UK's Path to EU Membership

CHAPTER 1

1.0 Background of the Study

1.1 The Brexit Process

According to the Unite Kingdom in a Changing status, Britain’s decision to join the EU became apparent in 1961 upon a realization that failing to join would subject the kingdom to political isolation within the region of Western Europe. Ideally, the Kingdom applied to be part of the EU at the time that other Commonwealth countries were also rushing join the Union, and this application was partly backed by the fact that America was a great supporter of Britain at that time. Consequently, the British’s first and second applications to join the Union were vetoed by the French in 1963 and 1967 respectively. It was during the third application that dialogue begun for the Britons membership in the European Union. Later on January, the UK, together with other Ireland and Denmark joined the UE (which was then called the European Economic Block), a phenomenon that triggered controversy at that time. Accounts by The UK in a Changing Europe indicate that a referendum was then held in 1975 to decide whether the Kingdom could remain as part of the EU, and a majority of the voters (67%) voted to the affirmative.

Fast forward to late 2015, an act introduced in the UK’s parliament, the European Union Referendum Act, received Royal ratification marking the beginning of UK’s preparations to hold a ‘remain or leave’ referendum. According to House of Commons library, the then UK prime minister discussed the UK’s future in the EU and announced his support for the proposed referendum.

Perhaps, the approval for the referendum was coincidental because the UK’s election was just around the corner. On April 2015, the UK’s conservative party launched their general election campaign and a key to their manifesto was a promise to bring necessary change in Great Britain by bonding with European Union as well as a promise to run a democratic leave-remain referendum before the end of 2017.

Nonetheless, in June 2015, the UK’s Prime Minister (PM) met with the European Council (EC) (the body charged with the management of EU) to present the plans for the referendum, a phenomenon that marked the first step of the negotiation process. The EC agreed to deliberate on the issue and revert later in the year. Ideally, the issue would be part of the agenda for EC’s meeting in October 2015.

The PM then issued a statement to the parliament in November 2015 on their previous meeting with the EC, detailing four key points for consideration during their negotiations with the EC. These issues included free movement, social benefits, sovereignty, competitiveness, and economic governance. Ideally, these were the areas within which the UK would seek reforms during its talks with the EC. Besides, on November 2015, the UK Prime Minister delivered a speech to Chatham House regarding Europe and an affirmation of obligation to deliver referendum against an European Union before the end of 2017.

In February 2016, the then president of the EC drafted and presented his proposal to the EC over Britain’s proposed new settlements with EU, an event that was followed by the publishing of a draft decision by the EC over the new settlement with the UK in the EU. (ddd) points out that this publication led to the PM’s briefings to the House of Commons over the EU-UK renegotiations. A few days after a meeting between the EC and UK’s PM, the PM delivered a statement highlighting the UK’s intention to negotiate with the EC over Britain being given a special status in the EU. Later on, the UK’s PM announced a referendum upon securing a deal over UK’s membership in the EU. In June 2016, the special status of the Great Britain was announced alongside the referendum dates. This was then followed by the publishing and delivery of a UK referendum leaflet to every household in the UK, providing details of why the UK hold the EU status. On 23rd June 2016, a referenda was then conducted, where 59% voters (a majority of voters) voted to leave the EU while 48.1% voted to remain. The then PM announced his intentions to resign, a phenomenon that paved way for a new PM (Theresa May). Consequently, Teresa May announced an introduction of the ‘Repeal Bill’ (a law which sought to convert all EU laws into British law) during her first Party Conference speech, followed by an announcement to initiate Article 50 of the Treaty on EU in March 2017. Basically, according to Raitio & Raulus, Article 50 of the Treaty on EU allows any member of the European Union to withdraw its membership according to the procedures stipulated in its own laws. But the PM’s quest to initiate article fifty of the treaty on EU was met with several challenges within the UK’s political landscape. For instance, Gina Miller presented a case (R. Miller) v State Secretary over the European Union exit [2017]) in the United Kingdom’s high court demanding the UK government was not in a position to initiate Article 50 inside the Treaty on EU in the absence of an Parliamentary Act authorizing the government to act. The High court ruled in favor of the claimant that the PM could not exercise the crown’s foreign affairs prerogative to nullify rights enacted by parliament under primary legislation.

However, the government appealed the ruling in the Supreme Court with the case delivered on 24th January 2017. Ideally, a majority of the Judges from the Supreme made a ruling that the government could not trigger the Article 50 TEU without developing an Act of Parliament permitting the government to do so and that the prerogative powers may not apply extensively to Acts that allow the change of UK law. Hence, the government needed to pass an Act of Parliament to enable it to trigger the Article 50 Treaty on EU because its withdrawal from the EU would obviously lead to a change in the UK laws – by removing some domestic rights of UK citizens. But the Supreme Court’s ruling was not surprising since the same scenario could have been argued with reference to the case of See R v. Ponting. Ideally, the facts of this case were that based on the concept of rule of law, there must be a balance of power between the legislature and the executive, where the executive subordinates the parliament (See, ddd). Hence, because initiating Article 50 Treaty on EU would have various ramifications on the UK’s legal framework on rights of its citizens, such a procedure should jointly be initiated by both the parliament and the executive. Nonetheless, while the government announced its intentions to appeal the high court’s decisions, the PM, in January 2017, announced the government’s roadmap to Brexit negotiations with EU. Meanwhile, as the UK’s Supreme Court upheld Gina Miller’s case, the government published an EU Notification of Withdrawal Bill followed by a Brexit white paper that formally set out the strategies for Brexit negotiations with EU. The Brexit white Paper was then followed by the Great Repeal White Paper; before April 2017 when a general election was called and held on 8th June 2017. The UK then held the referendum on 23rd June 2016 with the main question being: 2should U.K remains within the EU or proceed with an exit?” – Results announced on the 24th June 2016. By effect, the then Prime minister announced his resignation but promises to stay in office until a new PM comes into place. On the same date, the EU leaders made an official press statement acknowledging the UK’s referendum results. On July 2016, Teresa May officially became the UK’s new PM and appointed David Davis as the Secretary of State in charge of Brexit. David Davise would then become one of the UK’s key officials to hold Brexit negotiation talks with EC, negotiations which are still on-going to date.

