What options are left, if Britain cannot decide?If the UK government did not follow through with Brexit what would happen?Was Brexit always going to include a withdrawal from the European Atomic Energy CommunityWhat if Holyrood rejects its version of the Great Repeal Bill?Why would it be considered advantageous to negotiate ones own trade treaties?Does the UK-EU Joint Report essentially remove any leverage the UK has in further negotiations?Is there a date (before 29 Mar 2019) when a hard Brexit is inevitable?“The Treaties” in article 50 of the Lisbon TreatyWhen UK politicians say MPs will “vote against the Chequers plan”, what vote are they referring to?Will member state parliaments have the opportunity to ratify the UK/EU deal before exit day?Why did the UK trigger Article 50 before having a negotiation position?
What does it mean to make a bootable LiveUSB?
Who is our nearest planetary neighbor, on average?
Did Ender ever learn that he killed Stilson and/or Bonzo?
It's a yearly task, alright
Rejected in the fourth interview round, citing insufficient years of experience
Good allowance savings plan?
What is this large pipe coming out of my roof?
Will a pinhole camera work with instant film?
Did CP/M support custom hardware using device drivers?
Identifying the interval from A♭ to D♯
Is it possible to upcast ritual spells?
Ban on all campaign finance?
Pass associative array as parameter list to script
How could a female member of a species produce eggs unto death?
PlotLabels with equations not expressions
The use of "touch" and "touch on" in context
Python: Check if string and its substring are existing in the same list
My adviser wants to be the first author
Life insurance that covers only simultaneous/dual deaths
Employee lack of ownership
How is the Swiss post e-voting system supposed to work, and how was it wrong?
Is it normal that my co-workers at a fitness company criticize my food choices?
How to answer questions about my characters?
Is it possible that AIC = BIC?
What options are left, if Britain cannot decide?
If the UK government did not follow through with Brexit what would happen?Was Brexit always going to include a withdrawal from the European Atomic Energy CommunityWhat if Holyrood rejects its version of the Great Repeal Bill?Why would it be considered advantageous to negotiate ones own trade treaties?Does the UK-EU Joint Report essentially remove any leverage the UK has in further negotiations?Is there a date (before 29 Mar 2019) when a hard Brexit is inevitable?“The Treaties” in article 50 of the Lisbon TreatyWhen UK politicians say MPs will “vote against the Chequers plan”, what vote are they referring to?Will member state parliaments have the opportunity to ratify the UK/EU deal before exit day?Why did the UK trigger Article 50 before having a negotiation position?
To my understanding, the lawful government of the united kingdom has decided, following due process, that:
- The united kingdom shall leave the european union at a set date (currently 29 Mar 2019)
- The united kingdom shall not accept the deal negotiated with EU27
- The united kingdom shall not leave the european union without a deal
Given that, what happens when the set date arrives? (Whether that is 29 Mar, or an extension is appplied for and granted)
Can EU27 simply assume that "Since your parliament ruled out both the negotiated deal and a hard brexit, we assume that all treaties are still valid."?
Can EU27 simply assume that "Since you did trigger article 50 and declined the negotiated deal, we (regretfully) assume that all treaties now are void"?
EU27 are supposed to honor the decisions of UKs legal government, but what are the options if the stance of that government is literally "we cannot decide"?
united-kingdom european-union brexit
add a comment |
To my understanding, the lawful government of the united kingdom has decided, following due process, that:
- The united kingdom shall leave the european union at a set date (currently 29 Mar 2019)
- The united kingdom shall not accept the deal negotiated with EU27
- The united kingdom shall not leave the european union without a deal
Given that, what happens when the set date arrives? (Whether that is 29 Mar, or an extension is appplied for and granted)
Can EU27 simply assume that "Since your parliament ruled out both the negotiated deal and a hard brexit, we assume that all treaties are still valid."?
Can EU27 simply assume that "Since you did trigger article 50 and declined the negotiated deal, we (regretfully) assume that all treaties now are void"?
EU27 are supposed to honor the decisions of UKs legal government, but what are the options if the stance of that government is literally "we cannot decide"?
united-kingdom european-union brexit
Comments deleted. Please don't post comments which do not aim to improve the question. For more information on what comments should and should not be used for, see the help article on the commenting privilege.
– Philipp♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
To my understanding, the lawful government of the united kingdom has decided, following due process, that:
- The united kingdom shall leave the european union at a set date (currently 29 Mar 2019)
- The united kingdom shall not accept the deal negotiated with EU27
- The united kingdom shall not leave the european union without a deal
Given that, what happens when the set date arrives? (Whether that is 29 Mar, or an extension is appplied for and granted)
Can EU27 simply assume that "Since your parliament ruled out both the negotiated deal and a hard brexit, we assume that all treaties are still valid."?
Can EU27 simply assume that "Since you did trigger article 50 and declined the negotiated deal, we (regretfully) assume that all treaties now are void"?
EU27 are supposed to honor the decisions of UKs legal government, but what are the options if the stance of that government is literally "we cannot decide"?
united-kingdom european-union brexit
To my understanding, the lawful government of the united kingdom has decided, following due process, that:
- The united kingdom shall leave the european union at a set date (currently 29 Mar 2019)
- The united kingdom shall not accept the deal negotiated with EU27
- The united kingdom shall not leave the european union without a deal
Given that, what happens when the set date arrives? (Whether that is 29 Mar, or an extension is appplied for and granted)
Can EU27 simply assume that "Since your parliament ruled out both the negotiated deal and a hard brexit, we assume that all treaties are still valid."?
Can EU27 simply assume that "Since you did trigger article 50 and declined the negotiated deal, we (regretfully) assume that all treaties now are void"?
EU27 are supposed to honor the decisions of UKs legal government, but what are the options if the stance of that government is literally "we cannot decide"?
united-kingdom european-union brexit
united-kingdom european-union brexit
asked yesterday
GuranGuran
8551616
8551616
Comments deleted. Please don't post comments which do not aim to improve the question. For more information on what comments should and should not be used for, see the help article on the commenting privilege.
– Philipp♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Comments deleted. Please don't post comments which do not aim to improve the question. For more information on what comments should and should not be used for, see the help article on the commenting privilege.
– Philipp♦
1 hour ago
Comments deleted. Please don't post comments which do not aim to improve the question. For more information on what comments should and should not be used for, see the help article on the commenting privilege.
