In their reaction to the Brexit referendum, some EU institutions have shown a troubling understanding of law – law as the mere crystallisation of power relationships, norms as just technicalities, annoying obstacles standing between the political actors and their legitimate goals. This is profoundly wrong and dangerous.
After the Brexit referendum, the new prime minister cannot dodge the fact that Article 50 is the only legal way for the UK to secede and that he or she, therefore, has a duty to pull the trigger. Not to deploy Article 50 would result in an even more disorderly situation than we have now. Article 50 it is. And if it were done, it were best done quickly.
Despite the fact that nothing has technically speaking happened in legal terms, the UK’s journey out of the European Union has already commenced and is starting to have tangible legal consequences.
Wer jetzt auf den raschen Vollzug der „Entscheidung“ vom 23. Juni drängt, tut dies im besten Interesse der Stabilität und der Sicherheit. Wer dagegen Zeit gibt, zur Besinnung zu kommen und richtige Konsequenzen zu ziehen, könnte dem langfristigen Interesse Europas besser dienen.
Zwei Jahre gibt der EU-Vertrag einem austrittswilligen Land Zeit, mit der EU einen Austrittsvertrag auszuhandeln. Doch wann beginnt diese Frist? Und was, wenn das Land diesen Zeitpunkt mutwillig hinauszögert? Die Antwort lässt sich nicht allein formaljuristisch geben. Gefragt ist auch politische Klugheit.
Former Constitutional Court Judge Gertrude Lübbe-Wolff on why she deeply regrets to see the British go, on the reversibility of the Brexit decision, and on an independent Scotland's prospects to continued EU membership.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters