If the UK government illegally doesn't ask for article 50 extension, can parliament do it instead?Could parliament ask the Queen to request an extension of EU membership?What happens if Parliament rejects the Brexit deal?“The Treaties” in article 50 of the Lisbon TreatyWhat's the point in holding a second Brexit referendum?Is EU Treaty Article 50 (2) paradoxical?Why is an extension of Article 50 needed if a deal gets accepted?What is the maximum sanction that can be placed on a UK government or PM for acting illegallyWhen does the European Scrutiny Committee get involved in the legislative process?If Parliament were prorogued for a long period, how would the government raise funds?Could the UK amend the European Withdrawal Act and revoke the Article 50 invocation?Could parliament ask the Queen to request an extension of EU membership?
Map a function that takes arguments in different levels of a list
How did Gollum know Sauron was gathering the Haradrim to make war?
What is this red bug infesting some trees in southern Germany?
Why do modes sound so different, although they are basically the same as a mode of another scale?
Heuristic argument for the Riemann Hypothesis
What is the most likely cause of short, quick, and useless reviews?
Punishment in pacifist society
How can I portray a character with no fear of death, without them sounding utterly bored?
Design of 50 ohms RF trace for 2.4GHz...Double layer FR-4 PCB
What does this sign on a hiking trail communicate?
Is mathematics truth?
Are manifolds admitting a circle foliation covered by manifolds with a (non-trivial) circle action?
How can I design a magically-induced coma?
Is it rude to ask my opponent to resign an online game when they have a lost endgame?
Meaning of "offen balkon machen"?
Can an intercepting fighter jet force a small propeller aircraft down without completely destroying it?
When making yogurt, why doesn't bad bacteria grow as well?
Is torque as fundamental a concept as force?
If the UK government illegally doesn't ask for article 50 extension, can parliament do it instead?
Why KVM VPS is slower then OPENVZ
Which is the best password hashing algorithm in .Net Core?
My boss says "This will help us better view the utilization of your services." Does this mean my job is ending in this organisation?
Why do old games use flashing as means of showing damage?
Updating multiple vector points at once with vertex editor in QGIS?
If the UK government illegally doesn't ask for article 50 extension, can parliament do it instead?
Could parliament ask the Queen to request an extension of EU membership?What happens if Parliament rejects the Brexit deal?“The Treaties” in article 50 of the Lisbon TreatyWhat's the point in holding a second Brexit referendum?Is EU Treaty Article 50 (2) paradoxical?Why is an extension of Article 50 needed if a deal gets accepted?What is the maximum sanction that can be placed on a UK government or PM for acting illegallyWhen does the European Scrutiny Committee get involved in the legislative process?If Parliament were prorogued for a long period, how would the government raise funds?Could the UK amend the European Withdrawal Act and revoke the Article 50 invocation?Could parliament ask the Queen to request an extension of EU membership?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
The Guardian reported under the headline "Brexit: Gove refuses to rule out ignoring any law passed to stop no deal":
Michael Gove has repeatedly refused to rule out the possibility that the government could ignore any law passed by parliament to stop a no-deal Brexit
and
Asked again whether it would be extraordinary for a government not to abide by the law, Gove said: “We will see what the legislation says when it is brought forward.
Concerning extensions, all I found out is the actual article1 reading
- 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.
(emphasis mine)
doesn't specify how extensions are requested, in fact, it doesn't even say anything about a request, just "in agreement with the Member State".
So, the final question:
If the parliament were to pass legislation mandating extension and the government refuses to ask the European Council, can one of these happen:
- the EU just says: "Well, parliament said it, so the UK want to extend, we'll decide if we want to as well"
- parliament (possibly through some representative e.g. speaker) decides to ask themselves
Please don't question if practically the Council could agree internally at short notice, just assume it could happen.
If you want, I'd be happy to see information on whether such an extension without government involvement would practically work, although that is not the primary question.
1 link doesn't go to the treaty, but European Parliament research (including article 50 on page 2) because it provides context and further reading in case anyone is interested.
united-kingdom european-union brexit parliament article-50
edited 5 hours ago
David Richerby
2,3179 silver badges21 bronze badges
asked yesterday
user24343user24343
3523 silver badges8 bronze badges
add a comment |
The Guardian reported under the headline "Brexit: Gove refuses to rule out ignoring any law passed to stop no deal":
Michael Gove has repeatedly refused to rule out the possibility that the government could ignore any law passed by parliament to stop a no-deal Brexit
and
Asked again whether it would be extraordinary for a government not to abide by the law, Gove said: “We will see what the legislation says when it is brought forward.
Concerning extensions, all I found out is the actual article1 reading
- 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.
(emphasis mine)
doesn't specify how extensions are requested, in fact, it doesn't even say anything about a request, just "in agreement with the Member State".
So, the final question:
If the parliament were to pass legislation mandating extension and the government refuses to ask the European Council, can one of these happen:
- the EU just says: "Well, parliament said it, so the UK want to extend, we'll decide if we want to as well"
- parliament (possibly through some representative e.g. speaker) decides to ask themselves
Please don't question if practically the Council could agree internally at short notice, just assume it could happen.