– Philipp♦
1 hour ago
Comments deleted. Please don't post comments which do not aim to improve the question. For more information on what comments should and should not be used for, see the help article on the commenting privilege.
– Philipp♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
The United Kingdom shall not leave the European Union without a deal
That is not a legal decision. This is just a wish that Parliament has expressed.
If nothing else changes, as things currently stand¹ (2019-03-15T10:32Z) the UK Parliament has instructed the government to apply for an extension. If the UK government applies for an extension and the EU member states unanimously approve this, Brexit will be postponed. If not, the UK will leave the the EU without any agreement on 29 March, even against the wishes of Parliament. To change this, the UK must either:
- Unilaterally withdraw article 50 and cancel Brexit;
- apply for an extension (as Parliament has approved a Government motion to do so, this is now almost certain to happen), which must be approved by the EU and its member states (which we will know next week);
- or accept the Withdrawal Agreement.
In practice, even if the UK Parliament still approves the Withdrawal Agreement, a short extension for which the UK will apply will be necessary, to implement necessary legislation on both sides.
¹The situation is rapidly changing.
23
This is correct; the UK "made the decision" to leave the EU without a deal when it sent the Article 50 notification. Until it rescinds that, it stands.
– pjc50
yesterday
3
Note that if the WA is agreed by Parliament, there will probably need to be a short extension anyway in order to enact all the (UK) legislation necessary to implement it.
– Steve Melnikoff
yesterday
6
@SteveMelnikoff I would expect such a purely pragmatic extension to be mostly uncontroversial (unless a "we still don't know what we want" extension).
– gerrit
yesterday
5
@gerrit: agreed. The EU have indicated that any extension needs to have a purpose; and this would certainly count, especially since the EU much prefers the WA to no deal.
– Steve Melnikoff
yesterday
2
@KyleWardle [...] an Article 50 notification may be revoked unilaterally by the notifying member without the permission of the other EU members, provided the state has not already left the EU, and provided the revocation is decided “following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements”. -- that decision by the ECJ is what we got.
– Yakk
16 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
The EU isn't going to assume anything.
Article 50 is a formal process, triggered by the UK. If the UK neither accepts the deal, nor asks and get granted an extension, nor withdraws its intention to leave the EU, the UK will leave the EU, 00:00 March 30, 2019 (Brussels time). That's what the Article 50 procedure mean.
Everything between the EU and the UK follows a set procedure, and it's (mostly) the UK who determines which direction it goes:
- The UK accepts the deal. Then the UK leaves the EU on 2019-03-30 00:00 with a deal. Else,
- The UK withdraws its intention to leave the EU. Then the UK stays in the EU. Else,
- The UK asks for an extension, and the EU grants that extension. Then we go back to point 1, but with a different date. Else,
- The UK leaves the EU on 2019-03-30 00:00 with no deal.
No assumptions by the EU.
1
The question at hand here is who "The UK" actually is, when neither government or parliament can agree on a position. Imagine EU27 simply stating "We negotiated with your head of government and reached a deal. We will honour our part and expect the UK to do the same."
– Guran
23 hours ago
9
@Jontia That's London time. Which is why explicitly mentioned Brussels time.
– Abigail
23 hours ago
7
@Guran Part of the deal is that it needs to be ratified by parliament. Make treaties/deals/laws which need to be ratified by the national parliaments is on par for the EU.
– Abigail
23 hours ago
1
@ouflak Doesn't that automatically follow from the "else" part on point 3? Point 3 says "The UK asks for an extension and the EU grants that extension". If either the UK does not ask for an extension, or the EU doesn't grant one, we fall through to option 4, which is "the UK leaves with no deal".
– Abigail
18 hours ago
1
@ouflak The use of "else" in each of the other points implies that point 4 happen if none of the conditions of the other point happen. Not seeking an extension or seeking an extension and not getting it are the same.
– Abigail
18 hours ago
|
show 9 more comments
The EU can't force the UK to stay. The UK can unilaterally withdraw from the treaties that make it part of the EU. The EU continuing to act as if the UK had not withdrawn would be pointless and detrimental to the EU, as the UK would not be obliged to follow any of the rules any more and thus have a huge trade advantage.
The UK could ask for an extension to the Article 50 process, which the EU could accept or deny.
The UK could unilaterally cancel brexit by withdrawing its Article 50 notification. EU courts have ruled that this is possible if done in good faith.
If the UK simply fails to make any decision then it will crash out of the EU on March 29th and there is little that the EU can actually do about it.
The EU certainly cannot force the UK to stay. It could however, in theory, unilaterally decide to act as if the UK was still part of the union until the UK does something that would blatantly break the treaties (had they still been in effect). Granted, this would break a few WTO rules, but...
– Guran
21 hours ago
5
@Guran The EU is a bit more than just a bunch of countries who use treaties for some casual interaction. How should the European Parliament, the European Commission or any of the other myriad of organizations do their daily job "acting as if the UK never left"?
– Abigail
21 hours ago
@Abigail The Parliament, the Commission, the Court of Justice etc would naturally have to act witout UK participation. And I agree, this is a very naive speculation. 27 nations would never be able to keep up such a course of action in reality.
– Guran
21 hours ago
1
@Guran what possible benefit would this have for the EU?
– user
21 hours ago
1
@Guran but surely if the UK did leave without a deal it would immediately start doing deals with other countries, and has in fact already announced a new tariff schedule, all things that would start damaging the EU. In fact merely weakening the fixed requirements of being in the single market would immediately damage the EU. Remember that the single market is nearly 7 times as big as the UK market.
– user
20 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
We cannot know
Brexit or not is determined by EU law and politics and by UK law and politics at the same time.
EU Law
The European Court of Justice has ruled
The revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicatedin writing to the European Council.
Such a revocation confirms the EU membership of the Member State concernedunder terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State and brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.
UK Law
Parliament is sovereign, and it cannot constrain its future actions.
- The united kingdom shall leave the european union at a set date (currently 29 Mar 2019)
- The united kingdom shall not accept the deal negotiated with EU27
- The united kingdom shall not leave the european union without a deal
These are in order. If later actions by Parliament conflict with earlier ones, the later actions win.
So currently, Parliament has stated "the UK shall not leave the EU without a deal". Any act of Parliament prior to that doesn't contradict it; it contradicts any earlier act.
