Can the UK veto its own extension request?Can the UK vote against a Brexit extension?If the EU does not offer an extension to UK's Article 50 invocation, is the Benn Bill irrelevant?Why did the Tories in the UK cancel their bid to filibuster the anti-no deal Brexit deal?Veto power in the EUWhat's the point in holding a second Brexit referendum?What is the deadline if the UK wishes to apply for an extension to Article 50?If the UK government doesn't ask for article 50 extension, can parliament do it instead?Could parliament ask the Queen to request an extension of EU membership?Can Boris Johnson request a Brexit extension to November 1st?What parts of EU law impose that the EU cannot consider an extension/delay request not coming from the PM?Why has Macron/France insisted that the UK must nominate a commissioner?
Two people from small group of friends want to have a "meeting" with me. The circumstances are strange and give me a bad feeling
What is the contemporary meaning of primary storage?
What instructions should I give to an untrained passenger for Hand propping Cessna 172N as a pilot?
Should I present forged documents in a Penetration Test/Red team engagement?
Is a geodesic in the 4d spacetime still a geodesic after projection onto the 3d space?
Triangle puzzle
Large products with glass doors
Substitute Unprintable ASCII Characters
What antenna is this in an Apollo 15 LM photo?
Rats biting off fuel line ( again and again and again )!
C - wrapping globals in a struct?
Is there a difference between “When you are reduced to 0 hit points” and “when you would be reduced to 0 hit points”?
Is my Reactive Step homebrew spell balanced?
Is it possible to protect saved games on Nintendo Switch from being played by other users?
Why is oil used as the lubricant in power generators, while water is the most available, cheapest and accessible lubricant?
How can I swallow pills more easily?
CEO says not to expect pay increases unless you do something really exceptional. Is this counter-productive?
Does Airplane Mode allow GPS location to pass through?
Seen from Europe, why is there a hard separation between Republicans and Democrats in the US?
How was the Luftwaffe able to destroy nearly 4000 Soviet aircraft in 3 days of operation Barbarossa?
I need to draw this picture in LaTeX. How do I do that? Boxes with arrows
What is the difference between chemical equilibrium and dynamic equilibrium?
Mistakenly agreed with a scammer’s term of use
Perfect pitch on only one instrument?
Can the UK veto its own extension request?
Can the UK vote against a Brexit extension?If the EU does not offer an extension to UK's Article 50 invocation, is the Benn Bill irrelevant?Why did the Tories in the UK cancel their bid to filibuster the anti-no deal Brexit deal?Veto power in the EUWhat's the point in holding a second Brexit referendum?What is the deadline if the UK wishes to apply for an extension to Article 50?If the UK government doesn't ask for article 50 extension, can parliament do it instead?Could parliament ask the Queen to request an extension of EU membership?Can Boris Johnson request a Brexit extension to November 1st?What parts of EU law impose that the EU cannot consider an extension/delay request not coming from the PM?Why has Macron/France insisted that the UK must nominate a commissioner?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;
Every member of the EU has to agree any extension to article 50.
Does this mean the UK PM could (technically) use his vote in the European Council to veto his own request for an extension?
united-kingdom european-union brexit article-50 european-council
edited Sep 10 at 17:21
JJ for Transparency and Monica
19.9k5 gold badges57 silver badges104 bronze badges
asked Sep 10 at 13:02
PelinorePelinore
1,1263 silver badges17 bronze badges
|
show 2 more comments
Every member of the EU has to agree any extension to article 50.
Does this mean the UK PM could (technically) use his vote in the European Council to veto his own request for an extension?
united-kingdom european-union brexit article-50 european-council
edited Sep 10 at 17:21
JJ for Transparency and Monica
19.9k5 gold badges57 silver badges104 bronze badges
asked Sep 10 at 13:02
PelinorePelinore
1,1263 silver badges17 bronze badges
2
No, but the UK is relatively wealthy so the PM could potentially bribe/incentivize another member state to use their veto...
– jl6
Sep 10 at 21:33
2
@jl6 : I like it, doesn't seem plausible though, can't think 'who' in the EU might be amenable to 'incentives' :)
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 21:40
2
@jl6 If he could find another member state that believed he would be in power long enough to pay the bribe.
– Oscar Cunningham
Sep 11 at 8:51
1
@jl6 He would have to request funds from Parliament to issue the bribe, and they are extremely unlikely to acquiesce.
– James
Sep 11 at 13:46
3
@James Nah, he could just launch a GoFundMe.
– reirab
Sep 11 at 21:30
|
show 2 more comments
Every member of the EU has to agree any extension to article 50.
Does this mean the UK PM could (technically) use his vote in the European Council to veto his own request for an extension?
united-kingdom european-union brexit article-50 european-council
edited Sep 10 at 17:21
JJ for Transparency and Monica
19.9k5 gold badges57 silver badges104 bronze badges
asked Sep 10 at 13:02
PelinorePelinore
1,1263 silver badges17 bronze badges
Every member of the EU has to agree any extension to article 50.
