,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
In a piece I wrote yesterday, I challenged various suggestions made by Vernon Bogdanor in a Guardian article. He has now written an article in the Times making similar/further suggestions that seem to me to be highly questionable. /1 thetimes.co.uk/article/how-th…
First, Bogdanor says a no-deal Brexit could be prevented by legislating to extend the Article 50 period or to repeal the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. /2 
But Parliament cannot extend the Article 50 period: at most, it can require the Prime Minister to ask the EU to do so, as it did via the Cooper-Letwin Bill in March; the EU would be at liberty to extend or not at its discretion. /3
Nor would repealing the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 make any difference. That legislation was needed (following the Miller case) to empower the Government to *trigger* Article 50, but its repeal would not *halt* the Article 50 process. /4
Second, Bogdanor suggests that Parliament could retrospectively legislate if 31 October were to fall during a general election and if Parliament subsequently wanted to reverse Brexit. /5
But while Parliament can legislate with retrospective effect, such legislation would be unlikely to have any effect in the present context. Brexit occurs by default operation of EU law on 31 Oct; UK legislation, retrospective or otherwise, cannot change the EU law postion. /6
The upshot is that none of the approaches suggested by Bogdanor would prevent (or reverse) a no-deal Brexit. For suggestions as to how Parliament might avert a no-deal Brexit, see my post from yesterday. /ends publiclawforeveryone.com/2019/08/08/can…
An addendum to point 6: Bogdanor does say that retrospective legislation would need to be passed with EU's agreement. But it's not at all clear to me EU would have legal power in effect to readmit UK on current terms after no-deal Brexit and to treat UK as never having left.