Ever since the referendum, leaving the EU has not been as easy as it was expected – it has been characterized by several legal issues that are still under negotiations. For instance, one issue that emerged was whether Article 50 could be a legal basis upon which the relationship between the Britons and the Union could be redefined. Moreover, according to Raitio & Raulus, the issue of UK’s holding membership status of the European Economic Area (EEA) was challenged in court (i.e. Yallan and Wilding v. SSEU) with the claimants holding that leaving the EU would not automatically render UK a non-member of the EEA but rather, the UK would have to conduct separate negotiations to leave. However, the claimants’ argument in Yallan and Wilding v. SSEU was not successful in high court proceedings on Article 50 dismissed it on the basis that the relevant situations under which the case could be argued had not reached and therefore the case was premature. However, the dismissal meant that the parties could then submit their case back for hearing upon being clear about the government’s plans of exiting the EEA.

CHAPTER 2

2.0 Free Movement in Europe

EU citizenship is fundamentally based on freedom of movement and residency granted to persons within the EU. According to The European Movement, the EU freedom of movement was established in 1992 by the Maastricht Treaty, a move that marked the beginning of a gradual removal of internal borders established under the Schengen agreements, followed by the espousal of the 20004/38/EC Directive on the EU citizen rights and the rights of their families to free move and reside within the EU. The EU free movement was established on the legal basis of Article 3(2) of the TEU, Titles IV and V of the Treaty of the Functioning European Union (TFEU), Article 21 of the TFEU, and Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Whereas its main objectives have undergone several changes since then, the first provisions according to the treaty that established the European Economic Community would enable freedom of movement to workers and freedom to establish enterprises anywhere within the stipulated jurisdiction. But, it is the treaty of Maastricht that enabled an automatic enjoyment of EU citizenship by any citizen of a member state. Ideally, it is this EU citizenship that currently gives the right for freedom of movement and residence to all citizens of EU member states. Nonetheless, this right was later confirmed by the Lisbon Treaty, which also established and ratified other provisions regarding justice, security, and freedom. The first steps in the development of EU freedom of movement were made during the adoption of various directives such as the Council Directive 90/365/EEC – granting rights of residence and movement for employees and self-employed individuals who are no longer participating on their occupational activities, Council Directive 90/364/EEC – granting right of residence for students, and Directive 90/366/EEC - granting right of residence to nationals and members of their family who do not enjoy the right of free movement and residence under the provisions of community law.

In a bid to consolidate the various pieces of legislation and council directives, and to take into consideration the numerous case laws on mobility of citizens, an in-depth directive 2004/38/EC was later ratified by the European Parliament in 2004, giving details of the right of the Union’s citizens to move about without much restrictions in member states. But several legal challenges have been encountered by the European Union free movement policy, especially in the wake of increased refugee movement, terrorism, and unemployment. For instance, there are several challenges faced in regards to employment and the relevant insurance laws that apply to employees working within the borders of member states. For instance, in the case of Salemink v. Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen, the latter, a Netherlands national working in a gas-drilling platform on the border between the Netherlands and Spain was refused by the former, a member of the management board of employee insurance agency, to grant an invalidity benefit. However, basing their judgment on regulation EC 883/2004 in conjunction with Article 45, the EU court ruled that whether Salemink is entitled to insurance benefits while operating in Spain can only be determined by the national legislation (the residence criterion), a phenomenon that is contrary to regulation EC 883/200. Ideally, the court read regulation EC 883/2004 together with article 45 of the TFEU and interpreted that it precludes employees in such a situation from being in a position where he does not have a compulsory insurance under national statutory employee insurance of the member state (Netherlands) on the grounds that he does not reside there but resides in another member state (Spain). Disputes on freedom of movement have also arisen in regards to delivery of services and the freedom of the residence enjoyed by the service provider and recipient. Atypical example of such dispute is the case of Graziana Luisi and Giuseppe Carbone v. Ministero del Tesoso. The case concerned freedom of service, and it was argued that so long as services are not governed by any provisions guiding the freedom of movement of those goods, they fall within the EU freedom of movement treaty. Consequently, it was ruled that both the service recipient and provider have a right to o residence during the entire service delivery time. in simple terms, the ruling of this case meant that recipients of any service (e.g. education, medical treatment, tourism or business trips) can enjoy free movement without restrictions even in terms of payments. Laws governing free movement in Europe also cater various rights of migrant workers such as equal treatment, social advantages, and use of languages during court proceedings, especially when facing trial in foreign courts. For instance, in the case of Ministere Public v Robert Heinrich Maria Mutsch, the court held that any migrant worker is entitled to, under the same conditions as a citizen worker, criminal proceedings in court conducted in his/her own language. Ideally, this right is meant to enable integration of people and their families working within EU thereby promoting the objective of free movement of workers.

