Who must act to prevent Brexit on March 29th?
As I understand it, the EU27 leadership made the UK a conditional offer with various options to extend the Article 50 negotiation period. Who has to act to accept and enact the extension?
Can the UK government accept it on behalf of the UK or do they legally need an act of parliament first?
Once the UK selects one option, do the EU27 governments have to formally accept it or has this acceptance been given in advance? Do any of the EU27 governments need parliamentary approval before they can act?
Can this be done by phone or does it require physical letters which must be delivered and accepted?
united-kingdom brexit article-50
edited yesterday
JJJ
5,02722144
asked yesterday
o.m.o.m.
10.3k11942
add a comment |
As I understand it, the EU27 leadership made the UK a conditional offer with various options to extend the Article 50 negotiation period. Who has to act to accept and enact the extension?
Can the UK government accept it on behalf of the UK or do they legally need an act of parliament first?
Once the UK selects one option, do the EU27 governments have to formally accept it or has this acceptance been given in advance? Do any of the EU27 governments need parliamentary approval before they can act?
Can this be done by phone or does it require physical letters which must be delivered and accepted?
united-kingdom brexit article-50
edited yesterday
JJJ
5,02722144
asked yesterday
o.m.o.m.
10.3k11942
1
It's not precisely a conditional offer. The extension until the 12th April is "free", after that there are conditions.
– origimbo
yesterday
add a comment |
As I understand it, the EU27 leadership made the UK a conditional offer with various options to extend the Article 50 negotiation period. Who has to act to accept and enact the extension?
Can the UK government accept it on behalf of the UK or do they legally need an act of parliament first?
Once the UK selects one option, do the EU27 governments have to formally accept it or has this acceptance been given in advance? Do any of the EU27 governments need parliamentary approval before they can act?
Can this be done by phone or does it require physical letters which must be delivered and accepted?
united-kingdom brexit article-50
edited yesterday
JJJ
5,02722144
asked yesterday
o.m.o.m.
10.3k11942
As I understand it, the EU27 leadership made the UK a conditional offer with various options to extend the Article 50 negotiation period. Who has to act to accept and enact the extension?
Can the UK government accept it on behalf of the UK or do they legally need an act of parliament first?
Once the UK selects one option, do the EU27 governments have to formally accept it or has this acceptance been given in advance? Do any of the EU27 governments need parliamentary approval before they can act?
Can this be done by phone or does it require physical letters which must be delivered and accepted?
united-kingdom brexit article-50
united-kingdom brexit article-50
edited yesterday
JJJ
5,02722144
asked yesterday
o.m.o.m.
10.3k11942
edited yesterday
JJJ
5,02722144
asked yesterday
o.m.o.m.
10.3k11942
edited yesterday
JJJ
5,02722144
edited yesterday
JJJ
5,02722144
edited yesterday
JJJ
5,02722144
5,02722144
asked yesterday
o.m.o.m.
10.3k11942
asked yesterday
o.m.o.m.
10.3k11942
asked yesterday
o.m.o.m.
10.3k11942
10.3k11942
1
It's not precisely a conditional offer. The extension until the 12th April is "free", after that there are conditions.
– origimbo
yesterday
add a comment |
1
It's not precisely a conditional offer. The extension until the 12th April is "free", after that there are conditions.
– origimbo
yesterday
1
1
It's not precisely a conditional offer. The extension until the 12th April is "free", after that there are conditions.
– origimbo
yesterday
It's not precisely a conditional offer. The extension until the 12th April is "free", after that there are conditions.
– origimbo
yesterday
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
They need an act of parliament. Not so much because of the change in the withdrawal act, but because they made a law in the UK which mentions that the UK will leave the EU on March 29 2019. That law needs to be withdrawn or modified. It's unclear ("legal confusion" below) what happens if parliament rejects this.
The BBC has a nice graph:
edited 8 hours ago
Peter Mortensen
1696
answered yesterday
AbigailAbigail
2,090414
2
It's also fantastically unlikely that they will reject it after specifically voting for an extension in the first place, and voting against a No Deal outcome.
– Kevin
23 hours ago
26
Do not assume that politician's decisions or votes follow logic or are in any way consistent.
– Aganju
23 hours ago
The legal confusion is that the UK already agreed the extension
– Caleth
22 hours ago
So assuming that May's deal is not approved, there need to be votes in both houses (as per Alex's answer) and a letter written by the government? All in less than 78 hours from now?
– o.m.
16 hours ago
3
This answer is unclear. Changing the date to match the options agreed with the EU requires a statutory instrument, not an Act, as described in Alex's answer. An Act is required to implement the Withdrawal Agreement. Other options may or may not require an Act.
– Steve Melnikoff
12 hours ago
add a comment |
The European Council has already agreed to both dates so they don’t need to ratify anything any more.
A new UK Act isn’t required. The UK Government can put forward a Statutory Instrument to amend the existing Withdrawal Act. This does need to pass both Houses of Parliament but this is unlikely to be blocked.
In both cases, confirmation in writing will be given but that’s just a formality.
Which date applies depends on whether the Withdrawal Agreement bill is passed by the UK Parliament.
If it is, then a May 22nd date will apply to allow all the necessary legislation to be passed.
If not, then the UK Government will leave the European Union on April 12th unless they come to an alternative agreement before then.
edited 8 hours ago
JJJ
5,02722144
answered yesterday
AlexAlex
4,3551122
1
Isn't it April 12th?
– Denis de Bernardy
yesterday
1
I'm worried about the scheduling of those formalities. Votes in both houses and a letter written before noon Friday, and they won't even start until after Wednesday? Could there be accidental Brexit because someone cuts something too close?
– o.m.
16 hours ago
@o.m. Not really - the UK leaves the EU under A50 of the Lisbon treaty, not under its own domestic law. What would happen if this didn't pass parliament would be that the UK is still in the EU but domestically would have to pretend it isn't.
– Cubic
5 hours ago
@Cubic, the notification according to Article 50 must be in accordance to national constitutional requirements. Surely the same applies to an extension?
– o.m.
5 hours ago
@o.m. You're right in the sense that, if they don't go through the motions, the UK leaves the EU on Friday. But it's not a big risk. It's not like they are likely to forget and they have plenty of time.
– Alex
4 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
Note that unilateral revocation by simple letter of the Prime Minister remains an option.
(I believe that since the Electronic Communications Act email counts as "in writing" for all cases where that is legally required. I don't know if international agreements have to be in writing because this kind of temporal brinksmanship rarely comes up)
answered yesterday
pjc50pjc50
6,96711532
2
-1 Prime Minister May cannot do this on her own. See politics.stackexchange.com/a/37805/8912
– Sjoerd
22 hours ago
3
That doesn't answer the question of unilateral remain, only the ratification of a withdrawal agreement.
– pjc50
22 hours ago
1
@Sjoerd - My reading of your link agrees with pjc50's interpretation. I.e. that it doesn't apply to "remain"; only the requirements of a withdrawal. That's not to say that pjc50's original answer is correct (perhaps it is wrong?) but the link you've given appears to be irrelevant.
– Jeremy Davis
14 hours ago
The ECJ ruling on whether it's possible to revoke article 50 (curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-12/…) states that "The revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicated in writing to the European Council." IMHO a simple letter of the Prime Minister would not meet these criteria if the Parliament does not repeal the Withdrawal act.
– Peteris
8 hours ago
@Peteris but in other people's opinions, it would. If anyone wanted to argue it, they'd have to go to the ECJ
– Caleth
8 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39806%2fwho-must-act-to-prevent-brexit-on-march-29th%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
They need an act of parliament. Not so much because of the change in the withdrawal act, but because they made a law in the UK which mentions that the UK will leave the EU on March 29 2019. That law needs to be withdrawn or modified. It's unclear ("legal confusion" below) what happens if parliament rejects this.
The BBC has a nice graph:
edited 8 hours ago
Peter Mortensen
1696
answered yesterday
AbigailAbigail
2,090414
2
It's also fantastically unlikely that they will reject it after specifically voting for an extension in the first place, and voting against a No Deal outcome.
– Kevin
23 hours ago
26
Do not assume that politician's decisions or votes follow logic or are in any way consistent.
– Aganju
23 hours ago
The legal confusion is that the UK already agreed the extension
– Caleth
22 hours ago
So assuming that May's deal is not approved, there need to be votes in both houses (as per Alex's answer) and a letter written by the government? All in less than 78 hours from now?
– o.m.