If you want, I'd be happy to see information on whether such an extension without government involvement would practically work, although that is not the primary question.
1 link doesn't go to the treaty, but European Parliament research (including article 50 on page 2) because it provides context and further reading in case anyone is interested.
united-kingdom european-union brexit parliament article-50
edited 5 hours ago
David Richerby
2,3179 silver badges21 bronze badges
asked yesterday
user24343user24343
3523 silver badges8 bronze badges
Comments deleted. Please don't use comments to answer the question. If you want to answer, post a proper answer which adheres to our quality standards.
– Philipp♦
9 hours ago
add a comment |
The Guardian reported under the headline "Brexit: Gove refuses to rule out ignoring any law passed to stop no deal":
Michael Gove has repeatedly refused to rule out the possibility that the government could ignore any law passed by parliament to stop a no-deal Brexit
and
Asked again whether it would be extraordinary for a government not to abide by the law, Gove said: “We will see what the legislation says when it is brought forward.
Concerning extensions, all I found out is the actual article1 reading
- 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.
(emphasis mine)
doesn't specify how extensions are requested, in fact, it doesn't even say anything about a request, just "in agreement with the Member State".
So, the final question:
If the parliament were to pass legislation mandating extension and the government refuses to ask the European Council, can one of these happen:
- the EU just says: "Well, parliament said it, so the UK want to extend, we'll decide if we want to as well"
- parliament (possibly through some representative e.g. speaker) decides to ask themselves
Please don't question if practically the Council could agree internally at short notice, just assume it could happen.
If you want, I'd be happy to see information on whether such an extension without government involvement would practically work, although that is not the primary question.
1 link doesn't go to the treaty, but European Parliament research (including article 50 on page 2) because it provides context and further reading in case anyone is interested.
united-kingdom european-union brexit parliament article-50
edited 5 hours ago
David Richerby
2,3179 silver badges21 bronze badges
asked yesterday
user24343user24343
3523 silver badges8 bronze badges
The Guardian reported under the headline "Brexit: Gove refuses to rule out ignoring any law passed to stop no deal":
Michael Gove has repeatedly refused to rule out the possibility that the government could ignore any law passed by parliament to stop a no-deal Brexit
and
Asked again whether it would be extraordinary for a government not to abide by the law, Gove said: “We will see what the legislation says when it is brought forward.
Concerning extensions, all I found out is the actual article1 reading
- 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.
(emphasis mine)
doesn't specify how extensions are requested, in fact, it doesn't even say anything about a request, just "in agreement with the Member State".
So, the final question:
If the parliament were to pass legislation mandating extension and the government refuses to ask the European Council, can one of these happen:
- the EU just says: "Well, parliament said it, so the UK want to extend, we'll decide if we want to as well"
- parliament (possibly through some representative e.g. speaker) decides to ask themselves
Please don't question if practically the Council could agree internally at short notice, just assume it could happen.
If you want, I'd be happy to see information on whether such an extension without government involvement would practically work, although that is not the primary question.
1 link doesn't go to the treaty, but European Parliament research (including article 50 on page 2) because it provides context and further reading in case anyone is interested.
united-kingdom european-union brexit parliament article-50
united-kingdom european-union brexit parliament article-50
edited 5 hours ago
David Richerby
2,3179 silver badges21 bronze badges
asked yesterday
user24343user24343
3523 silver badges8 bronze badges
edited 5 hours ago
David Richerby
2,3179 silver badges21 bronze badges
asked yesterday
user24343user24343
3523 silver badges8 bronze badges
edited 5 hours ago
David Richerby
2,3179 silver badges21 bronze badges
edited 5 hours ago
David Richerby
2,3179 silver badges21 bronze badges
edited 5 hours ago
David Richerby
2,3179 silver badges21 bronze badges
2,3179 silver badges21 bronze badges
asked yesterday
user24343user24343
3523 silver badges8 bronze badges
asked yesterday
user24343user24343
3523 silver badges8 bronze badges
asked yesterday
user24343user24343
3523 silver badges8 bronze badges
3523 silver badges8 bronze badges
Comments deleted. Please don't use comments to answer the question. If you want to answer, post a proper answer which adheres to our quality standards.
– Philipp♦
9 hours ago
add a comment |
Comments deleted. Please don't use comments to answer the question. If you want to answer, post a proper answer which adheres to our quality standards.
– Philipp♦
9 hours ago
Comments deleted. Please don't use comments to answer the question. If you want to answer, post a proper answer which adheres to our quality standards.
– Philipp♦
9 hours ago
Comments deleted. Please don't use comments to answer the question. If you want to answer, post a proper answer which adheres to our quality standards.
– Philipp♦
9 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Probably not.
