Does extending Article 50 legally require a new set date?
If the United Kingdom chose to apply for a delay to Article 50, must they set a new (target) date in order to do so? Or could the UK suspend postpone Article 50 until further notice / indefinitely, without setting any new date? My question is from a legal point of view; whether the EU-27 would agree with such a move, even if possible, is a separate question.
united-kingdom european-union brexit article-50
edited Jan 20 at 18:54
JJJ
4,52622144
asked Jan 20 at 12:27
gerritgerrit
18.6k777174
add a comment |
If the United Kingdom chose to apply for a delay to Article 50, must they set a new (target) date in order to do so? Or could the UK suspend postpone Article 50 until further notice / indefinitely, without setting any new date? My question is from a legal point of view; whether the EU-27 would agree with such a move, even if possible, is a separate question.
united-kingdom european-union brexit article-50
edited Jan 20 at 18:54
JJJ
4,52622144
asked Jan 20 at 12:27
gerritgerrit
18.6k777174
2
It's worth noting that we shouldn't talk of "delaying Article 50", "suspending Article 50", "revoking Article 50", etc. This choice of wording seems to be common throughout the media, but is incorrect. Article 50 is an article in the Treaty on European Union. To modify the article itself would require unanimous agreement amongst the treaty signatories, and is typically not the meaning intended by those that use these phrases. Instead we should talk of delaying/suspending/revoking etc. the notice that the UK gave in accordance with Article 50.
– JBentley
Jan 21 at 15:12
On another note, since this is a legal question, would it not be better placed on law.stackexchange.com?
– JBentley
Jan 21 at 15:13
add a comment |
If the United Kingdom chose to apply for a delay to Article 50, must they set a new (target) date in order to do so? Or could the UK suspend postpone Article 50 until further notice / indefinitely, without setting any new date? My question is from a legal point of view; whether the EU-27 would agree with such a move, even if possible, is a separate question.
united-kingdom european-union brexit article-50
edited Jan 20 at 18:54
JJJ
4,52622144
asked Jan 20 at 12:27
gerritgerrit
18.6k777174
If the United Kingdom chose to apply for a delay to Article 50, must they set a new (target) date in order to do so? Or could the UK suspend postpone Article 50 until further notice / indefinitely, without setting any new date? My question is from a legal point of view; whether the EU-27 would agree with such a move, even if possible, is a separate question.
united-kingdom european-union brexit article-50
united-kingdom european-union brexit article-50
edited Jan 20 at 18:54
JJJ
4,52622144
asked Jan 20 at 12:27
gerritgerrit
18.6k777174
edited Jan 20 at 18:54
JJJ
4,52622144
asked Jan 20 at 12:27
gerritgerrit
18.6k777174
edited Jan 20 at 18:54
JJJ
4,52622144
edited Jan 20 at 18:54
JJJ
4,52622144
edited Jan 20 at 18:54
JJJ
4,52622144
4,52622144
asked Jan 20 at 12:27
gerritgerrit
18.6k777174
asked Jan 20 at 12:27
gerritgerrit
18.6k777174
asked Jan 20 at 12:27
gerritgerrit
18.6k777174
18.6k777174
2
It's worth noting that we shouldn't talk of "delaying Article 50", "suspending Article 50", "revoking Article 50", etc. This choice of wording seems to be common throughout the media, but is incorrect. Article 50 is an article in the Treaty on European Union. To modify the article itself would require unanimous agreement amongst the treaty signatories, and is typically not the meaning intended by those that use these phrases. Instead we should talk of delaying/suspending/revoking etc. the notice that the UK gave in accordance with Article 50.
– JBentley
Jan 21 at 15:12
On another note, since this is a legal question, would it not be better placed on law.stackexchange.com?
– JBentley
Jan 21 at 15:13
add a comment |
2
It's worth noting that we shouldn't talk of "delaying Article 50", "suspending Article 50", "revoking Article 50", etc. This choice of wording seems to be common throughout the media, but is incorrect. Article 50 is an article in the Treaty on European Union. To modify the article itself would require unanimous agreement amongst the treaty signatories, and is typically not the meaning intended by those that use these phrases. Instead we should talk of delaying/suspending/revoking etc. the notice that the UK gave in accordance with Article 50.
– JBentley
Jan 21 at 15:12
On another note, since this is a legal question, would it not be better placed on law.stackexchange.com?
– JBentley
Jan 21 at 15:13
2
2
It's worth noting that we shouldn't talk of "delaying Article 50", "suspending Article 50", "revoking Article 50", etc. This choice of wording seems to be common throughout the media, but is incorrect. Article 50 is an article in the Treaty on European Union. To modify the article itself would require unanimous agreement amongst the treaty signatories, and is typically not the meaning intended by those that use these phrases. Instead we should talk of delaying/suspending/revoking etc. the notice that the UK gave in accordance with Article 50.
– JBentley
Jan 21 at 15:12
It's worth noting that we shouldn't talk of "delaying Article 50", "suspending Article 50", "revoking Article 50", etc. This choice of wording seems to be common throughout the media, but is incorrect. Article 50 is an article in the Treaty on European Union. To modify the article itself would require unanimous agreement amongst the treaty signatories, and is typically not the meaning intended by those that use these phrases. Instead we should talk of delaying/suspending/revoking etc. the notice that the UK gave in accordance with Article 50.
– JBentley
Jan 21 at 15:12
On another note, since this is a legal question, would it not be better placed on law.stackexchange.com?
– JBentley
Jan 21 at 15:13
On another note, since this is a legal question, would it not be better placed on law.stackexchange.com?
– JBentley
Jan 21 at 15:13
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
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 force them to set a date. Note that this requires unanimity, while accepting a withdrawal agreement merely requires a qualified majority.
Article 50 was mostly written with the intention of never using it, so it is rather sketchy on details. Where beyond the article itself would one look for clarification? 50 (2) references TFEU, 50 (3) does not.
As I understand it:
Acting alone, the UK can:
Decide to Remain before March 29th.
Force a hard Brexit (i.e. no deal) on March 29th.
A sufficient minority of the EU27 can:
Prevent any deal, leaving the UK the choice between Remain and hard Brexit.
The UK and a qualified majority of the EU27 can:
Make a deal for a soft Brexit on or before March 29th.
Agree on a hard Brexit before March 29th (not that anybody wants that).
The UK and all of the EU27 can:
Set a date later than March 29th for the default hard Brexit, and keep negotiating for any of the other options. I believe they could also set no date and keep negotiating.
Follow-up: The BBC also writes that Article 50 can't be paused, only revoked or extended.
answered Jan 20 at 12:37
o.m.o.m.
7,96511429
2
This may be an English language question, but what is the difference between "suspend" and "extend without a date"?
– gerrit
Jan 20 at 12:49
9
@gerrit, as I understand it "suspending" Article 50 would suspend the Brexit negotiations, which is clearly not the intention of anybody in the UK but the Remainer minority. Using the process described in 50 (3) to extend the period, with or without a specific date, would keep Article 50 and the negotiations open.
– o.m.
Jan 20 at 12:59
1
Aha. I clearly meant an indefinite extension, I will clarify the question.
– gerrit
Jan 20 at 13:26
4
In your summary, you mean "soft brexit" = "brexit with a deal", and "hard brexit" = "brexit without a deal"? I'm asking because 3 years ago, a Brexit deal where the UK would leave Customs Union and Single Market would have been called a "hard Brexit".
– gerrit
Jan 20 at 15:54
2
It's worth noting that we shouldn't talk of "delaying Article 50", "suspending Article 50", "revoking Article 50", etc. This choice of wording seems to be common throughout the media, but is incorrect. Article 50 is an article in the Treaty on European Union. To modify the article itself would require unanimous agreement amongst the treaty signatories, and is typically not the meaning intended by those that use these phrases. Instead we should talk of delaying/suspending/revoking etc. the notice that the UK gave in accordance with Article 50
– JBentley
Jan 21 at 15:13
|
show 8 more comments
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 concerned,
unanimously decides to extend this period.
As the Treaty is silent on the requirement for any end date, it can be assumed that the Treaty allows for an indefinite extension, provided unanimous consent is given.
Furthermore, there is no mechanism for the UK to unilaterally "suspend" its exit from the European Union. The European Court of Justice ruled last month that the UK can unilaterally revoke its notice of intention to leave "in an unequivocal and unconditional manner"; in other words, without intending to send another such notification in the imminent future.
Additionally, it must be noted that the date and time of withdrawal is currently coded into UK law. Before any request for extension can be legally made, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act will need to be amended by the UK Parliament to allow for a different date.
answered Jan 20 at 13:08
Joe CJoe C
2,169425
2
Re changing the date and time: if that changes (by agreement between the UK and EU), section 20(4) of the Act allows the government to change the date in the Act to match the new one (subject to approval by both houses of Parliament - Schedule 7, Part 2, section 14 of the Act).
– Steve Melnikoff
Jan 20 at 18:52
It seems to me like there's no functional difference between requiring an end date on an extension or not. If a date is required, just pick "31 December 9999" and you effectively have an indefinite extension anyway.
– Andrzej Doyle
Jan 21 at 12:36
1
@AndrzejDoyle chances are at least one member state will object to making such long commitments. Since support must be unanimous, that would mean it wouldn't get extended.
– JJJ
Jan 23 at 4:39
@JJJ Likely true - but my point was that it's moot whether the Treaty allows for indefinite extensions or not. If a member state would object to a 9999 end date, they'd equally object to an indefinite extension as both are equivalent.
– Andrzej Doyle
Jan 24 at 13:10
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38202%2fdoes-extending-article-50-legally-require-a-new-set-date%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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 force them to set a date. Note that this requires unanimity, while accepting a withdrawal agreement merely requires a qualified majority.
Article 50 was mostly written with the intention of never using it, so it is rather sketchy on details. Where beyond the article itself would one look for clarification? 50 (2) references TFEU, 50 (3) does not.
As I understand it:
Acting alone, the UK can:
Decide to Remain before March 29th.
Force a hard Brexit (i.e. no deal) on March 29th.
A sufficient minority of the EU27 can:
Prevent any deal, leaving the UK the choice between Remain and hard Brexit.
The UK and a qualified majority of the EU27 can:
Make a deal for a soft Brexit on or before March 29th.
Agree on a hard Brexit before March 29th (not that anybody wants that).
The UK and all of the EU27 can:
Set a date later than March 29th for the default hard Brexit, and keep negotiating for any of the other options. I believe they could also set no date and keep negotiating.
Follow-up: The BBC also writes that Article 50 can't be paused, only revoked or extended.
answered Jan 20 at 12:37
o.m.o.m.
7,96511429
2
This may be an English language question, but what is the difference between "suspend" and "extend without a date"?
– gerrit
Jan 20 at 12:49
9
@gerrit, as I understand it "suspending" Article 50 would suspend the Brexit negotiations, which is clearly not the intention of anybody in the UK but the Remainer minority. Using the process described in 50 (3) to extend the period, with or without a specific date, would keep Article 50 and the negotiations open.
– o.m.
Jan 20 at 12:59
1
Aha. I clearly meant an indefinite extension, I will clarify the question.
– gerrit
Jan 20 at 13:26
4
In your summary, you mean "soft brexit" = "brexit with a deal", and "hard brexit" = "brexit without a deal"? I'm asking because 3 years ago, a Brexit deal where the UK would leave Customs Union and Single Market would have been called a "hard Brexit".