16 hours ago
3
This answer is unclear. Changing the date to match the options agreed with the EU requires a statutory instrument, not an Act, as described in Alex's answer. An Act is required to implement the Withdrawal Agreement. Other options may or may not require an Act.
– Steve Melnikoff
12 hours ago
add a comment |
They need an act of parliament. Not so much because of the change in the withdrawal act, but because they made a law in the UK which mentions that the UK will leave the EU on March 29 2019. That law needs to be withdrawn or modified. It's unclear ("legal confusion" below) what happens if parliament rejects this.
The BBC has a nice graph:
edited 8 hours ago
Peter Mortensen
1696
answered yesterday
AbigailAbigail
2,090414
2
It's also fantastically unlikely that they will reject it after specifically voting for an extension in the first place, and voting against a No Deal outcome.
– Kevin
23 hours ago
26
Do not assume that politician's decisions or votes follow logic or are in any way consistent.
– Aganju
23 hours ago
The legal confusion is that the UK already agreed the extension
– Caleth
22 hours ago
So assuming that May's deal is not approved, there need to be votes in both houses (as per Alex's answer) and a letter written by the government? All in less than 78 hours from now?
– o.m.
16 hours ago
3
This answer is unclear. Changing the date to match the options agreed with the EU requires a statutory instrument, not an Act, as described in Alex's answer. An Act is required to implement the Withdrawal Agreement. Other options may or may not require an Act.
– Steve Melnikoff
12 hours ago
add a comment |
They need an act of parliament. Not so much because of the change in the withdrawal act, but because they made a law in the UK which mentions that the UK will leave the EU on March 29 2019. That law needs to be withdrawn or modified. It's unclear ("legal confusion" below) what happens if parliament rejects this.
The BBC has a nice graph:
edited 8 hours ago
Peter Mortensen
1696
answered yesterday
AbigailAbigail
2,090414
They need an act of parliament. Not so much because of the change in the withdrawal act, but because they made a law in the UK which mentions that the UK will leave the EU on March 29 2019. That law needs to be withdrawn or modified. It's unclear ("legal confusion" below) what happens if parliament rejects this.
The BBC has a nice graph:
edited 8 hours ago
Peter Mortensen
1696
answered yesterday
AbigailAbigail
2,090414
edited 8 hours ago
Peter Mortensen
1696
edited 8 hours ago
Peter Mortensen
1696
edited 8 hours ago
Peter Mortensen
1696
1696
answered yesterday
AbigailAbigail
2,090414
answered yesterday
AbigailAbigail
2,090414
answered yesterday
AbigailAbigail
2,090414
2,090414
2
It's also fantastically unlikely that they will reject it after specifically voting for an extension in the first place, and voting against a No Deal outcome.
– Kevin
23 hours ago
26
Do not assume that politician's decisions or votes follow logic or are in any way consistent.
– Aganju
23 hours ago
The legal confusion is that the UK already agreed the extension
– Caleth
22 hours ago
So assuming that May's deal is not approved, there need to be votes in both houses (as per Alex's answer) and a letter written by the government? All in less than 78 hours from now?
– o.m.
16 hours ago
3
This answer is unclear. Changing the date to match the options agreed with the EU requires a statutory instrument, not an Act, as described in Alex's answer. An Act is required to implement the Withdrawal Agreement. Other options may or may not require an Act.
– Steve Melnikoff
12 hours ago
add a comment |
2
It's also fantastically unlikely that they will reject it after specifically voting for an extension in the first place, and voting against a No Deal outcome.
– Kevin
23 hours ago
26
Do not assume that politician's decisions or votes follow logic or are in any way consistent.
– Aganju
23 hours ago
The legal confusion is that the UK already agreed the extension
– Caleth
22 hours ago
So assuming that May's deal is not approved, there need to be votes in both houses (as per Alex's answer) and a letter written by the government? All in less than 78 hours from now?
– o.m.
16 hours ago
3
This answer is unclear. Changing the date to match the options agreed with the EU requires a statutory instrument, not an Act, as described in Alex's answer. An Act is required to implement the Withdrawal Agreement. Other options may or may not require an Act.
– Steve Melnikoff
12 hours ago
2
2
It's also fantastically unlikely that they will reject it after specifically voting for an extension in the first place, and voting against a No Deal outcome.
– Kevin
23 hours ago
It's also fantastically unlikely that they will reject it after specifically voting for an extension in the first place, and voting against a No Deal outcome.