However, it is important to note various restrictions and exceptions imposed on free movement especially in the case of workers. For instance, the rights described above apply only to persons exercising their free movement rights for work purposes (ddd). Moreover, these rights may not be applicable against various considerations such as on the grounds of security, public health, or public policy.

3.0 CHAPTER 3

3.1 EU Citizenship as A Legal Bond Sufficient To Trigger International Law

Introduction

The Article 50 Treaty of European Union implies that any members State resolute to pull out from the Union shall not subjected to any restriction obligatory by European Union regulation pertaining leaving, the resolution derived or the scope of the decisions by Member State reflecting its national interests. When a Member State decides to exclude themselves from the European Union striping, their populace European Union citizenship is against the treaty. The article is mandatory, importance and unchangeable by the highest court or European Union. The British’s choice to pull out from the European Union has triggered much debate on the legal stand of Britons living in a European Union (Marrero, 2017). Britons and citizens from member states living in the U.K fearing a Hard Brexit, politicians, NGOs as well as academics have suggested diverging options for ensuring that all EU citizens who, before Brexit-day has exercised their free movement rights, will be able to retain their residence and equal treatment rights. Various ideas and proposals all seem to base on the presumption that Brexit will imply to citizenship loss for both Britons and European Union citizenships resides in the United Kingdom. It is logical. Article twenty of the Treaty of the Functioning European Union states that every individual holding a Member State citizenship automatically becomes union citizen - makes clear citizenries of the European Union requires one Member State national. Loss of a Member State nationality implies an automatic loss of this privileged status. Withdrawal from the Union by a member state, it’s nationals become third country nationals. The origin of the EU citizenship could be traced to the Treaty on European Union article two popularly referred to the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 and further improved by amendments like the Lisbon and Amsterdam treaty. Article twenty to twenty-four of TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) plus other similar agreements. Gives European Union right to travel, dwell vote and contests liberally in any other Member States. According to Mindus and Patricia, any member State wishing to apply for European shall maintain a third country the protection in terms of consular and diplomatic authorities from any other European Union Member State, and the right Citizens. The British hope to leave the European Union, implying that Britons unless dual citizenship will no longer get the European Citizenship rights. Withdrawal debates continue and the provision agreement published by the European Union in March 2018. However, it doesn’t pledge the automatic treaty rights existing to the status of European Union citizenship.

3.2 International Law and European principles

European principles’ aim as found in the article one states that the international, domestic apparatus apply only to a person. Whereas, article 2a of the same conventions states that “nationality” is the lawful attachment linking the state and individual, however, does not include person’s ethnic and origin. In the very article 2d provides the legal extend of “internal law” inform of the giving interpretations covering all types of principles of a legal aspects, customary practices and rules, law cases and, regulations. Given that, the principle of international law considering essential domestic legal structure ingredient, the regulations originates from obligatory global instrument equally. Among the explanation provided in the past regulation of international law contains in convention article 3 elaborates the points that nationality matters are surrounded by the preserve sphere of the state. Similar policy states that residency shouldn’t endow subjectivity. In the circumstance, nationality is not endowed arbitrarily when it is jus sanguinis (done from the origin), or jus soli (place of birth) or place of residence and naturalization (place of residence). But the treaty identify growth in human rights regulations internationally plus the state’s partial diplomacy hence recommends that the domestic regulations accepted by other nations when it is consistent with valid application of the international regulations. Hague treaty of 1930 was applied in article 3(2) in some questions involving the variance of National Laws. It illustrates that other member states of the union shall recognized the law provided its consistence and apply international standards including customary law, and other principles patterning nationality. The boundaries required by international law concerning the national and individual capability of state, and the global human rights protection. The prudence of a state to verify law which its nationals applied is absolute. Additionally, article 5 of treaty tackles on non-discrimination, the key miles of human rights. The prerequisite drowned from the European Human Rights Convention and Fundamental Freedoms. The article fourteen, derivatives from the Universal Declaration on Human rights (UN Human Rights Council, 2013) comparative state diplomacy requires a particular established. The concept of nationality has been explored by international court of Justice. The sub-section state that a party may eliminate non-nationals from job opportunities in the public sector but only applied where the works entail the implementation of sovereign power enclose judgment base expression from the European Court of Justice. As well as where European Human Rights court judgment and international court of human rights have a considerable application. Besides that, some regulations explored within the text of the meeting are extensively documented as international customary law, like commitment to circumvent statelessness, for instance. The right of nationality by everyone is addressed as customary law based on the facts that the Universal Human Rights Declaration is a recognized customary law body.

3.3. Associate Citizenship arrangements

Under TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) articles. EU general public freedom of movement and lived in any Member states of their choice, vote and contests in any elective posts in both EP (European Parliament) and municipality. These rights are contained in EU Ombudsman highlighting assertion of third country political and consular protection from authorities of any member states and the citizenships initiative. More rights are capture in EU secondary law and the Human Rights Fundamental Charter. International law on public concerning nationality states that every individual has the citizens rights binding them to a specific nation. In Mexico, for example, the law differentiates between nationality and citizenship, which may be granted to nationals at age of 18 years. Anybody holding a member state nationality is a Union citizen, in that context, citizens has movement rights and rights of residence within the member states. Justice Court has ruled that it is impermissible for Union Member States to limit the movements and residence rights of the other Member states as contained in the European Court. Therefore, the Union Member States with insensitive naturalization criterion are unlimited to hold back the benefits and freedoms essential under Union citizenship community law naturalized on other available terms.