On the other hand, Parliament has arguably not made an unequivocal and unconditional decision and communicated it to the European Council in writing (that last part is easy; someone can print out the bill and literally walk it over; the first part, less so).
The decision that the UK Parliament made is conditional (on no deal being made), or at least equivocal in its conditionalness.
Or, arguably, the UK has through its democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements has now stated that at the end of March it will have withdrawn from Article 50 if there was no deal in place or extension; at that point, there is remaining condition, and "we won't leave the EU without a deal" is unequivocal.
The meaning of this action could even be decided retroactively: Imagine the day after Brexit, everyone proceeds as if it was a hard Brexit. Borders clank shut, etc.
That very day, May loses the confidence of the House, she gets replaced by someone whose position is that UK never left the EU due to this resolution, and they convince the ECJ to agree with them.
Or the exact same narrative can occur, except the ECJ could say "no, that isn't how it works, please apply for membership again".
There is no clear answer. This is the realm of politics, optics, and law without precident.
Words on TV by politicians or pundits could fundamentally change what this action means, long after the action's meaning has seemingly settled.
Enough people state "it is non binding", and that actually makes it less binding. Enough people state "it is binding, May can no longer legally leave the EU without a deal", and that actually makes it more binding. Because popular interpretation of what was done can sway what it means.
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%2f39405%2fwhat-options-are-left-if-britain-cannot-decide%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The United Kingdom shall not leave the European Union without a deal
That is not a legal decision. This is just a wish that Parliament has expressed.
If nothing else changes, as things currently stand¹ (2019-03-15T10:32Z) the UK Parliament has instructed the government to apply for an extension. If the UK government applies for an extension and the EU member states unanimously approve this, Brexit will be postponed. If not, the UK will leave the the EU without any agreement on 29 March, even against the wishes of Parliament. To change this, the UK must either:
- Unilaterally withdraw article 50 and cancel Brexit;
- apply for an extension (as Parliament has approved a Government motion to do so, this is now almost certain to happen), which must be approved by the EU and its member states (which we will know next week);
- or accept the Withdrawal Agreement.
In practice, even if the UK Parliament still approves the Withdrawal Agreement, a short extension for which the UK will apply will be necessary, to implement necessary legislation on both sides.
¹The situation is rapidly changing.
23
This is correct; the UK "made the decision" to leave the EU without a deal when it sent the Article 50 notification. Until it rescinds that, it stands.
– pjc50
yesterday
3
Note that if the WA is agreed by Parliament, there will probably need to be a short extension anyway in order to enact all the (UK) legislation necessary to implement it.
– Steve Melnikoff
yesterday
6
@SteveMelnikoff I would expect such a purely pragmatic extension to be mostly uncontroversial (unless a "we still don't know what we want" extension).
– gerrit
yesterday
5
@gerrit: agreed. The EU have indicated that any extension needs to have a purpose; and this would certainly count, especially since the EU much prefers the WA to no deal.
– Steve Melnikoff
yesterday
2
@KyleWardle [...] an Article 50 notification may be revoked unilaterally by the notifying member without the permission of the other EU members, provided the state has not already left the EU, and provided the revocation is decided “following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements”. -- that decision by the ECJ is what we got.
– Yakk
16 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
The United Kingdom shall not leave the European Union without a deal
That is not a legal decision. This is just a wish that Parliament has expressed.
If nothing else changes, as things currently stand¹ (2019-03-15T10:32Z) the UK Parliament has instructed the government to apply for an extension. If the UK government applies for an extension and the EU member states unanimously approve this, Brexit will be postponed. If not, the UK will leave the the EU without any agreement on 29 March, even against the wishes of Parliament. To change this, the UK must either:
- Unilaterally withdraw article 50 and cancel Brexit;
- apply for an extension (as Parliament has approved a Government motion to do so, this is now almost certain to happen), which must be approved by the EU and its member states (which we will know next week);
- or accept the Withdrawal Agreement.
In practice, even if the UK Parliament still approves the Withdrawal Agreement, a short extension for which the UK will apply will be necessary, to implement necessary legislation on both sides.
¹The situation is rapidly changing.
23
This is correct; the UK "made the decision" to leave the EU without a deal when it sent the Article 50 notification. Until it rescinds that, it stands.
– pjc50
yesterday
3
Note that if the WA is agreed by Parliament, there will probably need to be a short extension anyway in order to enact all the (UK) legislation necessary to implement it.
– Steve Melnikoff
yesterday
6
@SteveMelnikoff I would expect such a purely pragmatic extension to be mostly uncontroversial (unless a "we still don't know what we want" extension).
– gerrit
yesterday
5
@gerrit: agreed. The EU have indicated that any extension needs to have a purpose; and this would certainly count, especially since the EU much prefers the WA to no deal.
– Steve Melnikoff
yesterday
2
@KyleWardle [...] an Article 50 notification may be revoked unilaterally by the notifying member without the permission of the other EU members, provided the state has not already left the EU, and provided the revocation is decided “following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements”. -- that decision by the ECJ is what we got.
– Yakk
16 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
The United Kingdom shall not leave the European Union without a deal
That is not a legal decision. This is just a wish that Parliament has expressed.
If nothing else changes, as things currently stand¹ (2019-03-15T10:32Z) the UK Parliament has instructed the government to apply for an extension. If the UK government applies for an extension and the EU member states unanimously approve this, Brexit will be postponed. If not, the UK will leave the the EU without any agreement on 29 March, even against the wishes of Parliament. To change this, the UK must either:
- Unilaterally withdraw article 50 and cancel Brexit;
- apply for an extension (as Parliament has approved a Government motion to do so, this is now almost certain to happen), which must be approved by the EU and its member states (which we will know next week);
- or accept the Withdrawal Agreement.
In practice, even if the UK Parliament still approves the Withdrawal Agreement, a short extension for which the UK will apply will be necessary, to implement necessary legislation on both sides.
¹The situation is rapidly changing.
The United Kingdom shall not leave the European Union without a deal
That is not a legal decision. This is just a wish that Parliament has expressed.
