58

In theory: Yes. Brexit requires legislation, which the Queen can veto; and the Queen also has prerogative over international treaties. It was decided by the UK Supreme Court that the government cannot instigate Brexit at all without the approval of Parliament. Parliament has already passed an Act authorising the Prime Minister to trigger article 50 of the ...


51

No, by paragraph 4 of article 50 (citing 2 and 3 as well because 4 refers back to those): A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for ...


43

@origimbo's answer is completely correct and accurate. I would just like to go into the details of the Supreme Court ruling and what the UK Parliament has done. Supreme Court ruling Basically, the Supreme Court has ruled that as seen in this article by The Telegraph. Supreme Court justices ruled, by a majority of eight to three, that Prime Minister Theresa ...


40

Probably not. Article 10 of the Treaty of the European Union states that: Member States are represented in the European Council by their Heads of State or Government It follows, therefore, that any notification made to the European Council must come from either the relevant country's Head of State or Head of Government. In the case of the United ...


37

The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 received royal assent on March 16th 2017. Since this bill passed both houses and has become law, the constitutional requirements for parliamentary assent that the Supreme court decision considered necessary have been met.


35

The UK cannot suspend her Article 50 notification. It can merely retract the notification and that would have to be in good faith, i.e. with the intention to stay for the foreseeable future. So a retraction has no new set date. The UK and EU27, acting unanimously, can extend the negotiation period as long as they like. I'm not aware of any rule that would ...


28

Without citing President Macron directly, the BBC summarizes some of the reasons that play a role: But France worries a 12-week extension could encourage more UK indecisiveness or a general election which may prove inconclusive on Brexit. President Emmanuel Macron favours a short, sharp Brexit delay; encouraging MPs and the UK government to concentrate on ...


27

This would probably end up in the Courts. Assuming the ECJ concurs with the Advocate General, the decision to revoke an Article 50 notification must be done in Good Faith, and following proper constitutional processes. The ruling from the ECJ does not mention "Good Faith", but instead requires the revocation to be unequivocal and unconditional, that is ...


24

To add a bit more (I read the full rulings which are interesting), the supreme court didn't say Theresa May (i.e., the government based on the prime minister's wish) could not trigger article 50. What they said was, the government (and in the old days, the King) could not take a step that would affect people's legal rights without parliament's clear ...


17

The role of the House of Lords is to: make laws check and challenge the actions of the government, and provide a forum of independent expertise Though no party has a majority in the House of Lords, it rarely blocks government legislation. Instead, one of its key purposes is to scrutinise legislation in a less hurried fashion than often happens ...


17

He is talking about Article 50 of the Treaties of the European Union. These treaties are the constitutional base of the European Union. The article is about a country voluntarily leaving the union: Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. A Member State which decides to withdraw ...


15

In a recent update to this issue, the European Court of Justice's Advocate General has issued a non-binding opinion that a country can revoke Article 50 unilaterally. According to BBC News: In a written statement, the ECJ said Mr Campos Sanchez-Bordona's opinion was that if a country decided to leave the EU, it should also have the power to change its mind ...


14

According to Luxemburg Times, Marcon only wants to grant an extension until Nov 30. French President Emmanuel Macron wants to grant a delay until 30 November, or even sooner, to put pressure on the House of Commons to back Boris Johnson's deal. Other EU governments see that as too much of a gamble because it could lead to a no-deal Brexit. They are pushing ...


13

This is a legal requirement determined by the UK courts: The judgement means Theresa May cannot begin talks with the EU until MPs and peers give their backing - although this is expected to happen in time for the government's 31 March deadline. On top of that, legislatures will often times have 'obvious' debates where everyone knows the outcome ...


13

There is no definitive answer to this question and it's not even clear if it is political (to be decided by the European Council) or a legal question (to be decided by the European Court of Justice). Probably both in reality. Let's say there was a snap general election in the UK and a coalition of pro-Remain parties became the Government with Nick Clegg as ...


13

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 ...


12

To directly answer your question... The Lisbon Treaty modified the way in which the EU treaties can be amended, with Art. 48 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) creating a new system for treaty reform at EU level prior to an eventual intergovernmental conference and national ratification. (source) Ordinary revision procedure The Government of ...


12

Article 50 is only 250 words, and has no provisions for canceling a request once issued. Once Article 50 is formally triggered, by a Head of Government (Prime Minister Theresa May) notifying the European Council that it is invoking Article 50, there is no provision written to withdraw or cancel that notification. Upon invoking Article 50, a 2 year clock ...


10

She could, but would have been unlikely to happen. The Supreme Court ruled in January that Parliament must vote on whether to invoke Article 50 (although the devolved parliaments do not need to be consulted). The president of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, stated “Section 2 of the 1972 [European Communities] Act provides that, whenever EU institutions ...


10

Article 50, Paragraph 3 of the Treaty of the European Union states (emphasis mine): The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State ...


9

If the UK and most but not all of the EU27 agreed that they need the extra time, maybe. (If all of the EU27 agreed, there would be easier ways to extend the negotiation.) If it was the UK idea to follow the letter of Article 50 while breaking the spirit, I would guess no. I believe that most of the people and governments in the EU27 would have preferred it ...


9

The decision to revoke the Article 50 notification would have to be unequivocal and unconditional and it would have to follow the democratic process according to UK constitutional requirements. Given the various Brexit laws, it might be interpreted as unconstitutional if the PM unilaterally revokes the notification. Lawyers and courts would have to rule on ...


8

March 29th is the Friday before the 1st of April, the new financial year. That gives financial institutions the weekend to calm their nerves, get IT systems up and running and make a "clean" break on the first day of the new financial/tax year. Of course the plan is to have a transition period during which nothing much changes, so this may be an unimportant ...


8

The main reason is that there is a two-year timeframe for negotiations to take place once Article 50 is invoked. Theresa May's government's was just formed 3 months ago and is thus still preparing for negotiations. The negotiations are crucial to reach an agreeable deal between the UK and the EU. The government needs time to plan out the negotiations and ...


8

Mostly the EU court of justice willingness to get creative or even political at times. It's not obvious to me that article 50 was really meant to ever be used (as opposed to placating EU skeptics during negotiations on the treaty) and it is pretty light on procedural details. Case in point the possibility to go back on the article 50 invocation unilaterally ...


7

Armatita is very clear in his response, but one thing I am missing. When a new Law is introduced this law does not apply retroactively. And the same would apply to 'Rewriting Article 50'. It would apply from the day it was 'Rewritten' and accepted, and not from the Day 'Article 50' was invoked nor the day the Brits voted in favour of Brexit.


7

No, "take account" only refers to the negotiations. The agreement would be done at EU level and only take effect after the department member state leaves. It is allowed to make such negotiations, just not to enact the trade deal until the departing member has departed.


7

Dissuasion to Frexit My 2 cents point of view as a French citizen, Macron wants to make an example of what will happen when a country leaves EU. The next election in France will be in 2022, any candidates pro Frexit will have weakened arguments after the debacle of Brexit. By 2022, we will have more hindsight of Brexit consequences. Le Pen Quote from ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible