Report comment

“Why, one wonders, is it objectionable for a court ... to adopt a purposive and democratic approach to the interpretation of a treaty provision...”

The problem is not that the court adopted a “purposive approach.”

The problem is not that the court adopted a “democratic approach” (whatever that means).

The problem is that the court quite obviously adopted the wrong approach.

This judgment quite plainly drives a coach and horses through article 50(3). The two are fundamentally incompatible. The ECJ says the UK can reverse its decision and decide to stay whenever it wants. Article 50(3) says otherwise. The ECJ has simply made up law, fundamentally incompatible with article 50(3), having been obviously swayed by the political goal of keeping the UK within the EU.

Any lawyer with a shred of intellectual integrity should look at this judgment and say, regardless of my personal views on Brexit, regardless of my personal views on the current negotiations, this judgment makes a mockery of the concept of the rule of law and it cannot stand.