3.4 Support for European citizenship rights in itself or Brexit Context

Rottmann law case concerns nationalized decisions withdrawing from the Union and its implications to citizens of European Union and rights linked status. That case law thus is indirectly relevant to situations where Member State’s nationality lost because base on the decision to withdraw from its membership from the Union. Can the logic underpinning the previous case law extends to withdrawal situation? Early 2018 an Amsterdam district court answered this question in affirmative (Rottman v Freistaat Bayern 2010). The court faced with a case initiated by UK nationals living in the Netherlands, who claimed that the Dutch State and the city of Amsterdam had to take measures to ensure that they could continue to enjoy EU citizenship rights after Brexit. For example Greenland and Denmark joined EEC in 1973, but its status under the EU Treaties changed after it gained autonomy from Denmark in 1979 and held a referendum in 1982 to leave the then European Community. Greenland withdrew from the EC, and the Greenland Treaty came into force in 1985. As part of an EU Member State (ILEC Guidelines 2015), Greenland became ‘associated to’ the EC/EU and it is a member of the OCT (Overseas Countries and Territories), although Greenland’s citizens are also European Union significant to Danish law and the European Union Treaties. Greenland residents can choose between a Greenlandic passport with ‘Kalaallit Nunaat’ (Greenland) written on it and a Danish passport. Denmark entered assertion at the Council Meeting in Edinburgh that EU treats does not infers, predict, and endeavor to build Union nationality feeling of citizenship of a country state. Elucidation is essential since Denmark utilized a similar term for both part state nationality and EU citizenship. Denmark proceeded by expressing Union citizenship is opinionated and lawful idea altogether not same as the idea of nationality inside significance of the Danish Constitution and the Denmark lawful structure". Denmark's correct vision of EU citizenship isn't undeniable from this communication. Denmark differentiated EU 'citizenship'. With Danish 'citizenship' by arguing that EU citizenship was a "political and lawful idea", obviously so is Danish citizenship and that this "political and lawful idea" was "altogether unique" from citizenship under Danish law, however then it doesn't go on to clarify what citizenship implies under Danish law and how it's anything but a "political and legitimate idea". The better perusing of the Danish accommodation is an affirmation that Danish nationality as a political and legitimate status was not being abolished and supplanted. In any occasion, regardless of whether the presentation had any legitimate impacts, those may be bound to just Denmark. Maastricht Treaty on EU citizenship initially launched in the second article Maastricht treaty or TEU of 1992 (of the Treaty on European Union), stating that the Union objectives of protecting building support to the interest and rights of citizenships of its Member States by introducing Union citizenship. Besides the existing rights and freedom of movements, residences, voting and contesting in any political posts, Treaty of Maastricht establish election and voting rights in EP (European Parliament).

Amsterdam Treaty, extensively elaborates citizens rights through anti-discrimination section, whereas article 17 of the TEC (Treaty Establishing the European Community) predetermined citizenship Union expressing that citizenship shall harmonize and not replace national. Nice Treaty Human Rights Fundamental Charter of the European Union which contains chapter on Citizens’ Rights was ‘proclaimed’ in 2000 but was not at this point incorporated into the EU Treaties. In 2019, Lisbon Treaty was established as results of failure of prior treaties. The treaty integrated the Human Rights Fundamental Charter into the European Union Treaties and added freedom to start a Citizens' Initiative, considered further below. Lisbon retained most of the wording of Article 17 TEC, specifying the rights contained in the present EU Treaty, but replaced “complement” with “additional.” TFEU article 20 states that, Union Citizenship shall be additional nationality and not a citizenship replacement. Emphasizes that European Union citizenship is an extra layer nationality based on Human Rights Fundamental second Charter of the EU. There is also a reminder citizenship rights shall be implement only on circumstances and boundaries cleared and adopted by the Treaty scope. European Union citizenship applies the context of and is limited by, EU Treaty provisions and laws.

3.5 European Economic Area (EEA)

The Agreement contain in the European Economic Area doesn’t covers the provisions of citizenship Union highlighted in European Union Treaty. European States have implemented the ‘citizenship directive.’ But as Professor Carl Baudenbacher, former President of the EFTA Court, told the Exiting the EU Committee, “the economic rights derived from citizenship have, as a matter of principle, been taken over but not the political rights”. A Joint Declaration states that law governing immigration and citizenship Union does not form the European Economic Area agreement part. Northern Ireland Citizens of Northern Ireland have a “permanent birthright” under the Good Friday Agreement to claim Irish nationality if they wish (they can choose to be British, Irish or both), which will allow them to retain EU citizenship after Brexit. In conclusion, European Union citizenship regulations further highlights in articles twenty to twenty-four of TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). Article 20 enclose a squat sketch of the entire collection of citizenship rights, and Articles 21-24 set these out (and specify how the EU can regulate these rights) in more detail.

