Report comment

@ anon 09:47

The only small problem is that this parliament has been elected on a pro-Brexit manifesto.
More likely there will be another few months of pie-in-the-sky debate on an alternative deal.
This decision is understandable in the way it weighs and prioritises the interests at play.
In my opinion it nevertheless remains questionable from a logical point of view, as it does not consider the intention to withdraw an expression of the will of the withdrawing country (intention not a decision), nor does it consider the notice an instrument having any legal effect until the time when exit actually occurs. This is not true because the notice has at the very least the legal effect of engaging the EU in the negotiation of the withdrawal agreement.
The conclusion that a country would be "forced to leave against its will" if not given the right to unilaterally revoke can only be reached if one attaches no legal value to art. 50 notification, ignores that it is an expression of a political will to exit, and ignores that it has an impact on the other members.
The court has decided to do so, thus leaving a number of (poorly put) serious questions unanswered and effectively placing on the council the onus of filling the empty spaces in article 50, if future abuses of the withdrawal instrument are to be avoided.