Article 50

Boris Johnson will seek an extension to Article 50 if there is no Brexit deal by 19 October, documents read out in court today have revealed. This contradicts the Prime Minister’s assertion that he would rather be ‘dead in a ditch’ than delay Britain leaving to after the current deadline of 31 October. So what’s going on? The revelation comes in the government’s written case for a hearing on whether the Prime Minister will be in contempt of court if he doesn’t send the letter to the European Union asking for the extension which he is mandated to do by the Benn Act. The document says that ‘he cannot act

One thing on which Remainers and Brexiteers can agree is that Brexit delayed is Brexit denied. The government continues to proclaim that the UK will leave the EU on 31 October with or without a deal. But No. 10 is acutely sensitive to the possibility of a parliamentary manoeuvre designed to compel the executive, through legislation, to seek a further extension of Article 50 to delay Brexit yet again. But Boris Johnson should keep calm about this prospect, for an unlikely saviour – the president of France, Emmanuel Macron – could come to his rescue. Whatever Brexit extension legislation Parliament might push through, any further extension of Article 50 requires unanimous

After eight hours of talks between EU leaders, Theresa May has been granted an Article 50 extension. If the Prime Minister can pass her deal next week, there will be technical extension until 22 May. If the deal fails to pass, Article 50 will be extended only until 12 April so that the UK can set out its next steps – and potentially apply for a longer extension. This offer appears to give backbenchers time to try and – once again – seize control of the process if May fails to pass her deal. The Prime Minister’s problem is when it comes to meeting the first condition of the 22

Nigel Dodds of the DUP has not yet agreed a deal with Theresa May to bring his troop of ten MPs – and some of their Tory ERG Brexiter allies – into her camp for that momentous and precedent-smashing third “meaningful vote” on her Brexit deal. This means as of now the third “meaningful vote” remains the stuff of myth and legend; as I said on Saturday, it may not happen at all, or at least not before the European Union council on Thursday. A minister close to the PM tells me the cabinet expects the EU to grant the UK a Brexit delay of nine months – which would

This morning a group of more than 200 MPs from several parties made waves by penning a letter to the Prime Minister, urging her to rule out Britain leaving the European Union without a deal. In the text, they argued that a ‘mechanism that would ensure a no-deal Brexit could not take place’ would have the support of parliament. That may be so, but Mr Steerpike was curious to note how few of the MPs who signed the letter seem to actually understand the Brexit process. Unfortunately for them, unless an alternative is actively proposed – such as revoking Brexit or accepting May’s deal – no deal can’t be ruled

Have you noticed how many siren voices are suggesting that Britain rescinds Article 50 to buy time? The Irish Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, tells us that it is in the UK’s gift to avoid a no deal Brexit and buy “more time to decide what it wants” We have Sir John Major saying “We need to revoke Article 50 with immediate effect. The clock must be stopped. It is clear we need the most precious commodity of all: time.” Versions of this can be heard elsewhere. But it’s legal nonsense, for reasons that are not properly understood. The ECJ did not give us carte blanche to revoke the notice and then

The European Court of Justice is back in the headlines this morning. Its Advocate General, Manuel Campos Sanchez-Bordona, has declared that the UK might be able to cancel Brexit by revoking Article 50 unilaterally. So is that it settled? Not at all: nothing, with the ECJ, is ever that simple. In fact, the whole episode is a good chance to look at the ECJ and the way it works – and then ask if this is the kind of supreme court that Britain really wants to stay under. Take what happened this morning. We learn via a three-page press release what Sanchez-Bordona thinks about Article 50. An hour after that

While it might have garnered less attention than the political drama around the withdrawal agreement, next week’s European Court of Justice decision on whether the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50 – that is, cancel Brexit – could have serious ramifications. A bit of background on the case: in November 2017, a group of Scottish MPs, MEPs and MSPs – working with the anti-Brexit barrister Jolyon Maugham QC – asked the Scottish Advocate General to clarify whether the UK government had the right to revoke Article 50 if it wanted to. Ignoring the objections of the government – which insisted that, since Brexit was going ahead, there was no need

Jeremy Hunt has told Tory rebels that”if we don’t back Theresa May we will have no Brexit”. It echoes a point Paul Mason once made – a point that you hear quite often: there’s no chance of no deal on Brexit, because there is no parliamentary majority for no deal. It’s understandable, given recently chaos, to imagine that if things are falling apart then Brexit might be one of them. Lord Kerr, who helped draft the Article 50 withdrawal clause, said last week that “the Brexiters create the impression that… having sent in a letter on 29 March 2017 we must leave automatically on 29 March 2019 at the latest. That is

Tomorrow in Florence, Theresa May needs to make the speech of her life. Britain has a strong hand to play in these EU talks and it’s time the Prime Minister showed it. May must assert once again that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’, shoring up the UK’s bargaining position. She should also insist Britain won’t confirm any ‘divorce bill’ until these Article 50 talks end in March 2019, with the final amount dependent on the goodwill the EU has shown. Above all, taking her cue from Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister needs to present an inspiring vision of the UK outside the EU. The heyday

The decision by Conservative MPs to walk away from the Commons Committee on Exiting the EU is one of the most unintentionally revealing abdications of duty I have seen. The report they refused to endorse was polite to the point of blandness. The necessity of securing cross-party approval meant that its restrained language bore little relation to the chaos in Whitehall the committee’s hearings had uncovered. In March, the committee’s chair, Hilary Benn, showed its extent when he submitted David Davis to a tough cross-examination which the Brexit Secretary was lamentably unable to withstand. Although ministers were parroting the line that ‘no deal was better than a bad deal’, Benn

It was quite right for Theresa May to not mention Gibraltar in her Article 50 letter – why should the future of its people be in question in our negotiations? To do so would be to introduce a dangerous notion: that Gibraltar and its people were somehow a bargaining chip. Of course, the press will have fun with the idea that the Prime Minister forgot Gibraltar but far more plausible is Tim Shipman’s story in the Sunday Times today that the idea of mentioning it in the Brexit letter was raised several times – and rejected. That the EU has brought Gibraltar up as part of the Brexit deals right now is strange and shows a worrying

So we have the first sight of the European Council’s draft negotiating guidelines. They’re much more constructive that we would have been lead to believe. And there are no big surprises. The first headline point is that there is no mention of the €60 billion figure which Jean-Claude Juncker and the European Commission have loved to go on about. In fact no figure is mentioned at all. The section on money is restricted to saying that debts will need to be settled – something Theresa May has already acknowledged. It does not say when the cheque needs to be signed: A single financial settlement should ensure that the Union and the