3.6 EU citizenship and domestic nationality Different from national citizenship

The term ‘nationality’ often used as a substitute for ‘citizenship’ and vice versa, but there is differences between nationality and citizenship in legal terms. These differences are relevant to the concept of EU/Union citizenship. While nationality frequently acquired through naturalization such as by birth, marriage, adoption, descent. The relationship between a person and the state is stipulated by beings Citizenship. No previous legal studies or convention has gave a clear distinct between European Union nationality, however, European Union citizenship is reliant on nationality. Therefore any person from a member state holding a nationality is an European Union Citizen. In a paper on supranational citizenship, Dr. Greta Gilbertson commented on the hierarchical link between EU and national citizenship. The domestic law and European laws interpretation show that primarily European Union citizenship varies from state to states. However, the Commission for the European Union once gave a clear distinction on question as to whether a person holding Union member states nationality is understood only by the reference of the law. Therefore it is upon Member states to put restricts the terms and conditions of loss and acquisition of the nationality. But, some EU Member States grant nationality more readily than others, and some allow dual nationality while others don’t, EU citizenship is not acquired or lost uniformly across the EU. No citizenship duties: An EP factsheet points out that Citizenship of EU is not clear concerning duties and responsibilities of the citizen and the Union. However, TFEU article 20(2) elaborating the dissimilarity between citizenship of Member States and the European citizenship. further analysts have emphasized the general lack of ‘duty’ associated with EU citizenship, which distinguishes it from national citizenship. Dr. Annette Schrauwen writes that whereas nationality is citizenship status compels individual national development activities like paying taxes to build nation, military service, and voting, these duties are missing when it comes to Union citizenship. Court of Justice Opinions on EU citizenship on the previous verdict of various cases on aspects EU citizenship, but there is as yet no case law specifically on any rights of citizens of a former EU Member State. Does CJEU case law shed any light on Brexit citizenship issues? In Grzelczyck (20 September 2001) the CJEU said that citizenship of the E.U was intended to form elementary Member States nationals status has been the basis for those who conclude that if citizenship of European Union is a “fundamental status” belonging to individuals, it cannot be removed from those individuals en masse against their will. Others disagree. In Huber, CJEU Advocate General Poiares Madura said Union citizenship was not just a political statement, but a legal perception runs parallel with particular Union citizens’ rights. When the CJEU asked about Union citizenship, the responses was consistently been that it a subject specifically for national law, albeit with caveat that nationality law in the Member States established according to the European Union regulations.

According to Mr. Kojanec, the fundamental legal relationships between the nationality and individual member states as the law requires. The debates concerning the individual obligations and rights offers at national intensity, of such obligation and rights may be declare or carry out in every Member States separately base on the existence law. Court Justice opinions on European Union, citizenship has ruled numerous cases on aspects of EU citizenship, but there is as yet no case law specifically former European Union Members States citizens’ rights. Does CJEU case law shed any light on Brexit citizenship issues? In Grzelczyck (20 September 2001) the CJEU Citizenship Union has been the basis for those “fundamental status” belonging to individuals, it cannot be removed from those individuals en masse against their will. Others disagree. In Huber, CJEU Advocate General Poiares Madura said Union citizenship was not just a political statement.

3.7 Rights as ‘former’ EU citizens

It has been suggested that UK citizens ought to retain their citizenship rights as ‘former EU citizens’, which would be a different status from that of Third Country Nationals (TCNs). Eleanor Spaventa (Università Bocconi) believes that Britons and other citizens residing there according European Union article 27 at Brexit point shall retain their status as former European Union citizens plus other rights highlighted by European Citizenship directive 38 of 2004. Another ensuing plausibility is that Britons residents are secured, to a specific dimension, by their previous EC notoriety. it is totally consistent with the Union citizenship talk, and is predicated on an analogical understanding of European auxiliary enactment especially, it recognizes that the United Kingdom Citizens practiced privileges of free developments as Union natives and that thusly their situation can't be compared to that of a third nations states which doest connected for the Union enrollment spread by Treaty/European law rights. They just need to watch the way in which EC law treats those whose circumstances have changed. Particularly, as expressed above hover of relatives. They have practiced Treaty/EC law and rights which perceive and, look at the way ECU guideline treats those whose events have changed. Especially, as expressed above hover of relative's individuals from transient Union natives are secured by means of the Citizenship Directive (2004/38/EC), regardless of whether they're from underdeveloped nations. The Citizenship Directive is going past detecting an inferred ideal to live for the TCN accomplice of a transient Union resident . It additionally realizes that the relative must be secured in her/his own one of a kind right. henceforth, in accordance with the Citizenship Directive, underdeveloped nations mates is managed in the equivalent path as a Union resident regardless of the way that her/his own family circumstance changes because of separation, invalidation of the marriage or end of the enrolled organization.

The rights to live of the TCN spouse additionally maintains within the occasion of the death of the migrant Union citizen or need to the Union citizen go away the territory of the host nation. In the occasions then, the right of the TCN is converted from a power derived from their companion’s right to proper accruing to the TCN . The reason in the back of this regime is that a trade in own family instances, every now and then inside the manage of the events and occasionally entirely out of doors their control, need to no longer be material to the enjoyment of rights conferred by the Citizenship Directive. in the end, if the TCN partner has moved with a Union citizen, consequently exercising a derived proper conferred immediately by means of Union law, she/he need to additionally be blanketed within the occasion of adjustments in her/his family occasions.