– gerrit
Jan 20 at 15:54
2
It's worth noting that we shouldn't talk of "delaying Article 50", "suspending Article 50", "revoking Article 50", etc. This choice of wording seems to be common throughout the media, but is incorrect. Article 50 is an article in the Treaty on European Union. To modify the article itself would require unanimous agreement amongst the treaty signatories, and is typically not the meaning intended by those that use these phrases. Instead we should talk of delaying/suspending/revoking etc. the notice that the UK gave in accordance with Article 50
– JBentley
Jan 21 at 15:13
|
show 8 more comments
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 force them to set a date. Note that this requires unanimity, while accepting a withdrawal agreement merely requires a qualified majority.
Article 50 was mostly written with the intention of never using it, so it is rather sketchy on details. Where beyond the article itself would one look for clarification? 50 (2) references TFEU, 50 (3) does not.
As I understand it:
Acting alone, the UK can:
Decide to Remain before March 29th.
Force a hard Brexit (i.e. no deal) on March 29th.
A sufficient minority of the EU27 can:
Prevent any deal, leaving the UK the choice between Remain and hard Brexit.
The UK and a qualified majority of the EU27 can:
Make a deal for a soft Brexit on or before March 29th.
Agree on a hard Brexit before March 29th (not that anybody wants that).
The UK and all of the EU27 can:
Set a date later than March 29th for the default hard Brexit, and keep negotiating for any of the other options. I believe they could also set no date and keep negotiating.
Follow-up: The BBC also writes that Article 50 can't be paused, only revoked or extended.
answered Jan 20 at 12:37
o.m.o.m.
7,96511429
2
This may be an English language question, but what is the difference between "suspend" and "extend without a date"?
– gerrit
Jan 20 at 12:49
9
@gerrit, as I understand it "suspending" Article 50 would suspend the Brexit negotiations, which is clearly not the intention of anybody in the UK but the Remainer minority. Using the process described in 50 (3) to extend the period, with or without a specific date, would keep Article 50 and the negotiations open.
– o.m.
Jan 20 at 12:59
1
Aha. I clearly meant an indefinite extension, I will clarify the question.
– gerrit
Jan 20 at 13:26
4
In your summary, you mean "soft brexit" = "brexit with a deal", and "hard brexit" = "brexit without a deal"? I'm asking because 3 years ago, a Brexit deal where the UK would leave Customs Union and Single Market would have been called a "hard Brexit".
– gerrit
Jan 20 at 15:54
2
It's worth noting that we shouldn't talk of "delaying Article 50", "suspending Article 50", "revoking Article 50", etc. This choice of wording seems to be common throughout the media, but is incorrect. Article 50 is an article in the Treaty on European Union. To modify the article itself would require unanimous agreement amongst the treaty signatories, and is typically not the meaning intended by those that use these phrases. Instead we should talk of delaying/suspending/revoking etc. the notice that the UK gave in accordance with Article 50
– JBentley
Jan 21 at 15:13
|
show 8 more comments
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 force them to set a date. Note that this requires unanimity, while accepting a withdrawal agreement merely requires a qualified majority.
Article 50 was mostly written with the intention of never using it, so it is rather sketchy on details. Where beyond the article itself would one look for clarification? 50 (2) references TFEU, 50 (3) does not.
As I understand it:
Acting alone, the UK can:
Decide to Remain before March 29th.
Force a hard Brexit (i.e. no deal) on March 29th.
A sufficient minority of the EU27 can:
Prevent any deal, leaving the UK the choice between Remain and hard Brexit.
The UK and a qualified majority of the EU27 can:
Make a deal for a soft Brexit on or before March 29th.
Agree on a hard Brexit before March 29th (not that anybody wants that).
The UK and all of the EU27 can:
Set a date later than March 29th for the default hard Brexit, and keep negotiating for any of the other options. I believe they could also set no date and keep negotiating.
Follow-up: The BBC also writes that Article 50 can't be paused, only revoked or extended.
answered Jan 20 at 12:37
o.m.o.m.
7,96511429
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 force them to set a date. Note that this requires unanimity, while accepting a withdrawal agreement merely requires a qualified majority.
Article 50 was mostly written with the intention of never using it, so it is rather sketchy on details. Where beyond the article itself would one look for clarification? 50 (2) references TFEU, 50 (3) does not.
As I understand it:
Acting alone, the UK can:
Decide to Remain before March 29th.
Force a hard Brexit (i.e. no deal) on March 29th.
A sufficient minority of the EU27 can:
Prevent any deal, leaving the UK the choice between Remain and hard Brexit.
The UK and a qualified majority of the EU27 can:
Make a deal for a soft Brexit on or before March 29th.
Agree on a hard Brexit before March 29th (not that anybody wants that).
The UK and all of the EU27 can:
Set a date later than March 29th for the default hard Brexit, and keep negotiating for any of the other options. I believe they could also set no date and keep negotiating.
Follow-up: The BBC also writes that Article 50 can't be paused, only revoked or extended.
answered Jan 20 at 12:37
o.m.o.m.
7,96511429
edited Jan 21 at 19:30
answered Jan 20 at 12:37
o.m.o.m.
7,96511429
answered Jan 20 at 12:37
o.m.o.m.
7,96511429
answered Jan 20 at 12:37
o.m.o.m.
7,96511429
7,96511429
2
This may be an English language question, but what is the difference between "suspend" and "extend without a date"?
– gerrit
Jan 20 at 12:49
9
@gerrit, as I understand it "suspending" Article 50 would suspend the Brexit negotiations, which is clearly not the intention of anybody in the UK but the Remainer minority. Using the process described in 50 (3) to extend the period, with or without a specific date, would keep Article 50 and the negotiations open.
– o.m.
Jan 20 at 12:59
1
Aha. I clearly meant an indefinite extension, I will clarify the question.
– gerrit
Jan 20 at 13:26
4
In your summary, you mean "soft brexit" = "brexit with a deal", and "hard brexit" = "brexit without a deal"? I'm asking because 3 years ago, a Brexit deal where the UK would leave Customs Union and Single Market would have been called a "hard Brexit".
– gerrit
Jan 20 at 15:54
2
It's worth noting that we shouldn't talk of "delaying Article 50", "suspending Article 50", "revoking Article 50", etc. This choice of wording seems to be common throughout the media, but is incorrect. Article 50 is an article in the Treaty on European Union. To modify the article itself would require unanimous agreement amongst the treaty signatories, and is typically not the meaning intended by those that use these phrases. Instead we should talk of delaying/suspending/revoking etc. the notice that the UK gave in accordance with Article 50
– JBentley
Jan 21 at 15:13
|
show 8 more comments
2
This may be an English language question, but what is the difference between "suspend" and "extend without a date"?
– gerrit
Jan 20 at 12:49
9
@gerrit, as I understand it "suspending" Article 50 would suspend the Brexit negotiations, which is clearly not the intention of anybody in the UK but the Remainer minority. Using the process described in 50 (3) to extend the period, with or without a specific date, would keep Article 50 and the negotiations open.
– o.m.
Jan 20 at 12:59
1
Aha. I clearly meant an indefinite extension, I will clarify the question.
– gerrit
Jan 20 at 13:26
4
In your summary, you mean "soft brexit" = "brexit with a deal", and "hard brexit" = "brexit without a deal"? I'm asking because 3 years ago, a Brexit deal where the UK would leave Customs Union and Single Market would have been called a "hard Brexit".
– gerrit
Jan 20 at 15:54
2
It's worth noting that we shouldn't talk of "delaying Article 50", "suspending Article 50", "revoking Article 50", etc. This choice of wording seems to be common throughout the media, but is incorrect. Article 50 is an article in the Treaty on European Union. To modify the article itself would require unanimous agreement amongst the treaty signatories, and is typically not the meaning intended by those that use these phrases. Instead we should talk of delaying/suspending/revoking etc. the notice that the UK gave in accordance with Article 50
– JBentley
Jan 21 at 15:13
2
2
This may be an English language question, but what is the difference between "suspend" and "extend without a date"?
– gerrit
Jan 20 at 12:49
This may be an English language question, but what is the difference between "suspend" and "extend without a date"?
