Report comment

Why, one wonders, is it objectionable for a court, whose function is to decide issues arising under a set of treaties between nations that are liberal democracies, to adopt a purposive and democratic approach to the interpretation of a treaty provision (here article 50)? This decision does not give the UK carte blanche but requires that "revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements". In this the court is simply adopting a constructive approach that upholds the union that the treaties embody, so that, whilst member states may elect to withdraw from the union, the underlying union is preserved until the withdrawal actually takes effect and, if the withdrawing state elects to reverse the withdrawal before that point on the basis that there is a democratic mandate for that reversal, then the union remains as it was before the process was initiated. Of course there is a political aspect to this decision - the EU is a political entity and treaties are always political in nature, so that the need to be interpreted accordingly.