– Kevin
23 hours ago
26
26
Do not assume that politician's decisions or votes follow logic or are in any way consistent.
– Aganju
23 hours ago
Do not assume that politician's decisions or votes follow logic or are in any way consistent.
– Aganju
23 hours ago
The legal confusion is that the UK already agreed the extension
– Caleth
22 hours ago
The legal confusion is that the UK already agreed the extension
– Caleth
22 hours ago
So assuming that May's deal is not approved, there need to be votes in both houses (as per Alex's answer) and a letter written by the government? All in less than 78 hours from now?
– o.m.
16 hours ago
So assuming that May's deal is not approved, there need to be votes in both houses (as per Alex's answer) and a letter written by the government? All in less than 78 hours from now?
– o.m.
16 hours ago
3
3
This answer is unclear. Changing the date to match the options agreed with the EU requires a statutory instrument, not an Act, as described in Alex's answer. An Act is required to implement the Withdrawal Agreement. Other options may or may not require an Act.
– Steve Melnikoff
12 hours ago
This answer is unclear. Changing the date to match the options agreed with the EU requires a statutory instrument, not an Act, as described in Alex's answer. An Act is required to implement the Withdrawal Agreement. Other options may or may not require an Act.
– Steve Melnikoff
12 hours ago
add a comment |
The European Council has already agreed to both dates so they don’t need to ratify anything any more.
A new UK Act isn’t required. The UK Government can put forward a Statutory Instrument to amend the existing Withdrawal Act. This does need to pass both Houses of Parliament but this is unlikely to be blocked.
In both cases, confirmation in writing will be given but that’s just a formality.
Which date applies depends on whether the Withdrawal Agreement bill is passed by the UK Parliament.
If it is, then a May 22nd date will apply to allow all the necessary legislation to be passed.
If not, then the UK Government will leave the European Union on April 12th unless they come to an alternative agreement before then.
edited 8 hours ago
JJJ
5,02722144
answered yesterday
AlexAlex
4,3551122
1
Isn't it April 12th?
– Denis de Bernardy
yesterday
1
I'm worried about the scheduling of those formalities. Votes in both houses and a letter written before noon Friday, and they won't even start until after Wednesday? Could there be accidental Brexit because someone cuts something too close?
– o.m.
16 hours ago
@o.m. Not really - the UK leaves the EU under A50 of the Lisbon treaty, not under its own domestic law. What would happen if this didn't pass parliament would be that the UK is still in the EU but domestically would have to pretend it isn't.
– Cubic
5 hours ago
@Cubic, the notification according to Article 50 must be in accordance to national constitutional requirements. Surely the same applies to an extension?
– o.m.
5 hours ago
@o.m. You're right in the sense that, if they don't go through the motions, the UK leaves the EU on Friday. But it's not a big risk. It's not like they are likely to forget and they have plenty of time.
– Alex
4 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
The European Council has already agreed to both dates so they don’t need to ratify anything any more.
A new UK Act isn’t required. The UK Government can put forward a Statutory Instrument to amend the existing Withdrawal Act. This does need to pass both Houses of Parliament but this is unlikely to be blocked.
In both cases, confirmation in writing will be given but that’s just a formality.
Which date applies depends on whether the Withdrawal Agreement bill is passed by the UK Parliament.
If it is, then a May 22nd date will apply to allow all the necessary legislation to be passed.
If not, then the UK Government will leave the European Union on April 12th unless they come to an alternative agreement before then.
edited 8 hours ago
JJJ
5,02722144
answered yesterday
AlexAlex
4,3551122
1
Isn't it April 12th?
– Denis de Bernardy
yesterday
1
I'm worried about the scheduling of those formalities. Votes in both houses and a letter written before noon Friday, and they won't even start until after Wednesday? Could there be accidental Brexit because someone cuts something too close?
– o.m.
16 hours ago
@o.m. Not really - the UK leaves the EU under A50 of the Lisbon treaty, not under its own domestic law. What would happen if this didn't pass parliament would be that the UK is still in the EU but domestically would have to pretend it isn't.
– Cubic
5 hours ago
@Cubic, the notification according to Article 50 must be in accordance to national constitutional requirements. Surely the same applies to an extension?
– o.m.