If nothing else changes, as things currently stand¹ (2019-03-15T10:32Z) the UK Parliament has instructed the government to apply for an extension. If the UK government applies for an extension and the EU member states unanimously approve this, Brexit will be postponed. If not, the UK will leave the the EU without any agreement on 29 March, even against the wishes of Parliament. To change this, the UK must either:
- Unilaterally withdraw article 50 and cancel Brexit;
- apply for an extension (as Parliament has approved a Government motion to do so, this is now almost certain to happen), which must be approved by the EU and its member states (which we will know next week);
- or accept the Withdrawal Agreement.
In practice, even if the UK Parliament still approves the Withdrawal Agreement, a short extension for which the UK will apply will be necessary, to implement necessary legislation on both sides.
¹The situation is rapidly changing.
edited 24 mins ago
answered yesterday
gerritgerrit
19.2k781179
19.2k781179
23
This is correct; the UK "made the decision" to leave the EU without a deal when it sent the Article 50 notification. Until it rescinds that, it stands.
– pjc50
yesterday
3
Note that if the WA is agreed by Parliament, there will probably need to be a short extension anyway in order to enact all the (UK) legislation necessary to implement it.
– Steve Melnikoff
yesterday
6
@SteveMelnikoff I would expect such a purely pragmatic extension to be mostly uncontroversial (unless a "we still don't know what we want" extension).
– gerrit
yesterday
5
@gerrit: agreed. The EU have indicated that any extension needs to have a purpose; and this would certainly count, especially since the EU much prefers the WA to no deal.
– Steve Melnikoff
yesterday
2
@KyleWardle [...] an Article 50 notification may be revoked unilaterally by the notifying member without the permission of the other EU members, provided the state has not already left the EU, and provided the revocation is decided “following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements”. -- that decision by the ECJ is what we got.
– Yakk
16 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
23
This is correct; the UK "made the decision" to leave the EU without a deal when it sent the Article 50 notification. Until it rescinds that, it stands.
– pjc50
yesterday
3
Note that if the WA is agreed by Parliament, there will probably need to be a short extension anyway in order to enact all the (UK) legislation necessary to implement it.
– Steve Melnikoff
yesterday
6
@SteveMelnikoff I would expect such a purely pragmatic extension to be mostly uncontroversial (unless a "we still don't know what we want" extension).
– gerrit
yesterday
5
@gerrit: agreed. The EU have indicated that any extension needs to have a purpose; and this would certainly count, especially since the EU much prefers the WA to no deal.
– Steve Melnikoff
yesterday
2
@KyleWardle [...] an Article 50 notification may be revoked unilaterally by the notifying member without the permission of the other EU members, provided the state has not already left the EU, and provided the revocation is decided “following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements”. -- that decision by the ECJ is what we got.
– Yakk
16 hours ago
23
23
This is correct; the UK "made the decision" to leave the EU without a deal when it sent the Article 50 notification. Until it rescinds that, it stands.
– pjc50
yesterday
This is correct; the UK "made the decision" to leave the EU without a deal when it sent the Article 50 notification. Until it rescinds that, it stands.
– pjc50
yesterday
3
3
Note that if the WA is agreed by Parliament, there will probably need to be a short extension anyway in order to enact all the (UK) legislation necessary to implement it.
– Steve Melnikoff
yesterday
Note that if the WA is agreed by Parliament, there will probably need to be a short extension anyway in order to enact all the (UK) legislation necessary to implement it.
– Steve Melnikoff
yesterday
6
6
@SteveMelnikoff I would expect such a purely pragmatic extension to be mostly uncontroversial (unless a "we still don't know what we want" extension).
– gerrit
yesterday
@SteveMelnikoff I would expect such a purely pragmatic extension to be mostly uncontroversial (unless a "we still don't know what we want" extension).
– gerrit
yesterday
5
5
@gerrit: agreed. The EU have indicated that any extension needs to have a purpose; and this would certainly count, especially since the EU much prefers the WA to no deal.
– Steve Melnikoff
yesterday
@gerrit: agreed. The EU have indicated that any extension needs to have a purpose; and this would certainly count, especially since the EU much prefers the WA to no deal.
– Steve Melnikoff
yesterday
2
2
@KyleWardle [...] an Article 50 notification may be revoked unilaterally by the notifying member without the permission of the other EU members, provided the state has not already left the EU, and provided the revocation is decided “following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements”. -- that decision by the ECJ is what we got.
– Yakk
16 hours ago
@KyleWardle [...] an Article 50 notification may be revoked unilaterally by the notifying member without the permission of the other EU members, provided the state has not already left the EU, and provided the revocation is decided “following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements”. -- that decision by the ECJ is what we got.
– Yakk
16 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
The EU isn't going to assume anything.
Article 50 is a formal process, triggered by the UK. If the UK neither accepts the deal, nor asks and get granted an extension, nor withdraws its intention to leave the EU, the UK will leave the EU, 00:00 March 30, 2019 (Brussels time). That's what the Article 50 procedure mean.
Everything between the EU and the UK follows a set procedure, and it's (mostly) the UK who determines which direction it goes:
- The UK accepts the deal. Then the UK leaves the EU on 2019-03-30 00:00 with a deal. Else,
- The UK withdraws its intention to leave the EU. Then the UK stays in the EU. Else,
- The UK asks for an extension, and the EU grants that extension. Then we go back to point 1, but with a different date. Else,
- The UK leaves the EU on 2019-03-30 00:00 with no deal.
No assumptions by the EU.
1
The question at hand here is who "The UK" actually is, when neither government or parliament can agree on a position. Imagine EU27 simply stating "We negotiated with your head of government and reached a deal. We will honour our part and expect the UK to do the same."
– Guran
23 hours ago
9
@Jontia That's London time. Which is why explicitly mentioned Brussels time.
– Abigail
23 hours ago
7
@Guran Part of the deal is that it needs to be ratified by parliament. Make treaties/deals/laws which need to be ratified by the national parliaments is on par for the EU.
– Abigail
23 hours ago
1
@ouflak Doesn't that automatically follow from the "else" part on point 3? Point 3 says "The UK asks for an extension and the EU grants that extension". If either the UK does not ask for an extension, or the EU doesn't grant one, we fall through to option 4, which is "the UK leaves with no deal".
– Abigail
18 hours ago
1
@ouflak The use of "else" in each of the other points implies that point 4 happen if none of the conditions of the other point happen. Not seeking an extension or seeking an extension and not getting it are the same.