Article 10 of the Treaty of the European Union states that:
Member States are represented in the European Council by their Heads of State or Government
It follows, therefore, that any notification made to the European Council must come from either the relevant country's Head of State or Head of Government. In the case of the United Kingdom, it would have to come from either Boris Johnson (as head of government) or HM The Queen (as head of state).
answered yesterday
Joe CJoe C
6,82913 silver badges45 bronze badges
Thank you for your answer. I'll wait a bit before accepting, just in case something can be added, although this seems quite final.
– user24343
yesterday
13
(+1) It's also a general principle of international law and diplomacy. Countries are represented by their executive and diplomatic service, with other countries deliberately avoiding meddling with internal constitutional processes (responsibilities within the cabinet, negotiation mandates, ratification procedures for treaties, etc.) unless there is a complete breakdown of the constitutional order (think rival governments, government in exile and the like).
– Relaxed
yesterday
5
@Relaxed: The UK is drifting closer and closer to such a "complete breakdown" every day. We've now had "The PM is going to prorogue Parliament for political reasons" happen, and it's a very short road from there to "The PM has advised HM the Queen to withhold royal assent from a bill."
– Kevin
22 hours ago
3
@Kevin that's not a complete breakdown. A breakdown would be refusing to accept or allow the subsequent vote of no confidence (if the parliament continues to support the government by not bringing a vote, or not voting, well then it would have proved itself as just playing silly games and trying to shovel the whole mess onto the executive while hamstringing the options.)
– Orangesandlemons
13 hours ago
1
@Orangesandlemons It can get more complicated: One method of acceptance of the vote of confidence is to shut everything down for 14 days and have the election . It's not immediately clear or not whether any of the potential continuity governments have the authority to hold a vote of confidence in themselves under the meaning of the FTPA, although the Cabinet Manual is disapproving of recreating a situation where it's notionally up to the Sovereign.
– origimbo
12 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
The correct thing to do in such a case is to call a vote of no confidence, and topple the government. Parliment can then give it's confidence to someone who will make that request
However, given that parliament taken as a whole has shown an aversion so far to actually voting for anything definitive, rather choosing to just put spokes in the wheels of other plans, it is debatable if they would go down the correct route or just panic at an even later stage.
answered yesterday
OrangesandlemonsOrangesandlemons
2,9727 silver badges23 bronze badges
2
@Alexander true in terms of the actual votes, but there was nothing stopping all those completely against no deal from internally sorting out what they were up to before submitting amendments etc. The main problem is that many politicians seem to be genuinely thick nowadays
– Orangesandlemons
16 hours ago
1
No, the problem is that there are at least three possibilities (I think it was eight in total?) and no single possibility got more than 50% of the votes.
– Alexander
16 hours ago
2
@Alexander Invoking article 50 got more than 50%. The default since then is no deal unless an alternative is approved. Parliament has had more than two years to sort out their preferences.
– Sjoerd
15 hours ago
1
@Alexander Parliament could have changed the rules (if necessary) to do ranked or preferential voting of multiple options at once.
– Lag
12 hours ago
1
@Lag as you say, not quite so simple (fixed-term parliament act, and also the truth is the Queen could put a block on too much messing by Boris Johnson if he pushes to far), but the vote of no-confidence is still the correct way of going about things - the system is not designed to wait for the last moment and hack around with trying to compel the executive via bills which themselves can be starved of time. The way everyone in parliament (with a handful of exceptions) has been a blame-shifting disgrace, no matter which side they support.
– Orangesandlemons
12 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
The EU can't really help here. The law in the UK is that EU membership ceases on the 31st of October, which means the treaties are no longer in effect and for example the EU courts have no jurisdiction, Freedom of Movement ends etc.
The EU can't really do anything to prevent that. They could possibly make offers, such as allowing a new government (in the event of a General Election) to immediately re-join under current terms, but actually extending the current membership does not seem to be within their power to do.
answered 13 hours ago
useruser
14.1k3 gold badges33 silver badges54 bronze badges
2
Not sure how this answers the question - can the Parliament ask for article 50 extension? This post contains only what EU cannot do.
– Alexei
11 hours ago
The premise of the question is "If the parliament were to pass legislation mandating extension and the government refuses to ask the European Council, can one of these happen"
– user
10 hours ago
Not sure that the EU could invite the UK to re-join on the current terms (substantial rebate, no euro, Schengen opt-out...). New members have to join on standard terms, don't they?
– Andrew Leach
2 hours ago
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%2f44159%2fif-the-uk-government-illegally-doesnt-ask-for-article-50-extension-can-parliam%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Probably not.
Article 10 of the Treaty of the European Union states that:
Member States are represented in the European Council by their Heads of State or Government
It follows, therefore, that any notification made to the European Council must come from either the relevant country's Head of State or Head of Government. In the case of the United Kingdom, it would have to come from either Boris Johnson (as head of government) or HM The Queen (as head of state).
answered yesterday
Joe CJoe C
6,82913 silver badges45 bronze badges
Thank you for your answer. I'll wait a bit before accepting, just in case something can be added, although this seems quite final.