– gerrit
Jan 20 at 12:49
9
9
@gerrit, as I understand it "suspending" Article 50 would suspend the Brexit negotiations, which is clearly not the intention of anybody in the UK but the Remainer minority. Using the process described in 50 (3) to extend the period, with or without a specific date, would keep Article 50 and the negotiations open.
– o.m.
Jan 20 at 12:59
@gerrit, as I understand it "suspending" Article 50 would suspend the Brexit negotiations, which is clearly not the intention of anybody in the UK but the Remainer minority. Using the process described in 50 (3) to extend the period, with or without a specific date, would keep Article 50 and the negotiations open.
– o.m.
Jan 20 at 12:59
1
1
Aha. I clearly meant an indefinite extension, I will clarify the question.
– gerrit
Jan 20 at 13:26
Aha. I clearly meant an indefinite extension, I will clarify the question.
– gerrit
Jan 20 at 13:26
4
4
In your summary, you mean "soft brexit" = "brexit with a deal", and "hard brexit" = "brexit without a deal"? I'm asking because 3 years ago, a Brexit deal where the UK would leave Customs Union and Single Market would have been called a "hard Brexit".
– gerrit
Jan 20 at 15:54
In your summary, you mean "soft brexit" = "brexit with a deal", and "hard brexit" = "brexit without a deal"? I'm asking because 3 years ago, a Brexit deal where the UK would leave Customs Union and Single Market would have been called a "hard Brexit".
– gerrit
Jan 20 at 15:54
2
2
It's worth noting that we shouldn't talk of "delaying Article 50", "suspending Article 50", "revoking Article 50", etc. This choice of wording seems to be common throughout the media, but is incorrect. Article 50 is an article in the Treaty on European Union. To modify the article itself would require unanimous agreement amongst the treaty signatories, and is typically not the meaning intended by those that use these phrases. Instead we should talk of delaying/suspending/revoking etc. the notice that the UK gave in accordance with Article 50
– JBentley
Jan 21 at 15:13
It's worth noting that we shouldn't talk of "delaying Article 50", "suspending Article 50", "revoking Article 50", etc. This choice of wording seems to be common throughout the media, but is incorrect. Article 50 is an article in the Treaty on European Union. To modify the article itself would require unanimous agreement amongst the treaty signatories, and is typically not the meaning intended by those that use these phrases. Instead we should talk of delaying/suspending/revoking etc. the notice that the UK gave in accordance with Article 50
– JBentley
Jan 21 at 15:13
|
show 8 more comments
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 concerned,
unanimously decides to extend this period.
As the Treaty is silent on the requirement for any end date, it can be assumed that the Treaty allows for an indefinite extension, provided unanimous consent is given.
Furthermore, there is no mechanism for the UK to unilaterally "suspend" its exit from the European Union. The European Court of Justice ruled last month that the UK can unilaterally revoke its notice of intention to leave "in an unequivocal and unconditional manner"; in other words, without intending to send another such notification in the imminent future.
Additionally, it must be noted that the date and time of withdrawal is currently coded into UK law. Before any request for extension can be legally made, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act will need to be amended by the UK Parliament to allow for a different date.
answered Jan 20 at 13:08
Joe CJoe C
2,169425
2
Re changing the date and time: if that changes (by agreement between the UK and EU), section 20(4) of the Act allows the government to change the date in the Act to match the new one (subject to approval by both houses of Parliament - Schedule 7, Part 2, section 14 of the Act).
– Steve Melnikoff
Jan 20 at 18:52
It seems to me like there's no functional difference between requiring an end date on an extension or not. If a date is required, just pick "31 December 9999" and you effectively have an indefinite extension anyway.
– Andrzej Doyle
Jan 21 at 12:36
1
@AndrzejDoyle chances are at least one member state will object to making such long commitments. Since support must be unanimous, that would mean it wouldn't get extended.
– JJJ
Jan 23 at 4:39
@JJJ Likely true - but my point was that it's moot whether the Treaty allows for indefinite extensions or not. If a member state would object to a 9999 end date, they'd equally object to an indefinite extension as both are equivalent.
