Question from someone not particularly interested one way or the other: If an Act of Parliament (AoP) is required to revoke Article 50 (A50), sure it would also be a requirement to change dates? (Or did I miss that AoP?). In other words, surely if you need to change the smallest detail in this A50 contract, an AoP is required?
Since that Gena Millar got involved your MP's can do what the hell they like. Notice I say your, I have disowned the lot of e'm.
Have a read of this https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/03/26/we-can-and-should-revoke-article-50-heres-how-to-do-it/ It questions whether there is a need for an AoP to revoke 50 and touches upon exit date - I'm sure the writer may get dismissed as a remainer but he's also teaches constitutional law
Thanks for that, but it doesn't really answer my question. I can see that there appear to be 4 avenues for revoking. Fair dinkum. However, my question was really couched at the contract aspect of A50 - i.e. why does it need an AoP for one aspect of the contract (revoke) and not the other (extension)? If we have the power to revoke, surely we should have the power to announce an extension? Is my point a little clearer, or is my urgent need for a Grampa nap making me more confusing than usual?
We needed an act of Parliament to give notice to leave,don't think it was for any date,as was always likely to be a phased exit.
they're making it up as they go along, banana gob Miller should be sent back to the jungle the dirty old slag
I think in theory that of course works. The problem with it is that it would still be pretty toxic politically to revoke article 50 first and, as the EU will almost always offer an extension (the only question being what conditions they will attach to it) and virtually certainly offer an extension where another referendum is being held, there would be no need to revoke article 50, so most politicians I think would take the easy option of get the extension and then revoke afterwards. That's why even the most vocal Remainers - Lib Dems and TIG/Change UK - are putting most of their energy into a second referendum rather than revoke straight away
We do need a Parliamentary vote for the extension. They voted on the existing extension (but I think it was effectively an amendment to an AoP rather than an AoP, which in either case needs Parliament's vote) and will need to do the same for the next one.
This might be a little clearer from the last extension; Yesterday (Wednesday 27 March), the House of Commons debated and voted to approve a draft Statutory Instrument – the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 – to change ‘exit day’. The draft statutory instrument (SI) was laid before Parliament under paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and had to be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. Here we look at what happened in the Commons and the Lords and how this affects ‘exit day’. Why is the SI needed? This SI was needed to amend Section 20(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 , which defines ‘exit day’ as 29 March 2019 at 11pm. It puts into UK law, among other things, the day on which the European Communities Act 1972 is repealed and EU legislation becomes retained EU law. This is necessary because of the extension to the Article 50 period agreed by the EU27 on 21 March and adopted as a European Council Decision on 22 March 2019. The SI does not itself extend the Article 50 process; the extension was agreed between the EU and the UK as a matter of EU and international law. But it ensures the UK statute book reflects the agreed extension of Article 50, and aligns ‘exit day’ with the new date and time on which the EU Treaties cease to apply to the UK in EU and international law. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/the-eu/eu-exit-day-is-changed-in-uk-law/
Mrs May is asking for a (nother) delay to BREXIT, this time unitl 30th June. Mr Tusk say at least a year. Who do you think will win? You poor bastards.