– user24343
yesterday
13
(+1) It's also a general principle of international law and diplomacy. Countries are represented by their executive and diplomatic service, with other countries deliberately avoiding meddling with internal constitutional processes (responsibilities within the cabinet, negotiation mandates, ratification procedures for treaties, etc.) unless there is a complete breakdown of the constitutional order (think rival governments, government in exile and the like).
– Relaxed
yesterday
5
@Relaxed: The UK is drifting closer and closer to such a "complete breakdown" every day. We've now had "The PM is going to prorogue Parliament for political reasons" happen, and it's a very short road from there to "The PM has advised HM the Queen to withhold royal assent from a bill."
– Kevin
22 hours ago
3
@Kevin that's not a complete breakdown. A breakdown would be refusing to accept or allow the subsequent vote of no confidence (if the parliament continues to support the government by not bringing a vote, or not voting, well then it would have proved itself as just playing silly games and trying to shovel the whole mess onto the executive while hamstringing the options.)
– Orangesandlemons
13 hours ago
1
@Orangesandlemons It can get more complicated: One method of acceptance of the vote of confidence is to shut everything down for 14 days and have the election . It's not immediately clear or not whether any of the potential continuity governments have the authority to hold a vote of confidence in themselves under the meaning of the FTPA, although the Cabinet Manual is disapproving of recreating a situation where it's notionally up to the Sovereign.
– origimbo
12 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
Probably not.
Article 10 of the Treaty of the European Union states that:
Member States are represented in the European Council by their Heads of State or Government
It follows, therefore, that any notification made to the European Council must come from either the relevant country's Head of State or Head of Government. In the case of the United Kingdom, it would have to come from either Boris Johnson (as head of government) or HM The Queen (as head of state).
answered yesterday
Joe CJoe C
6,82913 silver badges45 bronze badges
Thank you for your answer. I'll wait a bit before accepting, just in case something can be added, although this seems quite final.
– user24343
yesterday
13
(+1) It's also a general principle of international law and diplomacy. Countries are represented by their executive and diplomatic service, with other countries deliberately avoiding meddling with internal constitutional processes (responsibilities within the cabinet, negotiation mandates, ratification procedures for treaties, etc.) unless there is a complete breakdown of the constitutional order (think rival governments, government in exile and the like).
– Relaxed
yesterday
5
@Relaxed: The UK is drifting closer and closer to such a "complete breakdown" every day. We've now had "The PM is going to prorogue Parliament for political reasons" happen, and it's a very short road from there to "The PM has advised HM the Queen to withhold royal assent from a bill."
– Kevin
22 hours ago
3
@Kevin that's not a complete breakdown. A breakdown would be refusing to accept or allow the subsequent vote of no confidence (if the parliament continues to support the government by not bringing a vote, or not voting, well then it would have proved itself as just playing silly games and trying to shovel the whole mess onto the executive while hamstringing the options.)
– Orangesandlemons
13 hours ago
1
@Orangesandlemons It can get more complicated: One method of acceptance of the vote of confidence is to shut everything down for 14 days and have the election . It's not immediately clear or not whether any of the potential continuity governments have the authority to hold a vote of confidence in themselves under the meaning of the FTPA, although the Cabinet Manual is disapproving of recreating a situation where it's notionally up to the Sovereign.
– origimbo
12 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
Probably not.
Article 10 of the Treaty of the European Union states that:
Member States are represented in the European Council by their Heads of State or Government
It follows, therefore, that any notification made to the European Council must come from either the relevant country's Head of State or Head of Government. In the case of the United Kingdom, it would have to come from either Boris Johnson (as head of government) or HM The Queen (as head of state).
answered yesterday
Joe CJoe C
6,82913 silver badges45 bronze badges
Probably not.
Article 10 of the Treaty of the European Union states that:
Member States are represented in the European Council by their Heads of State or Government
It follows, therefore, that any notification made to the European Council must come from either the relevant country's Head of State or Head of Government. In the case of the United Kingdom, it would have to come from either Boris Johnson (as head of government) or HM The Queen (as head of state).
answered yesterday
Joe CJoe C
6,82913 silver badges45 bronze badges
answered yesterday
Joe CJoe C
6,82913 silver badges45 bronze badges
answered yesterday
Joe CJoe C
6,82913 silver badges45 bronze badges
answered yesterday
Joe CJoe C
6,82913 silver badges45 bronze badges
6,82913 silver badges45 bronze badges
Thank you for your answer. I'll wait a bit before accepting, just in case something can be added, although this seems quite final.
– user24343
yesterday
13
(+1) It's also a general principle of international law and diplomacy. Countries are represented by their executive and diplomatic service, with other countries deliberately avoiding meddling with internal constitutional processes (responsibilities within the cabinet, negotiation mandates, ratification procedures for treaties, etc.) unless there is a complete breakdown of the constitutional order (think rival governments, government in exile and the like).
– Relaxed
yesterday
5
@Relaxed: The UK is drifting closer and closer to such a "complete breakdown" every day. We've now had "The PM is going to prorogue Parliament for political reasons" happen, and it's a very short road from there to "The PM has advised HM the Queen to withhold royal assent from a bill."