5 hours ago
@o.m. You're right in the sense that, if they don't go through the motions, the UK leaves the EU on Friday. But it's not a big risk. It's not like they are likely to forget and they have plenty of time.
– Alex
4 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
The European Council has already agreed to both dates so they don’t need to ratify anything any more.
A new UK Act isn’t required. The UK Government can put forward a Statutory Instrument to amend the existing Withdrawal Act. This does need to pass both Houses of Parliament but this is unlikely to be blocked.
In both cases, confirmation in writing will be given but that’s just a formality.
Which date applies depends on whether the Withdrawal Agreement bill is passed by the UK Parliament.
If it is, then a May 22nd date will apply to allow all the necessary legislation to be passed.
If not, then the UK Government will leave the European Union on April 12th unless they come to an alternative agreement before then.
edited 8 hours ago
JJJ
5,02722144
answered yesterday
AlexAlex
4,3551122
The European Council has already agreed to both dates so they don’t need to ratify anything any more.
A new UK Act isn’t required. The UK Government can put forward a Statutory Instrument to amend the existing Withdrawal Act. This does need to pass both Houses of Parliament but this is unlikely to be blocked.
In both cases, confirmation in writing will be given but that’s just a formality.
Which date applies depends on whether the Withdrawal Agreement bill is passed by the UK Parliament.
If it is, then a May 22nd date will apply to allow all the necessary legislation to be passed.
If not, then the UK Government will leave the European Union on April 12th unless they come to an alternative agreement before then.
edited 8 hours ago
JJJ
5,02722144
answered yesterday
AlexAlex
4,3551122
edited 8 hours ago
JJJ
5,02722144
edited 8 hours ago
JJJ
5,02722144
edited 8 hours ago
JJJ
5,02722144
5,02722144
answered yesterday
AlexAlex
4,3551122
answered yesterday
AlexAlex
4,3551122
answered yesterday
AlexAlex
4,3551122
4,3551122
1
Isn't it April 12th?
– Denis de Bernardy
yesterday
1
I'm worried about the scheduling of those formalities. Votes in both houses and a letter written before noon Friday, and they won't even start until after Wednesday? Could there be accidental Brexit because someone cuts something too close?
– o.m.
16 hours ago
@o.m. Not really - the UK leaves the EU under A50 of the Lisbon treaty, not under its own domestic law. What would happen if this didn't pass parliament would be that the UK is still in the EU but domestically would have to pretend it isn't.
– Cubic
5 hours ago
@Cubic, the notification according to Article 50 must be in accordance to national constitutional requirements. Surely the same applies to an extension?
– o.m.
5 hours ago
@o.m. You're right in the sense that, if they don't go through the motions, the UK leaves the EU on Friday. But it's not a big risk. It's not like they are likely to forget and they have plenty of time.
– Alex
4 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
1
Isn't it April 12th?
– Denis de Bernardy
yesterday
1
I'm worried about the scheduling of those formalities. Votes in both houses and a letter written before noon Friday, and they won't even start until after Wednesday? Could there be accidental Brexit because someone cuts something too close?
– o.m.
16 hours ago
@o.m. Not really - the UK leaves the EU under A50 of the Lisbon treaty, not under its own domestic law. What would happen if this didn't pass parliament would be that the UK is still in the EU but domestically would have to pretend it isn't.
– Cubic
5 hours ago
@Cubic, the notification according to Article 50 must be in accordance to national constitutional requirements. Surely the same applies to an extension?
– o.m.
5 hours ago
@o.m. You're right in the sense that, if they don't go through the motions, the UK leaves the EU on Friday. But it's not a big risk. It's not like they are likely to forget and they have plenty of time.
– Alex
4 hours ago
1
1
Isn't it April 12th?
– Denis de Bernardy
yesterday
Isn't it April 12th?
– Denis de Bernardy
yesterday
1
1
I'm worried about the scheduling of those formalities. Votes in both houses and a letter written before noon Friday, and they won't even start until after Wednesday? Could there be accidental Brexit because someone cuts something too close?
– o.m.
16 hours ago
I'm worried about the scheduling of those formalities. Votes in both houses and a letter written before noon Friday, and they won't even start until after Wednesday? Could there be accidental Brexit because someone cuts something too close?
– o.m.
16 hours ago
@o.m. Not really - the UK leaves the EU under A50 of the Lisbon treaty, not under its own domestic law. What would happen if this didn't pass parliament would be that the UK is still in the EU but domestically would have to pretend it isn't.