– Abigail
18 hours ago
|
show 9 more comments
The EU isn't going to assume anything.
Article 50 is a formal process, triggered by the UK. If the UK neither accepts the deal, nor asks and get granted an extension, nor withdraws its intention to leave the EU, the UK will leave the EU, 00:00 March 30, 2019 (Brussels time). That's what the Article 50 procedure mean.
Everything between the EU and the UK follows a set procedure, and it's (mostly) the UK who determines which direction it goes:
- The UK accepts the deal. Then the UK leaves the EU on 2019-03-30 00:00 with a deal. Else,
- The UK withdraws its intention to leave the EU. Then the UK stays in the EU. Else,
- The UK asks for an extension, and the EU grants that extension. Then we go back to point 1, but with a different date. Else,
- The UK leaves the EU on 2019-03-30 00:00 with no deal.
No assumptions by the EU.
1
The question at hand here is who "The UK" actually is, when neither government or parliament can agree on a position. Imagine EU27 simply stating "We negotiated with your head of government and reached a deal. We will honour our part and expect the UK to do the same."
– Guran
23 hours ago
9
@Jontia That's London time. Which is why explicitly mentioned Brussels time.
– Abigail
23 hours ago
7
@Guran Part of the deal is that it needs to be ratified by parliament. Make treaties/deals/laws which need to be ratified by the national parliaments is on par for the EU.
– Abigail
23 hours ago
1
@ouflak Doesn't that automatically follow from the "else" part on point 3? Point 3 says "The UK asks for an extension and the EU grants that extension". If either the UK does not ask for an extension, or the EU doesn't grant one, we fall through to option 4, which is "the UK leaves with no deal".
– Abigail
18 hours ago
1
@ouflak The use of "else" in each of the other points implies that point 4 happen if none of the conditions of the other point happen. Not seeking an extension or seeking an extension and not getting it are the same.
– Abigail
18 hours ago
|
show 9 more comments
The EU isn't going to assume anything.
Article 50 is a formal process, triggered by the UK. If the UK neither accepts the deal, nor asks and get granted an extension, nor withdraws its intention to leave the EU, the UK will leave the EU, 00:00 March 30, 2019 (Brussels time). That's what the Article 50 procedure mean.
Everything between the EU and the UK follows a set procedure, and it's (mostly) the UK who determines which direction it goes:
- The UK accepts the deal. Then the UK leaves the EU on 2019-03-30 00:00 with a deal. Else,
- The UK withdraws its intention to leave the EU. Then the UK stays in the EU. Else,
- The UK asks for an extension, and the EU grants that extension. Then we go back to point 1, but with a different date. Else,
- The UK leaves the EU on 2019-03-30 00:00 with no deal.
No assumptions by the EU.
The EU isn't going to assume anything.
Article 50 is a formal process, triggered by the UK. If the UK neither accepts the deal, nor asks and get granted an extension, nor withdraws its intention to leave the EU, the UK will leave the EU, 00:00 March 30, 2019 (Brussels time). That's what the Article 50 procedure mean.
Everything between the EU and the UK follows a set procedure, and it's (mostly) the UK who determines which direction it goes:
- The UK accepts the deal. Then the UK leaves the EU on 2019-03-30 00:00 with a deal. Else,
- The UK withdraws its intention to leave the EU. Then the UK stays in the EU. Else,
- The UK asks for an extension, and the EU grants that extension. Then we go back to point 1, but with a different date. Else,
- The UK leaves the EU on 2019-03-30 00:00 with no deal.
No assumptions by the EU.
answered yesterday
AbigailAbigail
1,242412
1,242412
1
The question at hand here is who "The UK" actually is, when neither government or parliament can agree on a position. Imagine EU27 simply stating "We negotiated with your head of government and reached a deal. We will honour our part and expect the UK to do the same."
– Guran
23 hours ago
9
@Jontia That's London time. Which is why explicitly mentioned Brussels time.
– Abigail
23 hours ago
7
@Guran Part of the deal is that it needs to be ratified by parliament. Make treaties/deals/laws which need to be ratified by the national parliaments is on par for the EU.
– Abigail
23 hours ago
1
@ouflak Doesn't that automatically follow from the "else" part on point 3? Point 3 says "The UK asks for an extension and the EU grants that extension". If either the UK does not ask for an extension, or the EU doesn't grant one, we fall through to option 4, which is "the UK leaves with no deal".
– Abigail
18 hours ago
1
@ouflak The use of "else" in each of the other points implies that point 4 happen if none of the conditions of the other point happen. Not seeking an extension or seeking an extension and not getting it are the same.
– Abigail
18 hours ago
|
show 9 more comments
1
The question at hand here is who "The UK" actually is, when neither government or parliament can agree on a position. Imagine EU27 simply stating "We negotiated with your head of government and reached a deal. We will honour our part and expect the UK to do the same."
– Guran
23 hours ago
9
@Jontia That's London time. Which is why explicitly mentioned Brussels time.
– Abigail
23 hours ago
7
@Guran Part of the deal is that it needs to be ratified by parliament. Make treaties/deals/laws which need to be ratified by the national parliaments is on par for the EU.
– Abigail
23 hours ago
1
@ouflak Doesn't that automatically follow from the "else" part on point 3? Point 3 says "The UK asks for an extension and the EU grants that extension". If either the UK does not ask for an extension, or the EU doesn't grant one, we fall through to option 4, which is "the UK leaves with no deal".
– Abigail
18 hours ago
1
@ouflak The use of "else" in each of the other points implies that point 4 happen if none of the conditions of the other point happen. Not seeking an extension or seeking an extension and not getting it are the same.
– Abigail
18 hours ago
1
1
The question at hand here is who "The UK" actually is, when neither government or parliament can agree on a position. Imagine EU27 simply stating "We negotiated with your head of government and reached a deal. We will honour our part and expect the UK to do the same."
– Guran
23 hours ago
The question at hand here is who "The UK" actually is, when neither government or parliament can agree on a position. Imagine EU27 simply stating "We negotiated with your head of government and reached a deal. We will honour our part and expect the UK to do the same."
– Guran
23 hours ago
9
9
@Jontia That's London time. Which is why explicitly mentioned Brussels time.
– Abigail
23 hours ago
@Jontia That's London time. Which is why explicitly mentioned Brussels time.