– Andrzej Doyle
Jan 24 at 13:10
add a comment |
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 concerned,
unanimously decides to extend this period.
As the Treaty is silent on the requirement for any end date, it can be assumed that the Treaty allows for an indefinite extension, provided unanimous consent is given.
Furthermore, there is no mechanism for the UK to unilaterally "suspend" its exit from the European Union. The European Court of Justice ruled last month that the UK can unilaterally revoke its notice of intention to leave "in an unequivocal and unconditional manner"; in other words, without intending to send another such notification in the imminent future.
Additionally, it must be noted that the date and time of withdrawal is currently coded into UK law. Before any request for extension can be legally made, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act will need to be amended by the UK Parliament to allow for a different date.
answered Jan 20 at 13:08
Joe CJoe C
2,169425
2
Re changing the date and time: if that changes (by agreement between the UK and EU), section 20(4) of the Act allows the government to change the date in the Act to match the new one (subject to approval by both houses of Parliament - Schedule 7, Part 2, section 14 of the Act).
– Steve Melnikoff
Jan 20 at 18:52
It seems to me like there's no functional difference between requiring an end date on an extension or not. If a date is required, just pick "31 December 9999" and you effectively have an indefinite extension anyway.
– Andrzej Doyle
Jan 21 at 12:36
1
@AndrzejDoyle chances are at least one member state will object to making such long commitments. Since support must be unanimous, that would mean it wouldn't get extended.
– JJJ
Jan 23 at 4:39
@JJJ Likely true - but my point was that it's moot whether the Treaty allows for indefinite extensions or not. If a member state would object to a 9999 end date, they'd equally object to an indefinite extension as both are equivalent.
– Andrzej Doyle
Jan 24 at 13:10
add a comment |
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 concerned,
unanimously decides to extend this period.
As the Treaty is silent on the requirement for any end date, it can be assumed that the Treaty allows for an indefinite extension, provided unanimous consent is given.
Furthermore, there is no mechanism for the UK to unilaterally "suspend" its exit from the European Union. The European Court of Justice ruled last month that the UK can unilaterally revoke its notice of intention to leave "in an unequivocal and unconditional manner"; in other words, without intending to send another such notification in the imminent future.
Additionally, it must be noted that the date and time of withdrawal is currently coded into UK law. Before any request for extension can be legally made, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act will need to be amended by the UK Parliament to allow for a different date.
answered Jan 20 at 13:08
Joe CJoe C
2,169425
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 concerned,
unanimously decides to extend this period.
As the Treaty is silent on the requirement for any end date, it can be assumed that the Treaty allows for an indefinite extension, provided unanimous consent is given.
Furthermore, there is no mechanism for the UK to unilaterally "suspend" its exit from the European Union. The European Court of Justice ruled last month that the UK can unilaterally revoke its notice of intention to leave "in an unequivocal and unconditional manner"; in other words, without intending to send another such notification in the imminent future.
Additionally, it must be noted that the date and time of withdrawal is currently coded into UK law. Before any request for extension can be legally made, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act will need to be amended by the UK Parliament to allow for a different date.
answered Jan 20 at 13:08
Joe CJoe C
2,169425
answered Jan 20 at 13:08
Joe CJoe C
2,169425
answered Jan 20 at 13:08
Joe CJoe C
2,169425
answered Jan 20 at 13:08
Joe CJoe C
2,169425
2,169425
2
Re changing the date and time: if that changes (by agreement between the UK and EU), section 20(4) of the Act allows the government to change the date in the Act to match the new one (subject to approval by both houses of Parliament - Schedule 7, Part 2, section 14 of the Act).
– Steve Melnikoff
Jan 20 at 18:52
It seems to me like there's no functional difference between requiring an end date on an extension or not. If a date is required, just pick "31 December 9999" and you effectively have an indefinite extension anyway.
