrawal for fear that the Uk, or another country in the future, take advantage of the article 50 to blackmail the rest of the members with a threat of exit that it has no intention of completing.
The question of Scotland
The member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention —and not your decision— you retire, and may vary such intention
Manuel Campos Sánchez-Bordona, attorney general of the Court of Luxembourg
The case seen in the Luxembourg Court comes from Scotland, a region the british had voted against Brexit and which strives to continue in the EU. Several members of the scottish parliament, alongside others of the british parliament and from the european and raised before a scottish court the possibility that London could unilaterally repeal the notification of the departure, made on the basis of article 50 of the Treaty of the Union. This article sets a maximum period of two years to complete the output. But don’t precise anything about the possible suspension of the process.
The litigation has come to Luxembourg in the form of a consultation for a preliminary ruling. And the answer you can mark the straight end of the Brexit, a negotiation process started in march of 2017 and now faces ratification in the british Parliament and in the european.
The final verdict of the Luxembourg Court is expected to before the end of the year, in a case handled through an urgency procedure for its resolution is made public in any event before the 29th of march, the day in which the United Kingdom is officially out of the EU (albeit with a transitional period of 21 months).