– Abigail
23 hours ago
7
7
@Guran Part of the deal is that it needs to be ratified by parliament. Make treaties/deals/laws which need to be ratified by the national parliaments is on par for the EU.
– Abigail
23 hours ago
@Guran Part of the deal is that it needs to be ratified by parliament. Make treaties/deals/laws which need to be ratified by the national parliaments is on par for the EU.
– Abigail
23 hours ago
1
1
@ouflak Doesn't that automatically follow from the "else" part on point 3? Point 3 says "The UK asks for an extension and the EU grants that extension". If either the UK does not ask for an extension, or the EU doesn't grant one, we fall through to option 4, which is "the UK leaves with no deal".
– Abigail
18 hours ago
@ouflak Doesn't that automatically follow from the "else" part on point 3? Point 3 says "The UK asks for an extension and the EU grants that extension". If either the UK does not ask for an extension, or the EU doesn't grant one, we fall through to option 4, which is "the UK leaves with no deal".
– Abigail
18 hours ago
1
1
@ouflak The use of "else" in each of the other points implies that point 4 happen if none of the conditions of the other point happen. Not seeking an extension or seeking an extension and not getting it are the same.
– Abigail
18 hours ago
@ouflak The use of "else" in each of the other points implies that point 4 happen if none of the conditions of the other point happen. Not seeking an extension or seeking an extension and not getting it are the same.
– Abigail
18 hours ago
|
show 9 more comments
The EU can't force the UK to stay. The UK can unilaterally withdraw from the treaties that make it part of the EU. The EU continuing to act as if the UK had not withdrawn would be pointless and detrimental to the EU, as the UK would not be obliged to follow any of the rules any more and thus have a huge trade advantage.
The UK could ask for an extension to the Article 50 process, which the EU could accept or deny.
The UK could unilaterally cancel brexit by withdrawing its Article 50 notification. EU courts have ruled that this is possible if done in good faith.
If the UK simply fails to make any decision then it will crash out of the EU on March 29th and there is little that the EU can actually do about it.
The EU certainly cannot force the UK to stay. It could however, in theory, unilaterally decide to act as if the UK was still part of the union until the UK does something that would blatantly break the treaties (had they still been in effect). Granted, this would break a few WTO rules, but...
– Guran
21 hours ago
5
@Guran The EU is a bit more than just a bunch of countries who use treaties for some casual interaction. How should the European Parliament, the European Commission or any of the other myriad of organizations do their daily job "acting as if the UK never left"?
– Abigail
21 hours ago
@Abigail The Parliament, the Commission, the Court of Justice etc would naturally have to act witout UK participation. And I agree, this is a very naive speculation. 27 nations would never be able to keep up such a course of action in reality.
– Guran
21 hours ago
1
@Guran what possible benefit would this have for the EU?
– user
21 hours ago
1
@Guran but surely if the UK did leave without a deal it would immediately start doing deals with other countries, and has in fact already announced a new tariff schedule, all things that would start damaging the EU. In fact merely weakening the fixed requirements of being in the single market would immediately damage the EU. Remember that the single market is nearly 7 times as big as the UK market.
– user
20 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
The EU can't force the UK to stay. The UK can unilaterally withdraw from the treaties that make it part of the EU. The EU continuing to act as if the UK had not withdrawn would be pointless and detrimental to the EU, as the UK would not be obliged to follow any of the rules any more and thus have a huge trade advantage.
The UK could ask for an extension to the Article 50 process, which the EU could accept or deny.
The UK could unilaterally cancel brexit by withdrawing its Article 50 notification. EU courts have ruled that this is possible if done in good faith.
If the UK simply fails to make any decision then it will crash out of the EU on March 29th and there is little that the EU can actually do about it.
The EU certainly cannot force the UK to stay. It could however, in theory, unilaterally decide to act as if the UK was still part of the union until the UK does something that would blatantly break the treaties (had they still been in effect). Granted, this would break a few WTO rules, but...
– Guran
21 hours ago
5
@Guran The EU is a bit more than just a bunch of countries who use treaties for some casual interaction. How should the European Parliament, the European Commission or any of the other myriad of organizations do their daily job "acting as if the UK never left"?
– Abigail
21 hours ago
@Abigail The Parliament, the Commission, the Court of Justice etc would naturally have to act witout UK participation. And I agree, this is a very naive speculation. 27 nations would never be able to keep up such a course of action in reality.
– Guran
21 hours ago
1
@Guran what possible benefit would this have for the EU?
– user
21 hours ago
1
@Guran but surely if the UK did leave without a deal it would immediately start doing deals with other countries, and has in fact already announced a new tariff schedule, all things that would start damaging the EU. In fact merely weakening the fixed requirements of being in the single market would immediately damage the EU. Remember that the single market is nearly 7 times as big as the UK market.
– user
20 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
The EU can't force the UK to stay. The UK can unilaterally withdraw from the treaties that make it part of the EU. The EU continuing to act as if the UK had not withdrawn would be pointless and detrimental to the EU, as the UK would not be obliged to follow any of the rules any more and thus have a huge trade advantage.
The UK could ask for an extension to the Article 50 process, which the EU could accept or deny.
The UK could unilaterally cancel brexit by withdrawing its Article 50 notification. EU courts have ruled that this is possible if done in good faith.
If the UK simply fails to make any decision then it will crash out of the EU on March 29th and there is little that the EU can actually do about it.
The EU can't force the UK to stay. The UK can unilaterally withdraw from the treaties that make it part of the EU. The EU continuing to act as if the UK had not withdrawn would be pointless and detrimental to the EU, as the UK would not be obliged to follow any of the rules any more and thus have a huge trade advantage.
The UK could ask for an extension to the Article 50 process, which the EU could accept or deny.
The UK could unilaterally cancel brexit by withdrawing its Article 50 notification. EU courts have ruled that this is possible if done in good faith.
If the UK simply fails to make any decision then it will crash out of the EU on March 29th and there is little that the EU can actually do about it.
answered yesterday
useruser
8,47421835
8,47421835
The EU certainly cannot force the UK to stay. It could however, in theory, unilaterally decide to act as if the UK was still part of the union until the UK does something that would blatantly break the treaties (had they still been in effect). Granted, this would break a few WTO rules, but...
