This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47668466
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Version 4 | Version 5 |
---|---|
Article 50: Can the UK cancel Brexit? | |
(7 months later) | |
The Liberal Democrats have pledged to cancel Brexit without holding a further referendum if they win power at the next election. How would that work? | |
Cancelling Brexit would involve revoking something called Article 50. | |
What is Article 50? | |
Article 50 is the part of the agreement, known as the Lisbon Treaty, which sets out what happens when a country decides that it wants to leave the European Union (EU). | |
It was triggered by Theresa May on 29 March 2017, starting a two-year countdown to leaving - although this period has now been extended twice. | It was triggered by Theresa May on 29 March 2017, starting a two-year countdown to leaving - although this period has now been extended twice. |
How could Article 50 be revoked? | How could Article 50 be revoked? |
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling last year confirmed that the UK could revoke Article 50 itself, without having to ask the other 27 EU countries for permission. | The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling last year confirmed that the UK could revoke Article 50 itself, without having to ask the other 27 EU countries for permission. |
This could be done by writing a letter to the European Council, made up of EU heads of state. | This could be done by writing a letter to the European Council, made up of EU heads of state. |
The ECJ said the UK would then remain a member of the EU on the same terms - as it has now - including keeping its budget rebate (the discount applied to the UK's contributions to the EU budget). | |
But it did set some conditions. | But it did set some conditions. |
The ruling said revocation should be "unequivocal and unconditional", suggesting that the UK could not simply revoke Article 50 in order to buy more time and then resubmit it at a later date. | The ruling said revocation should be "unequivocal and unconditional", suggesting that the UK could not simply revoke Article 50 in order to buy more time and then resubmit it at a later date. |
A senior lawyer at the ECJ said that "appropriate legal instruments" could be used if a member state tried to trigger and revoke Article 50 in order to secure a better withdrawal deal. | A senior lawyer at the ECJ said that "appropriate legal instruments" could be used if a member state tried to trigger and revoke Article 50 in order to secure a better withdrawal deal. |
Who decides? | Who decides? |
The Prime Minister or Parliament? | |
The ECJ didn't give a definitive answer to this. | |
The court ruled that: "Revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements." | The court ruled that: "Revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements." |
The UK government has a power known as the Royal Prerogative, which allows it to do certain things including deploying armed forces, granting honours and altering international treaties without consulting Parliament. | The UK government has a power known as the Royal Prerogative, which allows it to do certain things including deploying armed forces, granting honours and altering international treaties without consulting Parliament. |
So it is possible in theory that a prime minister would be able to revoke Article 50 without giving MPs the chance to vote on it. | |
But there are limits to that power, and those limits have been tested during the course of the Brexit process. | But there are limits to that power, and those limits have been tested during the course of the Brexit process. |
When Prime Minister Boris Johnson used the Royal Prerogative to prorogue Parliament for an extended period, the Supreme Court ruled this use of the power unlawful. | |
Its use to activate the two year Article 50 negotiating period was also challenged by Gina Miller at the beginning of 2017. | |
The Supreme Court ruled in her case that the government could not trigger the EU exit process without bringing it before Parliament. | The Supreme Court ruled in her case that the government could not trigger the EU exit process without bringing it before Parliament. |
Because an act of Parliament was required to trigger Article 50, it has been suggested revoking it would also need parliamentary approval. | Because an act of Parliament was required to trigger Article 50, it has been suggested revoking it would also need parliamentary approval. |
The weight of legal opinion is that a law would have to be passed to allow the government to revoke Article 50, although some lawyers believe a letter from the prime minister would do. | |
That's if a prime minister were to make the decision - but what if Parliament wanted to force their hand? | |
They could potentially do this by taking control of Parliamentary business, as has happened on two occasions in the Brexit process - both times to compel the prime minister to seek an extension and stop a no-deal Brexit. | |
In the same way, if there were a majority to do so, MPs might be able to instruct a prime minister to revoke Article 50. | |
Read more from Reality Check | Read more from Reality Check |
Send us your questions | Send us your questions |
Follow us on Twitter | Follow us on Twitter |