– Kevin
22 hours ago
3
@Kevin that's not a complete breakdown. A breakdown would be refusing to accept or allow the subsequent vote of no confidence (if the parliament continues to support the government by not bringing a vote, or not voting, well then it would have proved itself as just playing silly games and trying to shovel the whole mess onto the executive while hamstringing the options.)
– Orangesandlemons
13 hours ago
1
@Orangesandlemons It can get more complicated: One method of acceptance of the vote of confidence is to shut everything down for 14 days and have the election . It's not immediately clear or not whether any of the potential continuity governments have the authority to hold a vote of confidence in themselves under the meaning of the FTPA, although the Cabinet Manual is disapproving of recreating a situation where it's notionally up to the Sovereign.
– origimbo
12 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
Thank you for your answer. I'll wait a bit before accepting, just in case something can be added, although this seems quite final.
– user24343
yesterday
13
(+1) It's also a general principle of international law and diplomacy. Countries are represented by their executive and diplomatic service, with other countries deliberately avoiding meddling with internal constitutional processes (responsibilities within the cabinet, negotiation mandates, ratification procedures for treaties, etc.) unless there is a complete breakdown of the constitutional order (think rival governments, government in exile and the like).
– Relaxed
yesterday
5
@Relaxed: The UK is drifting closer and closer to such a "complete breakdown" every day. We've now had "The PM is going to prorogue Parliament for political reasons" happen, and it's a very short road from there to "The PM has advised HM the Queen to withhold royal assent from a bill."
– Kevin
22 hours ago
3
@Kevin that's not a complete breakdown. A breakdown would be refusing to accept or allow the subsequent vote of no confidence (if the parliament continues to support the government by not bringing a vote, or not voting, well then it would have proved itself as just playing silly games and trying to shovel the whole mess onto the executive while hamstringing the options.)
– Orangesandlemons
13 hours ago
1
@Orangesandlemons It can get more complicated: One method of acceptance of the vote of confidence is to shut everything down for 14 days and have the election . It's not immediately clear or not whether any of the potential continuity governments have the authority to hold a vote of confidence in themselves under the meaning of the FTPA, although the Cabinet Manual is disapproving of recreating a situation where it's notionally up to the Sovereign.
– origimbo
12 hours ago
Thank you for your answer. I'll wait a bit before accepting, just in case something can be added, although this seems quite final.
– user24343
yesterday
Thank you for your answer. I'll wait a bit before accepting, just in case something can be added, although this seems quite final.
– user24343
yesterday
13
13
(+1) It's also a general principle of international law and diplomacy. Countries are represented by their executive and diplomatic service, with other countries deliberately avoiding meddling with internal constitutional processes (responsibilities within the cabinet, negotiation mandates, ratification procedures for treaties, etc.) unless there is a complete breakdown of the constitutional order (think rival governments, government in exile and the like).
– Relaxed
yesterday
(+1) It's also a general principle of international law and diplomacy. Countries are represented by their executive and diplomatic service, with other countries deliberately avoiding meddling with internal constitutional processes (responsibilities within the cabinet, negotiation mandates, ratification procedures for treaties, etc.) unless there is a complete breakdown of the constitutional order (think rival governments, government in exile and the like).
– Relaxed
yesterday
5
5
@Relaxed: The UK is drifting closer and closer to such a "complete breakdown" every day. We've now had "The PM is going to prorogue Parliament for political reasons" happen, and it's a very short road from there to "The PM has advised HM the Queen to withhold royal assent from a bill."
– Kevin
22 hours ago
@Relaxed: The UK is drifting closer and closer to such a "complete breakdown" every day. We've now had "The PM is going to prorogue Parliament for political reasons" happen, and it's a very short road from there to "The PM has advised HM the Queen to withhold royal assent from a bill."
– Kevin
22 hours ago
3
3
@Kevin that's not a complete breakdown. A breakdown would be refusing to accept or allow the subsequent vote of no confidence (if the parliament continues to support the government by not bringing a vote, or not voting, well then it would have proved itself as just playing silly games and trying to shovel the whole mess onto the executive while hamstringing the options.)
– Orangesandlemons
13 hours ago
@Kevin that's not a complete breakdown. A breakdown would be refusing to accept or allow the subsequent vote of no confidence (if the parliament continues to support the government by not bringing a vote, or not voting, well then it would have proved itself as just playing silly games and trying to shovel the whole mess onto the executive while hamstringing the options.)
– Orangesandlemons
13 hours ago
1
1
@Orangesandlemons It can get more complicated: One method of acceptance of the vote of confidence is to shut everything down for 14 days and have the election . It's not immediately clear or not whether any of the potential continuity governments have the authority to hold a vote of confidence in themselves under the meaning of the FTPA, although the Cabinet Manual is disapproving of recreating a situation where it's notionally up to the Sovereign.