– Guran
21 hours ago
5
@Guran The EU is a bit more than just a bunch of countries who use treaties for some casual interaction. How should the European Parliament, the European Commission or any of the other myriad of organizations do their daily job "acting as if the UK never left"?
– Abigail
21 hours ago
@Abigail The Parliament, the Commission, the Court of Justice etc would naturally have to act witout UK participation. And I agree, this is a very naive speculation. 27 nations would never be able to keep up such a course of action in reality.
– Guran
21 hours ago
1
@Guran what possible benefit would this have for the EU?
– user
21 hours ago
1
@Guran but surely if the UK did leave without a deal it would immediately start doing deals with other countries, and has in fact already announced a new tariff schedule, all things that would start damaging the EU. In fact merely weakening the fixed requirements of being in the single market would immediately damage the EU. Remember that the single market is nearly 7 times as big as the UK market.
– user
20 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
The EU certainly cannot force the UK to stay. It could however, in theory, unilaterally decide to act as if the UK was still part of the union until the UK does something that would blatantly break the treaties (had they still been in effect). Granted, this would break a few WTO rules, but...
– Guran
21 hours ago
5
@Guran The EU is a bit more than just a bunch of countries who use treaties for some casual interaction. How should the European Parliament, the European Commission or any of the other myriad of organizations do their daily job "acting as if the UK never left"?
– Abigail
21 hours ago
@Abigail The Parliament, the Commission, the Court of Justice etc would naturally have to act witout UK participation. And I agree, this is a very naive speculation. 27 nations would never be able to keep up such a course of action in reality.
– Guran
21 hours ago
1
@Guran what possible benefit would this have for the EU?
– user
21 hours ago
1
@Guran but surely if the UK did leave without a deal it would immediately start doing deals with other countries, and has in fact already announced a new tariff schedule, all things that would start damaging the EU. In fact merely weakening the fixed requirements of being in the single market would immediately damage the EU. Remember that the single market is nearly 7 times as big as the UK market.
– user
20 hours ago
The EU certainly cannot force the UK to stay. It could however, in theory, unilaterally decide to act as if the UK was still part of the union until the UK does something that would blatantly break the treaties (had they still been in effect). Granted, this would break a few WTO rules, but...
– Guran
21 hours ago
The EU certainly cannot force the UK to stay. It could however, in theory, unilaterally decide to act as if the UK was still part of the union until the UK does something that would blatantly break the treaties (had they still been in effect). Granted, this would break a few WTO rules, but...
– Guran
21 hours ago
5
5
@Guran The EU is a bit more than just a bunch of countries who use treaties for some casual interaction. How should the European Parliament, the European Commission or any of the other myriad of organizations do their daily job "acting as if the UK never left"?
– Abigail
21 hours ago
@Guran The EU is a bit more than just a bunch of countries who use treaties for some casual interaction. How should the European Parliament, the European Commission or any of the other myriad of organizations do their daily job "acting as if the UK never left"?
– Abigail
21 hours ago
@Abigail The Parliament, the Commission, the Court of Justice etc would naturally have to act witout UK participation. And I agree, this is a very naive speculation. 27 nations would never be able to keep up such a course of action in reality.
– Guran
21 hours ago
@Abigail The Parliament, the Commission, the Court of Justice etc would naturally have to act witout UK participation. And I agree, this is a very naive speculation. 27 nations would never be able to keep up such a course of action in reality.
– Guran
21 hours ago
1
1
@Guran what possible benefit would this have for the EU?
– user
21 hours ago
@Guran what possible benefit would this have for the EU?
– user
21 hours ago
1
1
@Guran but surely if the UK did leave without a deal it would immediately start doing deals with other countries, and has in fact already announced a new tariff schedule, all things that would start damaging the EU. In fact merely weakening the fixed requirements of being in the single market would immediately damage the EU. Remember that the single market is nearly 7 times as big as the UK market.
– user
20 hours ago
@Guran but surely if the UK did leave without a deal it would immediately start doing deals with other countries, and has in fact already announced a new tariff schedule, all things that would start damaging the EU. In fact merely weakening the fixed requirements of being in the single market would immediately damage the EU. Remember that the single market is nearly 7 times as big as the UK market.
– user
20 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
We cannot know
Brexit or not is determined by EU law and politics and by UK law and politics at the same time.
EU Law
The European Court of Justice has ruled
The revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicatedin writing to the European Council.
Such a revocation confirms the EU membership of the Member State concernedunder terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State and brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.
UK Law
Parliament is sovereign, and it cannot constrain its future actions.
- The united kingdom shall leave the european union at a set date (currently 29 Mar 2019)
- The united kingdom shall not accept the deal negotiated with EU27
- The united kingdom shall not leave the european union without a deal
These are in order. If later actions by Parliament conflict with earlier ones, the later actions win.
So currently, Parliament has stated "the UK shall not leave the EU without a deal". Any act of Parliament prior to that doesn't contradict it; it contradicts any earlier act.
On the other hand, Parliament has arguably not made an unequivocal and unconditional decision and communicated it to the European Council in writing (that last part is easy; someone can print out the bill and literally walk it over; the first part, less so).
The decision that the UK Parliament made is conditional (on no deal being made), or at least equivocal in its conditionalness.
Or, arguably, the UK has through its democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements has now stated that at the end of March it will have withdrawn from Article 50 if there was no deal in place or extension; at that point, there is remaining condition, and "we won't leave the EU without a deal" is unequivocal.
The meaning of this action could even be decided retroactively: Imagine the day after Brexit, everyone proceeds as if it was a hard Brexit. Borders clank shut, etc.
That very day, May loses the confidence of the House, she gets replaced by someone whose position is that UK never left the EU due to this resolution, and they convince the ECJ to agree with them.
Or the exact same narrative can occur, except the ECJ could say "no, that isn't how it works, please apply for membership again".
There is no clear answer. This is the realm of politics, optics, and law without precident.
Words on TV by politicians or pundits could fundamentally change what this action means, long after the action's meaning has seemingly settled.
Enough people state "it is non binding", and that actually makes it less binding. Enough people state "it is binding, May can no longer legally leave the EU without a deal", and that actually makes it more binding. Because popular interpretation of what was done can sway what it means.
add a comment |
We cannot know
Brexit or not is determined by EU law and politics and by UK law and politics at the same time.
EU Law
The European Court of Justice has ruled
The revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicatedin writing to the European Council.
