Hey! Thanks for the scepticism! And your opinion is not too bad for a meerkat! :)
You were pretty much correct all the way up until the last paragraph. However, I don’t see where you got the silly little word “still”. No Member State has ever withdrawn from the Union, and as I said in the essay, “ Many argue that argue that “the Treaties are clear: only nationals of the Member States shall be citizens of the Union” but I hereby challenge every single one of these experts to provide concrete evidence that only nationals of the Member states shall *maintain* Citizenship of the Union or that there is no fundamental difference between *being* and *becoming* (and thus “unbecoming”).” Perhaps you skipped over this part? I’m still waiting for you to provide any evidence!
To be clear, perhaps you’d need to read the case law of Article 20 to understand where this conflict with Article 50 arises. The Court has repeatedly declared that:
1. “Citizenship of the Union is intended to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States” (Some cases are inter alia: Grzelczyk, paragraph 31; Baumbast and R, paragraph 82; Garcia Avello, paragraph 22; Zhu and Chen, parag. 25; Rottmann, parag. 43; Zambrano, parag. 41, etc).
2. “Article 20 TFEU precludes national measures that have the effect of depriving citizens of the Union of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of their status as citizens of the Union” (Inter alia: Rottmann, parag. 42; Zambrano, parag. 42; McCarthy, parag 47; Dereci, parag. 66; O and Others, parag. 45; CS, parag. 26; Chavez-Vilchez and Others, parag. 61, etc)
If you’d like me to explain how this very clearly conflicts with taking away an EU Citizens’ citizenship against their will then I’ll be happy to do so! :) (please don’t go for the simplistic “52% of voters (i.e. 27% of the population) voted for it by winning the referendum so it’s fair!”).
But I get a hunch that you didn’t even read the previous article before commenting…