Revista Temas de Derecho Constitucional

323 La cuestión preliminar del TJUE sobre la revocatoria del brexit: fortaleciendo el derecho constitucional de la unión europea. 4.1. The existence of a dispute and the rationale of the request In defending its position before the ECJ, the UK government alleged that the question forwarded to the Court was hypothetical and academic and that there was not a dis- pute. The ECJ determined that the dispute existed and that it precisely referred to the possibility or not to revoke the notification of withdrawal. 19 The United Kingdom Government argued that the question referred was inadmissible because it was hypothetical. In particular, the UK Government submits that no draft act of revocation of the notification of the UK’s intention to withdraw from the European Union has been adopted or even contemplated, that there was no dispute in the main proceedings and that the question referred was actually intended to obtain an advisory opinion on a constitutional issue (namely the correct interpretation of Article 50 TEU and of acts adopted pursuant to that article). Before the Court, the UK Government reiterated its position insisting that there was no concrete dispute as, in its view, the question referred addressed events that had not oc- curred and may not occur. The UK Government submitted that it had consistently reit- erated its intention to honour the result of the referendumby giving notice under Article 50 TEU and thereby withdrawing from the European Union, in any event, i.e. whether on the basis of an agreement or without any agreement (“deal or no-deal” Brexit). 20 Consequently, according to the UK Government, an actual dispute did not exist, but only a hypothetical situation based on the assumption of a potential revocation of the notification by the United Kingdom (whether at the instigation of its Parliament or oth- erwise). Secondly, that the European Commission or the other 27 Member States would oppose that revocation, only then giving rise to a dispute. 21 As regards the request in light of applicable EU law, the UK Government held that it aimed at obtaining an advisory opinion from the Court, circumventing the rules of the Article 218(11) TFEU and provisions on remedies, standing and time limits. The UK gov- ernment submitted that the advisory opinion procedure was available only where a question arises as to the compatibility of a proposed international agreement with the Treaties. 22 In the UK’s view, the only possible remedies would be direct actions, in the event the revocation of its notification would trigger a dispute with the other Member States and the EU institutions. 23 In turn, the Commission sided with the United Kingdom in affirming the hypothetical nature of the question, but for different reasons. Indeed, the Commission argued that the ruling to be delivered by the referring court after receiving the Court’s interpreta- tion will not produce any binding effects on the parties to the main proceedings being, 19 Judgment, paras 20-24. 20 Judgment, para 21. 21 Judgment, para 22. 22 Judgment, para 23. 23 Judgment, para 24.