– origimbo
12 hours ago
@Orangesandlemons It can get more complicated: One method of acceptance of the vote of confidence is to shut everything down for 14 days and have the election . It's not immediately clear or not whether any of the potential continuity governments have the authority to hold a vote of confidence in themselves under the meaning of the FTPA, although the Cabinet Manual is disapproving of recreating a situation where it's notionally up to the Sovereign.
– origimbo
12 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
The correct thing to do in such a case is to call a vote of no confidence, and topple the government. Parliment can then give it's confidence to someone who will make that request
However, given that parliament taken as a whole has shown an aversion so far to actually voting for anything definitive, rather choosing to just put spokes in the wheels of other plans, it is debatable if they would go down the correct route or just panic at an even later stage.
answered yesterday
OrangesandlemonsOrangesandlemons
2,9727 silver badges23 bronze badges
2
@Alexander true in terms of the actual votes, but there was nothing stopping all those completely against no deal from internally sorting out what they were up to before submitting amendments etc. The main problem is that many politicians seem to be genuinely thick nowadays
– Orangesandlemons
16 hours ago
1
No, the problem is that there are at least three possibilities (I think it was eight in total?) and no single possibility got more than 50% of the votes.
– Alexander
16 hours ago
2
@Alexander Invoking article 50 got more than 50%. The default since then is no deal unless an alternative is approved. Parliament has had more than two years to sort out their preferences.
– Sjoerd
15 hours ago
1
@Alexander Parliament could have changed the rules (if necessary) to do ranked or preferential voting of multiple options at once.
– Lag
12 hours ago
1
@Lag as you say, not quite so simple (fixed-term parliament act, and also the truth is the Queen could put a block on too much messing by Boris Johnson if he pushes to far), but the vote of no-confidence is still the correct way of going about things - the system is not designed to wait for the last moment and hack around with trying to compel the executive via bills which themselves can be starved of time. The way everyone in parliament (with a handful of exceptions) has been a blame-shifting disgrace, no matter which side they support.
– Orangesandlemons
12 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
The correct thing to do in such a case is to call a vote of no confidence, and topple the government. Parliment can then give it's confidence to someone who will make that request
However, given that parliament taken as a whole has shown an aversion so far to actually voting for anything definitive, rather choosing to just put spokes in the wheels of other plans, it is debatable if they would go down the correct route or just panic at an even later stage.
answered yesterday
OrangesandlemonsOrangesandlemons
2,9727 silver badges23 bronze badges
2
@Alexander true in terms of the actual votes, but there was nothing stopping all those completely against no deal from internally sorting out what they were up to before submitting amendments etc. The main problem is that many politicians seem to be genuinely thick nowadays
– Orangesandlemons
16 hours ago
1
No, the problem is that there are at least three possibilities (I think it was eight in total?) and no single possibility got more than 50% of the votes.
– Alexander
16 hours ago
2
@Alexander Invoking article 50 got more than 50%. The default since then is no deal unless an alternative is approved. Parliament has had more than two years to sort out their preferences.
– Sjoerd
15 hours ago
1
@Alexander Parliament could have changed the rules (if necessary) to do ranked or preferential voting of multiple options at once.
– Lag
12 hours ago
1
@Lag as you say, not quite so simple (fixed-term parliament act, and also the truth is the Queen could put a block on too much messing by Boris Johnson if he pushes to far), but the vote of no-confidence is still the correct way of going about things - the system is not designed to wait for the last moment and hack around with trying to compel the executive via bills which themselves can be starved of time. The way everyone in parliament (with a handful of exceptions) has been a blame-shifting disgrace, no matter which side they support.
– Orangesandlemons
12 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
The correct thing to do in such a case is to call a vote of no confidence, and topple the government. Parliment can then give it's confidence to someone who will make that request
However, given that parliament taken as a whole has shown an aversion so far to actually voting for anything definitive, rather choosing to just put spokes in the wheels of other plans, it is debatable if they would go down the correct route or just panic at an even later stage.
answered yesterday
OrangesandlemonsOrangesandlemons
2,9727 silver badges23 bronze badges
The correct thing to do in such a case is to call a vote of no confidence, and topple the government. Parliment can then give it's confidence to someone who will make that request
However, given that parliament taken as a whole has shown an aversion so far to actually voting for anything definitive, rather choosing to just put spokes in the wheels of other plans, it is debatable if they would go down the correct route or just panic at an even later stage.
answered yesterday
OrangesandlemonsOrangesandlemons
2,9727 silver badges23 bronze badges
answered yesterday
OrangesandlemonsOrangesandlemons
2,9727 silver badges23 bronze badges
answered yesterday
OrangesandlemonsOrangesandlemons
2,9727 silver badges23 bronze badges
answered yesterday
OrangesandlemonsOrangesandlemons
2,9727 silver badges23 bronze badges
2,9727 silver badges23 bronze badges
2
@Alexander true in terms of the actual votes, but there was nothing stopping all those completely against no deal from internally sorting out what they were up to before submitting amendments etc. The main problem is that many politicians seem to be genuinely thick nowadays
– Orangesandlemons
16 hours ago
1
No, the problem is that there are at least three possibilities (I think it was eight in total?) and no single possibility got more than 50% of the votes.