Such a revocation confirms the EU membership of the Member State concernedunder terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State and brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.
UK Law
Parliament is sovereign, and it cannot constrain its future actions.
- The united kingdom shall leave the european union at a set date (currently 29 Mar 2019)
- The united kingdom shall not accept the deal negotiated with EU27
- The united kingdom shall not leave the european union without a deal
These are in order. If later actions by Parliament conflict with earlier ones, the later actions win.
So currently, Parliament has stated "the UK shall not leave the EU without a deal". Any act of Parliament prior to that doesn't contradict it; it contradicts any earlier act.
On the other hand, Parliament has arguably not made an unequivocal and unconditional decision and communicated it to the European Council in writing (that last part is easy; someone can print out the bill and literally walk it over; the first part, less so).
The decision that the UK Parliament made is conditional (on no deal being made), or at least equivocal in its conditionalness.
Or, arguably, the UK has through its democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements has now stated that at the end of March it will have withdrawn from Article 50 if there was no deal in place or extension; at that point, there is remaining condition, and "we won't leave the EU without a deal" is unequivocal.
The meaning of this action could even be decided retroactively: Imagine the day after Brexit, everyone proceeds as if it was a hard Brexit. Borders clank shut, etc.
That very day, May loses the confidence of the House, she gets replaced by someone whose position is that UK never left the EU due to this resolution, and they convince the ECJ to agree with them.
Or the exact same narrative can occur, except the ECJ could say "no, that isn't how it works, please apply for membership again".
There is no clear answer. This is the realm of politics, optics, and law without precident.
Words on TV by politicians or pundits could fundamentally change what this action means, long after the action's meaning has seemingly settled.
Enough people state "it is non binding", and that actually makes it less binding. Enough people state "it is binding, May can no longer legally leave the EU without a deal", and that actually makes it more binding. Because popular interpretation of what was done can sway what it means.
add a comment |
We cannot know
Brexit or not is determined by EU law and politics and by UK law and politics at the same time.
EU Law
The European Court of Justice has ruled
The revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicatedin writing to the European Council.
Such a revocation confirms the EU membership of the Member State concernedunder terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State and brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.
UK Law
Parliament is sovereign, and it cannot constrain its future actions.
- The united kingdom shall leave the european union at a set date (currently 29 Mar 2019)
- The united kingdom shall not accept the deal negotiated with EU27
- The united kingdom shall not leave the european union without a deal
These are in order. If later actions by Parliament conflict with earlier ones, the later actions win.
So currently, Parliament has stated "the UK shall not leave the EU without a deal". Any act of Parliament prior to that doesn't contradict it; it contradicts any earlier act.
On the other hand, Parliament has arguably not made an unequivocal and unconditional decision and communicated it to the European Council in writing (that last part is easy; someone can print out the bill and literally walk it over; the first part, less so).
The decision that the UK Parliament made is conditional (on no deal being made), or at least equivocal in its conditionalness.
Or, arguably, the UK has through its democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements has now stated that at the end of March it will have withdrawn from Article 50 if there was no deal in place or extension; at that point, there is remaining condition, and "we won't leave the EU without a deal" is unequivocal.
The meaning of this action could even be decided retroactively: Imagine the day after Brexit, everyone proceeds as if it was a hard Brexit. Borders clank shut, etc.
That very day, May loses the confidence of the House, she gets replaced by someone whose position is that UK never left the EU due to this resolution, and they convince the ECJ to agree with them.
Or the exact same narrative can occur, except the ECJ could say "no, that isn't how it works, please apply for membership again".
There is no clear answer. This is the realm of politics, optics, and law without precident.
Words on TV by politicians or pundits could fundamentally change what this action means, long after the action's meaning has seemingly settled.
Enough people state "it is non binding", and that actually makes it less binding. Enough people state "it is binding, May can no longer legally leave the EU without a deal", and that actually makes it more binding. Because popular interpretation of what was done can sway what it means.
We cannot know
Brexit or not is determined by EU law and politics and by UK law and politics at the same time.
EU Law
The European Court of Justice has ruled
The revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicatedin writing to the European Council.
Such a revocation confirms the EU membership of the Member State concernedunder terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State and brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.
UK Law
Parliament is sovereign, and it cannot constrain its future actions.
- The united kingdom shall leave the european union at a set date (currently 29 Mar 2019)
- The united kingdom shall not accept the deal negotiated with EU27
- The united kingdom shall not leave the european union without a deal
These are in order. If later actions by Parliament conflict with earlier ones, the later actions win.
So currently, Parliament has stated "the UK shall not leave the EU without a deal". Any act of Parliament prior to that doesn't contradict it; it contradicts any earlier act.
On the other hand, Parliament has arguably not made an unequivocal and unconditional decision and communicated it to the European Council in writing (that last part is easy; someone can print out the bill and literally walk it over; the first part, less so).
The decision that the UK Parliament made is conditional (on no deal being made), or at least equivocal in its conditionalness.
Or, arguably, the UK has through its democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements has now stated that at the end of March it will have withdrawn from Article 50 if there was no deal in place or extension; at that point, there is remaining condition, and "we won't leave the EU without a deal" is unequivocal.
The meaning of this action could even be decided retroactively: Imagine the day after Brexit, everyone proceeds as if it was a hard Brexit. Borders clank shut, etc.
That very day, May loses the confidence of the House, she gets replaced by someone whose position is that UK never left the EU due to this resolution, and they convince the ECJ to agree with them.
Or the exact same narrative can occur, except the ECJ could say "no, that isn't how it works, please apply for membership again".
There is no clear answer. This is the realm of politics, optics, and law without precident.
Words on TV by politicians or pundits could fundamentally change what this action means, long after the action's meaning has seemingly settled.
Enough people state "it is non binding", and that actually makes it less binding. Enough people state "it is binding, May can no longer legally leave the EU without a deal", and that actually makes it more binding. Because popular interpretation of what was done can sway what it means.
answered 15 hours ago
YakkYakk
1,016310
1,016310
add a comment |
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%2f39405%2fwhat-options-are-left-if-britain-cannot-decide%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
Comments deleted. Please don't post comments which do not aim to improve the question. For more information on what comments should and should not be used for, see the help article on the commenting privilege.
– Philipp♦
1 hour ago