– Cubic
5 hours ago
@o.m. Not really - the UK leaves the EU under A50 of the Lisbon treaty, not under its own domestic law. What would happen if this didn't pass parliament would be that the UK is still in the EU but domestically would have to pretend it isn't.
– Cubic
5 hours ago
@Cubic, the notification according to Article 50 must be in accordance to national constitutional requirements. Surely the same applies to an extension?
– o.m.
5 hours ago
@Cubic, the notification according to Article 50 must be in accordance to national constitutional requirements. Surely the same applies to an extension?
– o.m.
5 hours ago
@o.m. You're right in the sense that, if they don't go through the motions, the UK leaves the EU on Friday. But it's not a big risk. It's not like they are likely to forget and they have plenty of time.
– Alex
4 hours ago
@o.m. You're right in the sense that, if they don't go through the motions, the UK leaves the EU on Friday. But it's not a big risk. It's not like they are likely to forget and they have plenty of time.
– Alex
4 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
Note that unilateral revocation by simple letter of the Prime Minister remains an option.
(I believe that since the Electronic Communications Act email counts as "in writing" for all cases where that is legally required. I don't know if international agreements have to be in writing because this kind of temporal brinksmanship rarely comes up)
answered yesterday
pjc50pjc50
6,96711532
2
-1 Prime Minister May cannot do this on her own. See politics.stackexchange.com/a/37805/8912
– Sjoerd
22 hours ago
3
That doesn't answer the question of unilateral remain, only the ratification of a withdrawal agreement.
– pjc50
22 hours ago
1
@Sjoerd - My reading of your link agrees with pjc50's interpretation. I.e. that it doesn't apply to "remain"; only the requirements of a withdrawal. That's not to say that pjc50's original answer is correct (perhaps it is wrong?) but the link you've given appears to be irrelevant.
– Jeremy Davis
14 hours ago
The ECJ ruling on whether it's possible to revoke article 50 (curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-12/…) states that "The revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicated in writing to the European Council." IMHO a simple letter of the Prime Minister would not meet these criteria if the Parliament does not repeal the Withdrawal act.
– Peteris
8 hours ago
@Peteris but in other people's opinions, it would. If anyone wanted to argue it, they'd have to go to the ECJ
– Caleth
8 hours ago
add a comment |
Note that unilateral revocation by simple letter of the Prime Minister remains an option.
(I believe that since the Electronic Communications Act email counts as "in writing" for all cases where that is legally required. I don't know if international agreements have to be in writing because this kind of temporal brinksmanship rarely comes up)
answered yesterday
pjc50pjc50
6,96711532
2
-1 Prime Minister May cannot do this on her own. See politics.stackexchange.com/a/37805/8912
– Sjoerd
22 hours ago
3
That doesn't answer the question of unilateral remain, only the ratification of a withdrawal agreement.
– pjc50
22 hours ago
1
@Sjoerd - My reading of your link agrees with pjc50's interpretation. I.e. that it doesn't apply to "remain"; only the requirements of a withdrawal. That's not to say that pjc50's original answer is correct (perhaps it is wrong?) but the link you've given appears to be irrelevant.
– Jeremy Davis
14 hours ago
The ECJ ruling on whether it's possible to revoke article 50 (curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-12/…) states that "The revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicated in writing to the European Council." IMHO a simple letter of the Prime Minister would not meet these criteria if the Parliament does not repeal the Withdrawal act.
– Peteris
8 hours ago
@Peteris but in other people's opinions, it would. If anyone wanted to argue it, they'd have to go to the ECJ
– Caleth
8 hours ago
add a comment |
Note that unilateral revocation by simple letter of the Prime Minister remains an option.
(I believe that since the Electronic Communications Act email counts as "in writing" for all cases where that is legally required. I don't know if international agreements have to be in writing because this kind of temporal brinksmanship rarely comes up)
answered yesterday
pjc50pjc50
6,96711532
Note that unilateral revocation by simple letter of the Prime Minister remains an option.
