,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
It is worthwhile to refute this argument by Vernon Bogdanor (who I rever as a constitutional law scholar as everyone else does) in full. So let me try. (Thread)
1) The question whether the UK is or is not a member of the EU is not a matter of UK law, but a matter of EU law. If the UK Parliament passes a law on November 2 retroactively extending the Brexit deadline this will not have any effect on the EU27. For them, the UK have left.
2) How does EU law handle the matter whether the UK is still or is not a member of the EU? The central provision is our beloved Art. 50 TEU. Art. 50(3) reads as follows: 
3) The day the Treaties shall cease to apply - that’s Brexit day. Art. 50(3) puts that day either on the day the Withdrawal Agreement enters into force or - failing that - two years after the Brexit notification.
4) As is by now well known, Art. 50(3) allows for an extension - requiring a unanimous decision by the European Counsel in agreement with the member state concerned (a.k.a. The UK)
5) “Fine” I hear you say, this is precisely what VB says: with the consent of the others, so if all 28 agree, why not extend the withdrawal deadline retroactively?
6) Let me direct you to Art. 50(5) TEU. Here’s the wording.
In other words: once a state is out of the EU, the right procedure to get back into the EU is Art. 49. 49 is the provision on joining the EU.
If a retroactive extension of Art. 50(3) would be possible, why would Art. 50 point states to Art. 49 for rejoining? A retroactive extension is far easier. Or in short: The argument that Art. 50(3) could be extended retroactively is not convincing.