– Alexander
16 hours ago
2
@Alexander Invoking article 50 got more than 50%. The default since then is no deal unless an alternative is approved. Parliament has had more than two years to sort out their preferences.
– Sjoerd
15 hours ago
1
@Alexander Parliament could have changed the rules (if necessary) to do ranked or preferential voting of multiple options at once.
– Lag
12 hours ago
1
@Lag as you say, not quite so simple (fixed-term parliament act, and also the truth is the Queen could put a block on too much messing by Boris Johnson if he pushes to far), but the vote of no-confidence is still the correct way of going about things - the system is not designed to wait for the last moment and hack around with trying to compel the executive via bills which themselves can be starved of time. The way everyone in parliament (with a handful of exceptions) has been a blame-shifting disgrace, no matter which side they support.
– Orangesandlemons
12 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
2
@Alexander true in terms of the actual votes, but there was nothing stopping all those completely against no deal from internally sorting out what they were up to before submitting amendments etc. The main problem is that many politicians seem to be genuinely thick nowadays
– Orangesandlemons
16 hours ago
1
No, the problem is that there are at least three possibilities (I think it was eight in total?) and no single possibility got more than 50% of the votes.
– Alexander
16 hours ago
2
@Alexander Invoking article 50 got more than 50%. The default since then is no deal unless an alternative is approved. Parliament has had more than two years to sort out their preferences.
– Sjoerd
15 hours ago
1
@Alexander Parliament could have changed the rules (if necessary) to do ranked or preferential voting of multiple options at once.
– Lag
12 hours ago
1
@Lag as you say, not quite so simple (fixed-term parliament act, and also the truth is the Queen could put a block on too much messing by Boris Johnson if he pushes to far), but the vote of no-confidence is still the correct way of going about things - the system is not designed to wait for the last moment and hack around with trying to compel the executive via bills which themselves can be starved of time. The way everyone in parliament (with a handful of exceptions) has been a blame-shifting disgrace, no matter which side they support.
– Orangesandlemons
12 hours ago
2
2
@Alexander true in terms of the actual votes, but there was nothing stopping all those completely against no deal from internally sorting out what they were up to before submitting amendments etc. The main problem is that many politicians seem to be genuinely thick nowadays
– Orangesandlemons
16 hours ago
@Alexander true in terms of the actual votes, but there was nothing stopping all those completely against no deal from internally sorting out what they were up to before submitting amendments etc. The main problem is that many politicians seem to be genuinely thick nowadays
– Orangesandlemons
16 hours ago
1
1
No, the problem is that there are at least three possibilities (I think it was eight in total?) and no single possibility got more than 50% of the votes.
– Alexander
16 hours ago
No, the problem is that there are at least three possibilities (I think it was eight in total?) and no single possibility got more than 50% of the votes.
– Alexander
16 hours ago
2
2
@Alexander Invoking article 50 got more than 50%. The default since then is no deal unless an alternative is approved. Parliament has had more than two years to sort out their preferences.
– Sjoerd
15 hours ago
@Alexander Invoking article 50 got more than 50%. The default since then is no deal unless an alternative is approved. Parliament has had more than two years to sort out their preferences.
– Sjoerd
15 hours ago
1
1
@Alexander Parliament could have changed the rules (if necessary) to do ranked or preferential voting of multiple options at once.
– Lag
12 hours ago
@Alexander Parliament could have changed the rules (if necessary) to do ranked or preferential voting of multiple options at once.
– Lag
12 hours ago
1
1
@Lag as you say, not quite so simple (fixed-term parliament act, and also the truth is the Queen could put a block on too much messing by Boris Johnson if he pushes to far), but the vote of no-confidence is still the correct way of going about things - the system is not designed to wait for the last moment and hack around with trying to compel the executive via bills which themselves can be starved of time. The way everyone in parliament (with a handful of exceptions) has been a blame-shifting disgrace, no matter which side they support.
– Orangesandlemons
12 hours ago
@Lag as you say, not quite so simple (fixed-term parliament act, and also the truth is the Queen could put a block on too much messing by Boris Johnson if he pushes to far), but the vote of no-confidence is still the correct way of going about things - the system is not designed to wait for the last moment and hack around with trying to compel the executive via bills which themselves can be starved of time. The way everyone in parliament (with a handful of exceptions) has been a blame-shifting disgrace, no matter which side they support.
– Orangesandlemons
12 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
The EU can't really help here. The law in the UK is that EU membership ceases on the 31st of October, which means the treaties are no longer in effect and for example the EU courts have no jurisdiction, Freedom of Movement ends etc.
The EU can't really do anything to prevent that. They could possibly make offers, such as allowing a new government (in the event of a General Election) to immediately re-join under current terms, but actually extending the current membership does not seem to be within their power to do.
answered 13 hours ago
useruser
14.1k3 gold badges33 silver badges54 bronze badges
2
Not sure how this answers the question - can the Parliament ask for article 50 extension? This post contains only what EU cannot do.