– Andrzej Doyle
Jan 21 at 12:36
1
@AndrzejDoyle chances are at least one member state will object to making such long commitments. Since support must be unanimous, that would mean it wouldn't get extended.
– JJJ
Jan 23 at 4:39
@JJJ Likely true - but my point was that it's moot whether the Treaty allows for indefinite extensions or not. If a member state would object to a 9999 end date, they'd equally object to an indefinite extension as both are equivalent.
– Andrzej Doyle
Jan 24 at 13:10
add a comment |
2
Re changing the date and time: if that changes (by agreement between the UK and EU), section 20(4) of the Act allows the government to change the date in the Act to match the new one (subject to approval by both houses of Parliament - Schedule 7, Part 2, section 14 of the Act).
– Steve Melnikoff
Jan 20 at 18:52
It seems to me like there's no functional difference between requiring an end date on an extension or not. If a date is required, just pick "31 December 9999" and you effectively have an indefinite extension anyway.
– Andrzej Doyle
Jan 21 at 12:36
1
@AndrzejDoyle chances are at least one member state will object to making such long commitments. Since support must be unanimous, that would mean it wouldn't get extended.
– JJJ
Jan 23 at 4:39
@JJJ Likely true - but my point was that it's moot whether the Treaty allows for indefinite extensions or not. If a member state would object to a 9999 end date, they'd equally object to an indefinite extension as both are equivalent.
– Andrzej Doyle
Jan 24 at 13:10
2
2
Re changing the date and time: if that changes (by agreement between the UK and EU), section 20(4) of the Act allows the government to change the date in the Act to match the new one (subject to approval by both houses of Parliament - Schedule 7, Part 2, section 14 of the Act).
– Steve Melnikoff
Jan 20 at 18:52
Re changing the date and time: if that changes (by agreement between the UK and EU), section 20(4) of the Act allows the government to change the date in the Act to match the new one (subject to approval by both houses of Parliament - Schedule 7, Part 2, section 14 of the Act).
– Steve Melnikoff
Jan 20 at 18:52
It seems to me like there's no functional difference between requiring an end date on an extension or not. If a date is required, just pick "31 December 9999" and you effectively have an indefinite extension anyway.
– Andrzej Doyle
Jan 21 at 12:36
It seems to me like there's no functional difference between requiring an end date on an extension or not. If a date is required, just pick "31 December 9999" and you effectively have an indefinite extension anyway.
– Andrzej Doyle
Jan 21 at 12:36
1
1
@AndrzejDoyle chances are at least one member state will object to making such long commitments. Since support must be unanimous, that would mean it wouldn't get extended.
– JJJ
Jan 23 at 4:39
@AndrzejDoyle chances are at least one member state will object to making such long commitments. Since support must be unanimous, that would mean it wouldn't get extended.
– JJJ
Jan 23 at 4:39
@JJJ Likely true - but my point was that it's moot whether the Treaty allows for indefinite extensions or not. If a member state would object to a 9999 end date, they'd equally object to an indefinite extension as both are equivalent.
– Andrzej Doyle
Jan 24 at 13:10
@JJJ Likely true - but my point was that it's moot whether the Treaty allows for indefinite extensions or not. If a member state would object to a 9999 end date, they'd equally object to an indefinite extension as both are equivalent.
– Andrzej Doyle
Jan 24 at 13:10
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38202%2fdoes-extending-article-50-legally-require-a-new-set-date%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
It's worth noting that we shouldn't talk of "delaying Article 50", "suspending Article 50", "revoking Article 50", etc. This choice of wording seems to be common throughout the media, but is incorrect. Article 50 is an article in the Treaty on European Union. To modify the article itself would require unanimous agreement amongst the treaty signatories, and is typically not the meaning intended by those that use these phrases. Instead we should talk of delaying/suspending/revoking etc. the notice that the UK gave in accordance with Article 50.
– JBentley
Jan 21 at 15:12
On another note, since this is a legal question, would it not be better placed on law.stackexchange.com?
– JBentley
Jan 21 at 15:13