After the Article 50 deal was voted done, the entire Brexit situation entered ‘uncharted waters‘ exactly the way British Prime Minister Theresa May warned, and the latest Westminster request for departure delay made the it even more complicated.
From the legal point of view the delay could be granted by the EU until the day of the European elections: in case the UK is still a member-state of the bloc, it is oblige to participate, because the Treaty clearly stipulates the right of citizens to elect and be elected to the European Parliament. Being de jure a member-state Britain would be forced by the power of its international obligations to enter the process. There is also concern about “hijacking” the elections, and intoxicating the European debate with UK protracted political argument.
There is also a word in Brussels corridors of power, that Italy might decline the long-term delay out of solidarity with the Brexiteers, and French President Emmanuel Macron wouldn’t sacrifice his ‘Renaissance‘ big plan, leaving Europe hostage to Westminster ongoing polemics.
However in case of the rejection of the delay the British government can appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), winning time while the CURIA interprets the EU law, and settles a legal dispute between national government and the EU Council.
And nobody said that the Brexiteers will sit and cry, looking how their chances to have a ‘neat break’ from the EU evaporate.
Regarding the fact that CURIA can be addressed by individuals, companies or organisations to take action against a EU institution (s), if they presume it has infringed their rights, the Brexiteers also have right to appeal to the judges, looking for realization of their government promises.
It looks CURIA will be not short of work in both cases: if Brexit stays, or if it deciedes to lave.
Anna Van Densky blog 