(I believe that since the Electronic Communications Act email counts as "in writing" for all cases where that is legally required. I don't know if international agreements have to be in writing because this kind of temporal brinksmanship rarely comes up)
answered yesterday
pjc50pjc50
6,96711532
answered yesterday
pjc50pjc50
6,96711532
answered yesterday
pjc50pjc50
6,96711532
answered yesterday
pjc50pjc50
6,96711532
6,96711532
2
-1 Prime Minister May cannot do this on her own. See politics.stackexchange.com/a/37805/8912
– Sjoerd
22 hours ago
3
That doesn't answer the question of unilateral remain, only the ratification of a withdrawal agreement.
– pjc50
22 hours ago
1
@Sjoerd - My reading of your link agrees with pjc50's interpretation. I.e. that it doesn't apply to "remain"; only the requirements of a withdrawal. That's not to say that pjc50's original answer is correct (perhaps it is wrong?) but the link you've given appears to be irrelevant.
– Jeremy Davis
14 hours ago
The ECJ ruling on whether it's possible to revoke article 50 (curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-12/…) states that "The revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicated in writing to the European Council." IMHO a simple letter of the Prime Minister would not meet these criteria if the Parliament does not repeal the Withdrawal act.
– Peteris
8 hours ago
@Peteris but in other people's opinions, it would. If anyone wanted to argue it, they'd have to go to the ECJ
– Caleth
8 hours ago
add a comment |
2
-1 Prime Minister May cannot do this on her own. See politics.stackexchange.com/a/37805/8912
– Sjoerd
22 hours ago
3
That doesn't answer the question of unilateral remain, only the ratification of a withdrawal agreement.
– pjc50
22 hours ago
1
@Sjoerd - My reading of your link agrees with pjc50's interpretation. I.e. that it doesn't apply to "remain"; only the requirements of a withdrawal. That's not to say that pjc50's original answer is correct (perhaps it is wrong?) but the link you've given appears to be irrelevant.
– Jeremy Davis
14 hours ago
The ECJ ruling on whether it's possible to revoke article 50 (curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-12/…) states that "The revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicated in writing to the European Council." IMHO a simple letter of the Prime Minister would not meet these criteria if the Parliament does not repeal the Withdrawal act.
– Peteris
8 hours ago
@Peteris but in other people's opinions, it would. If anyone wanted to argue it, they'd have to go to the ECJ
– Caleth
8 hours ago
2
2
-1 Prime Minister May cannot do this on her own. See politics.stackexchange.com/a/37805/8912
– Sjoerd
22 hours ago
-1 Prime Minister May cannot do this on her own. See politics.stackexchange.com/a/37805/8912
– Sjoerd
22 hours ago
3
3
That doesn't answer the question of unilateral remain, only the ratification of a withdrawal agreement.
– pjc50
22 hours ago
That doesn't answer the question of unilateral remain, only the ratification of a withdrawal agreement.
– pjc50
22 hours ago
1
1
@Sjoerd - My reading of your link agrees with pjc50's interpretation. I.e. that it doesn't apply to "remain"; only the requirements of a withdrawal. That's not to say that pjc50's original answer is correct (perhaps it is wrong?) but the link you've given appears to be irrelevant.
– Jeremy Davis
14 hours ago
@Sjoerd - My reading of your link agrees with pjc50's interpretation. I.e. that it doesn't apply to "remain"; only the requirements of a withdrawal. That's not to say that pjc50's original answer is correct (perhaps it is wrong?) but the link you've given appears to be irrelevant.
– Jeremy Davis
14 hours ago
The ECJ ruling on whether it's possible to revoke article 50 (curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-12/…) states that "The revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicated in writing to the European Council." IMHO a simple letter of the Prime Minister would not meet these criteria if the Parliament does not repeal the Withdrawal act.
– Peteris
8 hours ago
The ECJ ruling on whether it's possible to revoke article 50 (curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-12/…) states that "The revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicated in writing to the European Council." IMHO a simple letter of the Prime Minister would not meet these criteria if the Parliament does not repeal the Withdrawal act.
– Peteris
8 hours ago
@Peteris but in other people's opinions, it would. If anyone wanted to argue it, they'd have to go to the ECJ
– Caleth
8 hours ago
@Peteris but in other people's opinions, it would. If anyone wanted to argue it, they'd have to go to the ECJ
– Caleth
8 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39806%2fwho-must-act-to-prevent-brexit-on-march-29th%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
It's not precisely a conditional offer. The extension until the 12th April is "free", after that there are conditions.
– origimbo
yesterday