Tag: Article 50 – revocability
-
Menelaos Markakis: A Trojan Horse in the EU? The Curious Case of the EU27+1
The EU27 have agreed to grant the extension requested by the Prime Minister, the terms of which need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say for present purposes that exit day has been moved to 31 October 2019 at the latest, subject to the proviso that an approval of the draft Withdrawal Agreement by…
-
David Vitale: Leaving the EU: A Matter of “Trust”?
Since the referendum in 2016, the Government has repeatedly justified its decisions on Brexit by invoking the concept of public trust. In December last year, the Prime Minister rejected the idea of a second referendum because, in her view, it “would do irreparable damage to the integrity of our politics, because it would say to…
-
Ewan McGaughey: What Is Needed in Our Constitution to Revoke Article 50?
Professors Gavin Phillipson and Alison Young have argued on this blog that an Act of Parliament is needed to revoke article 50. An alternative view is that, while an Act may be desirable, it is not necessary. This is still an important issue because on Wednesday 27th of March 2019, 184 votes in the House…
-
Richard Lang: Consequences of the Extension Deal: A Reply to Professor Allott
I would like to thank Professor Allott for his fascinating post, ‘Unexpected Denouement’. The UK Remains in the EU by Mistake. The Brexit Saga Could Run and Run’ from Tuesday. I just wanted to be advocatus diaboli on a couple of points, although some extremely able advocates, commenting below the original post, should also be…
-
Philip Allott: Unexpected Denouement. The UK Remains in the EU by Mistake. The Brexit Saga Could Run and Run
The two-year time-limit in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union has come and gone. It is now possible that no withdrawal agreement between the European Council and the UK will be concluded. This means that the UK would leave the EU in catastrophic circumstances on April 12. An interesting final irony would be…
-
Stephen Laws: Why a Money Resolution with Queen’s Recommendation Is Required for a Bill for the Postponing or Cancelling of “Exit Day”
In a post on this blog yesterday, Andrew Denny argued that I was wrong to suggest that a money resolution, with Crown recommendation, would be needed under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons for a provision of a Bill for the purpose of securing the postponement of the expiry of the UK’s Article…
-
Andrew Denny: Would a Bill Seeking an Article 50 Extension Require a Money Resolution Proposed by the Government?
Introduction The on-going constitutional laboratory experiment that is Brexit has now turned to the question of whether a bill proposed by a backbench MP can be passed into law against the express opposition of the Government. This scenario gives rise to a number of issues, including whether Parliamentary rules in the form of its standing…
-
Robert Craig: Can the Government Use the Royal Prerogative to Extend Article 50?
Introduction The possibility of extending the Article 50 process is being discussed in media outlets and social media. There are a number of potential scenarios where a short extension might be sought: to implement the Withdrawal Agreement in law to manage the process of a no deal Brexit to hold a general election to hold…
-
Dennis Dixon: Wightman and the General Interpretation of Article 50
The recent CJEU decision of Wightman v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2018] 3 WLR 1965 interpreted Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union as giving the United Kingdom a unilateral right to revoke its notice of withdrawal from the EU. Academic comment has naturally turned to whether the decision was…
-
Aris Georgopoulos: Revoking Article 50 TEU (C-621/18 Wightman and others): “Iphigenia Must Reach the Altar”
The CJEU’s ruling in C-621/18 Wightman and others clarifying that Member States can unilaterally revoke the withdrawal notification of Article 50 (2) TEU, is bound to have repercussions; in the case of Brexit and beyond. In this piece I present my initial thoughts about the ruling and its possible legal and political implications. I argue…