Someone said :
Where is the result of the court case on whether art 50 can be reversed you have it?
If It can't be you are wrong again.
As discussed before, there is no need for a court case to say that the scenario of reversibility is technically possible.
Article 50 is an "intention": unless you can prove that it is legally irreversible.... then it is reversible!
The truth is that Article 50 can lead to not withdrawing after all, without having to "pull out of Article 50": simply by agreeing that the new relationship will be the old relationship... simply by agreeing that none of the treaties that will cease to apply, and tat the withdrawal agreement is agreeing to not withdraw!
Article 50: 1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention . In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State , setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
- The UK notified the European Council of its intention.
- The Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State.
- Treaties cease from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement
--- > If no agreement is found, it is 2 years after notification
--- > They can also agree, if no agreement is made within 2 years, to "unanimously decides to extend this period"... to give more time for an agreement
Thus they could agree, if the UK changed its mind, to find an agreement that they withdraw their notice and all goes back to normal.
As long as they have not left, there is no requirement to re-apply.
So the only impediment to stay after all would be a POLITICAL
, not LEGAL
, issue. It would require Europe not agreeing to the UK "staying after all".
If they UK asked to stay after all, the EU would have a political choice: it woudl be hard not to say yes, based on what the Union stands for and the UK's role in its establishment. But it would then agree such things as "no more rebate"... There is no formal "withdrawal of the intention to withdraw" process in the treaty, but there is no indication that the notice is irreversible! Simply because short of withdrawing their intention to withdraw, they could always "agree to remain after all."
The "future relationship" could be a status quo
Just like a Tenant giving a notice to leave to their Landlord, could have a change of heart and agree with the Landlady that they will stay after all. Maybe at the price of a change in conditions... But no judge will evict that tenant or demand a new Lease to be drawn if a crazy neighbor says that its not fair to not withdraw when they say they notified that they intended to!