My understanding of the Benn Bill is that it only compels the PM to request an extension and what must be done if an extension is granted.
If an extension isn't granted, is it true that neither the government nor parliament have any options available to prevent a no-deal exit?
Edit: I guess the framing of the question wasn't very clear. The Benn Bill was intended to prevent a no-deal exit from happening, but it doesn't do anything to prevent that if an extension isn't granted?
Revoking Art. 50 is something that the government can do unilaterally, according to the Court of Justice of the European Union. It would likely have to come from the PM, as Parliament alone cannot negotiate with the European Union, but presumably, Parliament could pass a bill requiring government to revoke Art. 50. Whether the government would respect such a bill seems hard to tell at the moment.
Note: See answer from @jonita the EU Parliment have agreed to offer an extension if asked for one. So the original question is asking about something that will not happen. However, here's a few notes on this hypothetic scenario
The Bill http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/26/enacted does not mention what will happen if the request for an extension is rejected and does not mention revoking article 50 either
The request for an extension must be made by the 19th of October. If it is turned down then Parliament would have to pass other legislation that revoked Article 50 before the exit deadline of October 31st
If nothing else is passed by Parliament then the UK will leave the EU on the 31st of October
Parliament is currently prorogued until Oct 14th - the court case to try and stop this may be resolved tomorrow (Fri 20th Sept) early next week so it's conceivable that Parliament will be back next week. However, under current circumstances, Parliament has this short window of opportunity
This excellent graphic from the bbc shows the schedule
If the extension is rejected there are two options available to Parliament.
Pass a law forcing the PM to revoke Article 50.
Pass a motion of no confidence in the government, form an alternative caretaker government, revoke Article 50 and then call a General Election.
In both cases there is very limited time to do this. However, the EU is today reported to have given the Johnson government 12 days to produce a concrete proposal for a deal, so it may be clear by the end of September if they intend to go for no-deal as the preferred option or not. Today the Supreme Court is also deciding if the current prorogation is legal, so Parliament may have a little more time to resolve this.
While the accepted answer refers to revoking Article 50, another option available to parliament would be to pass the bill for the treaty already offered by the EU. While it has been rejected several times, a new session of parliament means that there are fewer barriers for it to be put to the vote again.
Technically this is similar to the situation if the EU offers any amended deal in the meantime.
So legally Parliament was NOT prorogued. As such, it becomes harder to have a fourth vote on the same bill in the same session. (A change was required to allow the third vote). If the EU don't make some change to their offer, then the Speaker will not allow parliament to vote again on accepting the offer.
To slightly challenge the frame of the question.
It should be noted that the EU parliament has voted to grant an extension if requested.
The European Parliament continues to support an “orderly Brexit” based on the already negotiated Withdrawal Agreement, MEPs reaffirmed in the resolution adopted today with 544 votes in favour, 126 against and 38 abstentions.
While it is the European Council (The heads of state) that have to actually accept the extension request, the support of the EU parliament will undoubtedly factor into their thinking.
The full text of the vote is available here and the relevant portion is point 25.
- Indicates that it would support an extension of the period provided for in Article 50 if there are reasons and a purpose for such an extension (such as to avoid a ‘no-deal exit’, to hold a general election or a referendum, to revoke Article 50, or to approve a withdrawal agreement) and that the work and functioning of the EU institutions are not adversely affected;
In addition to the above which means the Benn Bill is likely to have the desired outcome it should be noted that being forced by the bill to ask for the extension is itself enough to ensure the bill remains relevant. Johnson's entire public position hinges on not being willing to extend the deadline. The Benn Bill will remain relevant either as a tool that demonstrates the weakness of Johnson's position or a a weapon in Johnson's people vs parliament strategy going into the next election.
Nobody can tell for certain, obviously, but it may be very irrelevant, as much as the original referendum was, or as any future referendum or such may be.
What is relevant first and foremost is that following Miller vs. Secretary of State, the Parliament passed an act, and with that the "constitutional proceedings" as per Art. 50 were met. What's relevant, too, is that Art. 50 was then invoked. So that's done and it is binding, and the clock has been ticking since.
What matters now is that on October 31, the extension-extension ends, and if no other extension has been granted and if Johnson has not revoked Brexit until then, it means that UK is out, no deal, end of story.
That is what currently matters. Everything else is just talk.
While the EU parliament has stated that they are favourable towards an extension (if there is a good reason, and if... blah blah) they don't even have a say in it, so that statement is rather worthless. Even if Johnson asks for another extension (which I think he cannot afford politically), it is not sure that it will be granted. Among those who do have a say in the matter, there have been several who, unless they do a 180° U-turn, are opposed to it, and it needs to be an unanimous vote. So, who knows, it's nowhere near certain.
As for withdrawal, Johnson can only revoke "in accordance with constitutional requirements blah blah", so another act would be necessary. Slightly under two weeks time for that, might be a bit tight, but generally possible as a desperate last-minute move. Except...
The question is, will Johnson do it? He might as well show everybody the middle finger, and what are you going to do about it? There's not much you can do. Oh yes, the parliament passed a bill. A nice little bill, voted on democratically, and written nicely on a worthless piece of paper. The rule of law, right.
Criminal proceedings against the Queen as well as Her Majesty's Government are prohibited. Which, if I understand correctly, means as much as: That bill is worth about as much as a piece of toilet paper, and Boris Johnson might as well use it for that purpose. Not sure if he is protected from being prosecuted for doing that, too, but I guess he is.
As a fun fact (again, if I understand correctly), the UK parliament on the other hand side does not seem to have immunity at all in the UK (only as far as civil action goes, and only for libel/slander) as they do in other countries. So they can be criminally prosecuted, which is kinda funny.
Be that as it may, Boris Johnson is a part of Her Majesty's Government. So... there is a law, and if Johnson just feels like he cannot be bothered to follow that law... well. So what. What are you going to do about it?
He is required to let the Queen sign stuff. Let's say he doesn't. He is required to find an agreement with the EU or failing to do so ask for an extension. He is required to provide status updates. If the parliament passes a "let's withdraw last minute" act, he is required to hand in the note.
Let's say he doesn't get an agreement, and doesn't ask for (or get) an extension. Let's say he lies about it in his status reports. Let's say the parliament decides "withdraw" the last moment, and he simply doesn't hand in the papers. My dog ate my homework, my car broke down, or anything excuse you like. He might even outright tell everybody: Yeah, I didn't feel like it. I told you, deal or no deal, we're out!
What now? Well, sue him. Jail him. Oh wait, you can't. What are you going to do? Have him resign. Oh teh noes, what a harsh penalty. Also, even if you could sue him, what would it change? Deadline past is deadline past. It simply doesn't matter whom you blame, whom you sue, or how you complain about it, once you've established facts.
The situation that a single man can just do what he wants and the state can't do anything is not as kafkaesque as it may seem (well it is, but it's nevertheless real). Rule of law? That's an illusion.
Remember Helmut Kohl, who back in the old days (around 1980-90?) replied to a court order which compelled him to reveal information about some huge sum of black money that had been found simply with "Ha ha ha, I'll not tell you anything". And that was just the end of the story. How many days did he spend in prison? Zero. Did he resign? No. Did it hurt his political career? No. Did it hurt the career of his protégé? No.
Guess what Boris Johnson will say when, after failing to comply with the bill, he is challenged with: "But you were required to...".