– Alexei
11 hours ago
The premise of the question is "If the parliament were to pass legislation mandating extension and the government refuses to ask the European Council, can one of these happen"
– user
10 hours ago
Not sure that the EU could invite the UK to re-join on the current terms (substantial rebate, no euro, Schengen opt-out...). New members have to join on standard terms, don't they?
– Andrew Leach
2 hours ago
add a comment |
The EU can't really help here. The law in the UK is that EU membership ceases on the 31st of October, which means the treaties are no longer in effect and for example the EU courts have no jurisdiction, Freedom of Movement ends etc.
The EU can't really do anything to prevent that. They could possibly make offers, such as allowing a new government (in the event of a General Election) to immediately re-join under current terms, but actually extending the current membership does not seem to be within their power to do.
answered 13 hours ago
useruser
14.1k3 gold badges33 silver badges54 bronze badges
2
Not sure how this answers the question - can the Parliament ask for article 50 extension? This post contains only what EU cannot do.
– Alexei
11 hours ago
The premise of the question is "If the parliament were to pass legislation mandating extension and the government refuses to ask the European Council, can one of these happen"
– user
10 hours ago
Not sure that the EU could invite the UK to re-join on the current terms (substantial rebate, no euro, Schengen opt-out...). New members have to join on standard terms, don't they?
– Andrew Leach
2 hours ago
add a comment |
The EU can't really help here. The law in the UK is that EU membership ceases on the 31st of October, which means the treaties are no longer in effect and for example the EU courts have no jurisdiction, Freedom of Movement ends etc.
The EU can't really do anything to prevent that. They could possibly make offers, such as allowing a new government (in the event of a General Election) to immediately re-join under current terms, but actually extending the current membership does not seem to be within their power to do.
answered 13 hours ago
useruser
14.1k3 gold badges33 silver badges54 bronze badges
The EU can't really help here. The law in the UK is that EU membership ceases on the 31st of October, which means the treaties are no longer in effect and for example the EU courts have no jurisdiction, Freedom of Movement ends etc.
The EU can't really do anything to prevent that. They could possibly make offers, such as allowing a new government (in the event of a General Election) to immediately re-join under current terms, but actually extending the current membership does not seem to be within their power to do.
answered 13 hours ago
useruser
14.1k3 gold badges33 silver badges54 bronze badges
answered 13 hours ago
useruser
14.1k3 gold badges33 silver badges54 bronze badges
answered 13 hours ago
useruser
14.1k3 gold badges33 silver badges54 bronze badges
answered 13 hours ago
useruser
14.1k3 gold badges33 silver badges54 bronze badges
14.1k3 gold badges33 silver badges54 bronze badges
2
Not sure how this answers the question - can the Parliament ask for article 50 extension? This post contains only what EU cannot do.
– Alexei
11 hours ago
The premise of the question is "If the parliament were to pass legislation mandating extension and the government refuses to ask the European Council, can one of these happen"
– user
10 hours ago
Not sure that the EU could invite the UK to re-join on the current terms (substantial rebate, no euro, Schengen opt-out...). New members have to join on standard terms, don't they?
– Andrew Leach
2 hours ago
add a comment |
2
Not sure how this answers the question - can the Parliament ask for article 50 extension? This post contains only what EU cannot do.
– Alexei
11 hours ago
The premise of the question is "If the parliament were to pass legislation mandating extension and the government refuses to ask the European Council, can one of these happen"
– user
10 hours ago
Not sure that the EU could invite the UK to re-join on the current terms (substantial rebate, no euro, Schengen opt-out...). New members have to join on standard terms, don't they?
– Andrew Leach
2 hours ago
2
2
Not sure how this answers the question - can the Parliament ask for article 50 extension? This post contains only what EU cannot do.
– Alexei
11 hours ago
Not sure how this answers the question - can the Parliament ask for article 50 extension? This post contains only what EU cannot do.
– Alexei
11 hours ago
The premise of the question is "If the parliament were to pass legislation mandating extension and the government refuses to ask the European Council, can one of these happen"
– user
10 hours ago
The premise of the question is "If the parliament were to pass legislation mandating extension and the government refuses to ask the European Council, can one of these happen"
– user
10 hours ago
Not sure that the EU could invite the UK to re-join on the current terms (substantial rebate, no euro, Schengen opt-out...). New members have to join on standard terms, don't they?
– Andrew Leach
2 hours ago
Not sure that the EU could invite the UK to re-join on the current terms (substantial rebate, no euro, Schengen opt-out...). New members have to join on standard terms, don't they?
– Andrew Leach
2 hours ago
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%2f44159%2fif-the-uk-government-illegally-doesnt-ask-for-article-50-extension-can-parliam%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
Comments deleted. Please don't use comments to answer the question. If you want to answer, post a proper answer which adheres to our quality standards.
– Philipp♦
9 hours ago