3.8.0 Rules and concepts

The European gathering on Nationality introduced positive standards inside the region of nationality. The gathering manages essential issues: the obtaining and loss of nationality from one viewpoint, and the special situation of nationality inside the setting of state progression on the inverse. Ensuing favored standards are expressed in Article four of the show: totally everybody has the privilege to a nationality dependent on the Human Rights Universal Declaring contained in article fifteen, sub-article one, statelessness should be turned away. The article expresses that no one might be subjectively distraught of his or her nationality; and neither marriage nor the disintegration of a marriage among a countrywide of a country party and an outsider, nor the exchange of nationality by utilizing one of the mates for the span of marriage, can consequently influence the nationality of the accomplice. Articles 18 and 20 particularly incorporate the principles identifying with the issue of states progression and nationality and might be viewed as an outflow of the "new thought" of citizenship. Inside the method of allowing nationality to somebody, a state in progression must remember the accompanying events: the genuine and viable hyperlink among the individual and the nation; the ongoing living arrangement of the individual on the season of state progression; the desire of the character; and the regional root of the character. Further, thoughts concerning non-nationals are ensured inside the gathering. Lawful tenets and standards are isolates. Legitimately based standards can have fundamental impact in contentions helping a judgment around a specific lawful right. In accordance with Dworkin, the essential perspective which recognizes guidelines (standards) from ideas (rules) is the outcome. Despite the fact that a couple of benchmarks are authoritative, inside the feeling that a judge need to review them, ideas can't choose a particular final product. Be that as it may, guideline can manage results. While inverse outcome is achieved, a standard is relinquished or adjusted . Models slant a determination and endure unblemished once they do now not win. Inside the use of thoughts, it's far fundamental to characterize the heaviness of various ideas and improve their machine.

A guideline builds up a perfect which can be conveyed into effect to a positive expand. The higher the level of cognizance of the best possible depends at the thought and esteem. The illustrative record to the show remarks that the thoughts should rehearse in across the board occurrences. There are distinct standards thoughts with respect to nationality on which the more prominent focused on principles concerning the procurement, maintenance, misfortune, reclamation or confirmation of nationality must be based. Bolstered by record, the words "will be fundamentally based" have been chosen to demonstrate a commitment to see the overall principles as the thought for home guidelines on nationality . The above technique can't be comparative or traded the standards of human rights law. The three perceived major ideas of human rights are self-assurance, uniformity and non-segregation. In light of the human right global law, a broad standard has continuously risen which precludes gross and extensive scale infringement of essential human rights and key opportunities. This statute itself does not force on states the obligation to comply with utilizing exceptional arrangements on human rights, anyway on the other hand calls for states to avoid net infringement alongside rowdiness or awful commitment. What's more, the meeting presents in Articles 6-9 the rules identifying with nationality which must be principally based at the standards refered to (securing of nationality; absence of nationality ex lege or at the activity of a state birthday festivity; loss of nationality at the activity of the character; and mending of nationality). For instance, proviso b of article six-one, expresses that every country party in its inward law will offer its nationality to be gotten ex lege by utilizing the resulting people: foundlings situated in its region that could some way or another be stateless . With respect to the regularizing estimation of guidelines, guidelines are a kind of mandate that improves circumstances of inclination by method for attracting enthusiasm to factors which the performing artist should remember. Strategies are not situation specific like guidelines, yet portray exercises of events through determining the arrangement of events in which they're applicable. Arrangements aren't directions; anyway are collections of experiential data which give directions for the standard collector. The part of the show dealing with strategies identifying with nationality (Articles ten-to-thirteen) is one of the greatest indispensable components of the gathering and ensures the right utility of its substantive arrangements, despite the fact that the principles can't be visit as a rule because of the general prerequisites given with the guide of the meeting content. The commitment of a contracting nation is to be sensible in its direct inside the related field.

CHAPTER 4

4.0 The Loss of EU Citizenship Following Brexit

Can EU citizenship be lost? By rejection? Because European Union citizenship is attained by being a state within the European Union, it is difficult in practical terms to reject it. An identity linked to EU citizenship could be rejected symbolically, but identity is a difficult concept and rights are probably easier to reject than identity. Rescinding an EU nationality and residing outside the EU might in practice remove EU citizenship but would presumably contradict the intention of someone wanting to reject only EU citizenship by also removing national citizenship.

4.1 By Force

Some have argued that the roughly 16 million people (48%) who voted to stay in the EU should not be forced against their will to give up their EU citizenship. Long before Brexit became UK governmental policy, Clemens Rieder explored the language of the European Union Treaties on citizenship and the European Union individual status and public international law - or in what EU Court of Justice called in 1963 a new international law of legal order - and potential for tension between the international and EU law norms. What can be concluded is that the character has a as an alternative robust and a unique function in European law in comparison to global law on human rights. This locating is likewise confirmed by basing reasoning on a court docket which does now not bear in mind EC law as an element of (traditional) global regulation. Member States chose this approach by way of ultimately dabbling with the idea of an EU citizenship, which shapes up this development even supposing the legislative history suggests certain uneasiness with the idea of citizenship beyond borders. An apparent result of withdrawal from the EC Union is a loss or alternate of the character’s repute as an EC citizen”. However in a section looking at whether the “involuntary lack of national citizenship can in fact be transferred from country wide citizenship to European citizenship”, he examines some US and other worldwide cases (Czech and Slovak citizenship after Czechoslovakia turned into dissolved in January 1993), and concludes. The principles from the text can be applied inside the situation of an exit from the European Union, what one might need to finish is that a Member country (government) couldn't truly strip people of European citizenship towards their will. This, however, would imply that even supposing a majority of humans in a referendum may be in prefer of withdrawal from the European Union, a manner could though want to be found to deal with the right of individuals to hold European citizenship if they wanted to. A principle explores and looks to broadly support is that the Member States had been now not compelled to confer the popularity of EU citizenship on their residents but after they have they can't sincerely withdraw this status, and that citizenship cannot clearly be taken away through a majority selection, particularly in opposition to the need of the person. The link among the citizen and the Union, he argues, would handiest cease to exist if the EU itself ceased to exist. Does international law make clear? European Union citizenship does no longer fall within the terms of the United nation’s accepted announcement of Human Rights, which states in article fifteen sub-article one stating that,

1). Anybody possesses the right to be classified as a national of a country.

