,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I confess that (apart from the correct criticism by @TomTugendhat concerning the premise of the question) I feel that both the Speaker and Ian Duncan Smith fail to adequately describe the legal situation concerning no-deal (thread)
@TomTugendhat 1) To start with: On 31 October the effect of the treaties will cease for the UK. This is a matter of EU law (IDS is correct in that regard). It is Art. 50 in operation. There are only three ways to change this:
A) Another extension, requiring unanimous consent by all EU Member States and the UK. B) Revocation of the Art. 50 notice. Revocation has to be done by someone who can speak for the UK, but can be unilateral. C) A deal is agreed.
2) So how does Parliament come into this - and how does it not?
It does NOT change the Brexit date by merely internal UK measures. Passing an act stating “Brexit does not happen” or “Brexit day is 1 Jan 2135” has NO effect on Brexit day. Parliament has to reach the EU level.
It does NOT change the Brexit date by merely internal UK measures. Passing an act stating “Brexit does not happen” or “Brexit day is 1 Jan 2135” has NO effect on Brexit day. Parliament has to reach the EU level.
However, Parliament could well force the government to take any of the three routes changing Brexit day. And here I follow the Speaker: I do not see Parliament as bound by a past decision.
Parliamentary procedure might pose hurdles here (I think the IfG has a report out on that, right @jillongovt? - But then the IfG has a report out on everything ;-)). But the main hurdle for me is: Parliament has to agree. The default is a no-deal Brexit on 31 October.