2) No steps should be taken to deprive an individual of their nationality or their right to trade it

. The principle difficulty of the UN is that individuals have to no longer be made stateless – individuals who aren't considered residents or nationals under the operation of the laws of state. Statelessness results from the lack of repute as a national of a country, however the EU isn't always a nation so its citizens cannot be made stateless with the aid of a Member’s withdrawal. International law constitutes the basis for arguments affirming ‘received’ or ‘vested’ rights under article 70(1) (b) drafted within the Vienna convention on the law of Treaties (VCLT). However acquired rights below the VCLT observe best to the rights and obligations of states, no longer individuals. So in the absence of a withdrawal and settlement making laws to ensure citizens’ rights, this provision cannot be relied upon to guard human rights under European regulation in order to be loss as a result of Brexit. However, the Brexit negotiators agreed that the rights of the United Kingdom citizens who stay in different European States and of European residents dwelling inside the UK assurance guaranteed, and the March 2018 draft withdrawal settlement contains provisions on citizens’ rights in element two. The majority view in the EU and amongst constitutional and felony experts is that the nationals of an EU state that leaves the EU according with article fifty TEU can not retain their complete EU citizenship rights – notwithstanding provisions of a withdrawal agreement on residents’ rights. The general reason is that the EU Treaties and European law which provide for European citizenship also make clean that EU citizenship rights are not absolute, however challenge to conditions and boundaries. Most of the people view in the European and amongst constitutional and legal experts is that the nationals of an EU country that leaves the EU according to article fifty TEU cannot preserve their complete European citizenship rights – notwithstanding provisions of a withdrawal settlement on residents’ rights. The overall motive is that the EU Treaties and EU law which provide for EU citizenship additionally make clear that EU citizenship rights aren't absolute, but subject to conditions and barriers. The remaining paragraph of article twenty TFEU asserts that citizen rights will be observed according to situations and boundaries described through the Treaties and with the aid of the measures adopted there under. In different phrases, European citizenship is defined inside the TEU and TFEU, which follow best to ECU Member States (and to some extent to their territories). European citizenship is received routinely by way of distinctive feature of being a countrywide of an EU Member States. Everybody maintaining their status as a Member state will be a citizen of the Union (William, 2018), so if the UK leaves the European, it follows those UK nationals – except those who have dual citizenship - will no longer be residents of the EU.

There are arguments approximately the feasibility of keeping EU citizenship, with the burden of opinion keeping that it isn't always feasible for united kingdom citizens to maintain their EU citizenship after the United Kingdom leaves the EU – however that a number of the sensible factors of citizenship are being negotiated for inclusion in the EU-united kingdom withdrawal settlement. Aside from settlement on residents’ rights inside the withdrawal negotiations, there has been a more visceral debate approximately identification as a EU citizen, the volume to which European citizenship is linked to national citizenship and whether. The UK authorities have said it is ready to listen to such recommendations. However to this point, no efforts by the EU or the UK have been observed. A shape of ‘companion’ repute does now not exist at gift and would likely require Treaty trade, despite the fact that a few commentators agree with it'd now not. Because the EU referendum in June 2016, public opinion polls of United Kingdom nationals residing inside the United Kingdom or those exercising their unfastened motion rights abroad show a rise of individuals who would like to maintain their European citizenship rights. Campaigns and petitions within Britain and the Union have been observed supporting the U.K status as a EU member after the Brexit.

CHAPTER 5

5.0 Conclusion

The study aimed to investigate the impact of Brexit on EU citizenship rights. It explored a wide range of literary materials on Brexit, especially those that discuss how British and non-British citizens living in the EU may be affected by Brexit. The first significant element of Brexit and its effect on EU citizenship discussed in the paper is the discourse about support for citizenship rights both in itself and in the context of Brexit. Here, the study has found that it is not possible to argue the case of supporting citizenship rights post Brexit based on Rottmann case law because the case law is only concerned about withdrawing a member state nationality and its implications for EU citizenship, as well as the rights, like to that status, rather than in situations where a member state nationality is lost because the concerned state has withdrawn from the EU. Our review highlighted several treaties signed by the U.K, as a state within the European Union, that affect EU citizenship and would apparently be non-applicable to the EU citizenship rights currently held by British citizens. For instance, the paper has reviewed the literature on the Maastricht Treaty on European Union citizenship, which states the Union’s presence is to embolden the safety of the citizen rights of the states thru the fostering of citizenship within the European Union. When Britain leaves the EU, such rights might no longer apply to Britons living in EU countries and EU residents in the U.K. The paper has also reviewed issues related to the European Economic Area, and how these issues may affect EU citizenship rights post-Brexit. In doing so, we have found that there are certain economic rights for EU citizens that might be taken away after Brexit while some political rights might remain intact, especially for Northern Ireland citizens. For instance, in the case of Northern Ireland, the review has found that the Good Friday treaty gives Northern Ireland citizens the permanent right to claim Irish nationality if they wish to, and this will allow them to retain EU citizenship after Brexit.

The review has also highlighted on some issues concerning EU citizenship and domestic nationality different from national citizenship. In doing so, it was noted that whereas the term ‘citizenship’ is used interchangeably with the term ‘nationality’ the two terms mean differently in regards to EU citizenship. In light of this, we have also explored literature articulating that EU citizenship is subordinate and associated citizenship of a member state therefore, the state is in control of who received their EU citizenship. Nonetheless, as suggested by reviewed literature, the UK citizens would not completely lose their EU citizenship after Brexit, but rather, they would retain such citizenship in the capacity of ‘former EU citizens’, a status that is different from that of third-party countries. A possible implication of this insight, as revealed by reviewed literature, is that ‘former EU citizens’ i.e. British citizens post-Brexit, will maintain most of their rights as espoused under Directive 2004/38/EC. Besides, reviewed literature indicates that the UK citizen’s rights as former EU citizens will be protected provided on the fact that they were former EU citizens. Particularly, it is speculated that this protection will rely on the analogue interpretation of EU secondary legislation which recognizes UK citizens for having implement their movement rights as European Union citizens hence circumstances is considered differently from third-country countries. While reviewing literature, a significant question that emerged was that: why the UK citizens who voted against Brexit would be denied the chance to remain as EU citizens? As we explored the literature further, we came across an argument that whereas the member states of EU were not coerced to grant European Union citizenship status on their citizens, it is not possible to simply strip the citizenship after conferring it to them. Hence, as argued, the link between the EU and citizenship would only cease to exist if the EU was dissolved. When we explored literature on international law and what it implies to the status of UK citizens who voted against Brexit, we found no clarification regarding this. Rather, we were informed that UN laws on human rights are only concerned with individuals being stateless, and therefore UN laws protecting citizenship rights would not protect UK citizens who voted against Brexit because even if UK left the EU, the ant-Brexit camp would not lose their UK citizenship. While one would argue that EU citizenship rights held by UK citizens would be protected by the VCLT, the VCLT only protects the rights of states and not individuals. Hence, if the UK does not make a withdrawal agreement to guarantee its citizens EU citizenship rights, then the VCLT provision will not be relied on to protect the EU citizenship rights held by UK citizens.

To conclude, the Brexit issue and how it affects EU citizenship rights is quite convoluted and controversial as things stand now. Owing to the fact that negotiations are still on-going, it is impossible to make conclusions on how Brexit will affect EU citizenship rights, especially the rights held by British citizens. Against this backdrop, the whole world is currently on a ‘wait and see’ situation and as with all matters of law, time will tell.

Bibliography

See R v. Ponting, (1985) Crim. L.R., p. 318-321. In the Ponting case the court had to weigh and balance between the requirement of loyalty of civil servants and the traditional British conception of Parliamentarism.

Marín v Admin del Estado (European Court of Justice, C-165/14, 13 September 2016) (Opinion of the Advocate General Szpunar) [108] and Secretary of State for the Home Department v cs(European Court of Justice, C-304–14, 13 September 2016).

ottman v Freistaat Bayern (C-135/08) [2010] ecr i-01449, [49]; The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Manjit Kaur (C-192/99) [2001] ecr i-01237

Salemink v. Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen, C-347/10.

Rottman v Freistaat Bayern (2010). (C-135/08) [2010] ecr i-01449, [48]

See J.-C. Piris, in P.J. Birkenshaw and A. Biondi (eds.), Britain Alone!, p. 117-126.

House of Commons Library (2019) Brexit Timeline: events leading up to the UK’s exit from the European Union, House of Commons Library.

Raitio, J., & Raulus, H. (2017). The UK EU referendum and the move towards Brexit. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 24(1), 25–42.

House of Commons Library (2019) Brexit Timeline: events leading up to the UK’s exit from the European Union, House of Commons Library.

Raitio, J., & Raulus, H. (2017). The UK EU referendum and the move towards Brexit. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 24(1), 25–42.

Marrero, G. (2017), Civis Europaeus Sum? Consequences with Regard to Nationality law and EU Citizenship Status of the Independence of a Devolved Part of an EU Member State, Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Publishers, 2017.

Carrera N., De Groots, G.-R. (2015). European Citizenship at the Crossroads – The Role of the European Union on Loss and Acquisition of Nationality, Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Publishers, 2015.

Robert Schuman Foundation, European issues n°355, 5 May 2015. Should the UK withdraw from the EU: legal aspects and effects of possible options

Chapter 2, 10th Report of Session 2016-17, (2016). Brexit and European Citizenship with regard to a broad range of entitlements (Directive 2003/109).

Eleanor S, (2017). The impact of Brexit in relation to the right to petition and on the competences, responsibilities and activities of the Committee on Petitions. Study, Policy Department C: Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament, Pages 42-45

Hailbronner K (2015). Revocation of citizenship of terrorists—a matter of political expediency. In: Macklin A, Bauböck R (eds) The return of banishment: do the new denationalisation policies weaken citizenship? EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2015/14, pp 23–26

Manby B (2015). You can’t lose what you haven’t got: citizenship acquisition and loss in Africa. In: Macklin A, Bauböck R (eds) The return of banishment: do the new denationalisation policies weaken citizenship? EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2015/14, 2015, pp 17–22

Hobolt, S.& De Vries, C. (2016). ‘Public support for European integration’, Annual Review of Political Science 19: 413–32. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-042214-044157

William, T, W., (2018). Brexit and International law Prohibitions on the loss of EU Citizenship. international organizations law review. Brill Nijhoff. 15: 341-363.