Does this mean the UK PM could (technically) use his vote in the European Council to veto his own request for an extension?
united-kingdom european-union brexit article-50 european-council
united-kingdom european-union brexit article-50 european-council
edited Sep 10 at 17:21
JJ for Transparency and Monica
19.9k5 gold badges57 silver badges104 bronze badges
asked Sep 10 at 13:02
PelinorePelinore
1,1263 silver badges17 bronze badges
edited Sep 10 at 17:21
JJ for Transparency and Monica
19.9k5 gold badges57 silver badges104 bronze badges
asked Sep 10 at 13:02
PelinorePelinore
1,1263 silver badges17 bronze badges
edited Sep 10 at 17:21
JJ for Transparency and Monica
19.9k5 gold badges57 silver badges104 bronze badges
edited Sep 10 at 17:21
JJ for Transparency and Monica
19.9k5 gold badges57 silver badges104 bronze badges
edited Sep 10 at 17:21
JJ for Transparency and Monica
19.9k5 gold badges57 silver badges104 bronze badges
19.9k5 gold badges57 silver badges104 bronze badges
asked Sep 10 at 13:02
PelinorePelinore
1,1263 silver badges17 bronze badges
asked Sep 10 at 13:02
PelinorePelinore
1,1263 silver badges17 bronze badges
asked Sep 10 at 13:02
PelinorePelinore
1,1263 silver badges17 bronze badges
1,1263 silver badges17 bronze badges
2
No, but the UK is relatively wealthy so the PM could potentially bribe/incentivize another member state to use their veto...
– jl6
Sep 10 at 21:33
2
@jl6 : I like it, doesn't seem plausible though, can't think 'who' in the EU might be amenable to 'incentives' :)
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 21:40
2
@jl6 If he could find another member state that believed he would be in power long enough to pay the bribe.
– Oscar Cunningham
Sep 11 at 8:51
1
@jl6 He would have to request funds from Parliament to issue the bribe, and they are extremely unlikely to acquiesce.
– James
Sep 11 at 13:46
3
@James Nah, he could just launch a GoFundMe.
– reirab
Sep 11 at 21:30
|
show 2 more comments
2
No, but the UK is relatively wealthy so the PM could potentially bribe/incentivize another member state to use their veto...
– jl6
Sep 10 at 21:33
2
@jl6 : I like it, doesn't seem plausible though, can't think 'who' in the EU might be amenable to 'incentives' :)
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 21:40
2
@jl6 If he could find another member state that believed he would be in power long enough to pay the bribe.
– Oscar Cunningham
Sep 11 at 8:51
1
@jl6 He would have to request funds from Parliament to issue the bribe, and they are extremely unlikely to acquiesce.
– James
Sep 11 at 13:46
3
@James Nah, he could just launch a GoFundMe.
– reirab
Sep 11 at 21:30
2
2
No, but the UK is relatively wealthy so the PM could potentially bribe/incentivize another member state to use their veto...
– jl6
Sep 10 at 21:33
No, but the UK is relatively wealthy so the PM could potentially bribe/incentivize another member state to use their veto...
– jl6
Sep 10 at 21:33
2
2
@jl6 : I like it, doesn't seem plausible though, can't think 'who' in the EU might be amenable to 'incentives' :)
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 21:40
@jl6 : I like it, doesn't seem plausible though, can't think 'who' in the EU might be amenable to 'incentives' :)
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 21:40
2
2
@jl6 If he could find another member state that believed he would be in power long enough to pay the bribe.
– Oscar Cunningham
Sep 11 at 8:51
@jl6 If he could find another member state that believed he would be in power long enough to pay the bribe.
– Oscar Cunningham
Sep 11 at 8:51
1
1
@jl6 He would have to request funds from Parliament to issue the bribe, and they are extremely unlikely to acquiesce.
– James
Sep 11 at 13:46
@jl6 He would have to request funds from Parliament to issue the bribe, and they are extremely unlikely to acquiesce.
– James
Sep 11 at 13:46
3
3
@James Nah, he could just launch a GoFundMe.
– reirab
Sep 11 at 21:30
@James Nah, he could just launch a GoFundMe.
– reirab
Sep 11 at 21:30
|
show 2 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
No, by paragraph 4 of article 50 (citing 2 and 3 as well because 4 refers back to those):
- A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its
intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall
negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its
withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That
agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the
Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
- 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.
- For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the
Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of
the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
So specifically, the last part excludes the UK from participating in discussions of extension as well as negotiating and concluding an agreement on behalf of the EU Council.
Or as the author of Article 50, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, puts it in an interview with Politico (regarding paragraph four):
"It’s very important that Britain is not a third country throughout the whole process of the Article 50 negotiation. Up to the moment when we leave, we are a full member. Therefore you have to have sub-paragraph four, saying that when they’re talking about the divorce, the Brits won’t be in the room and if they are in the room, they won’t be voting."
answered Sep 10 at 13:19
JJ for Transparency and MonicaJJ for Transparency and Monica
19.9k5 gold badges57 silver badges104 bronze badges
Cheers for the swift reply :)
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 13:20
"unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period." seems to contradict the answer!
– phuzi
Sep 12 at 12:20
@phuzi in that case the leaving member state is not in agreement with the extension altogether. The question is about using a veto like EU members could. That's not normally an issue, but in case of PM Johnson he may not want the extension that his country has required him to request.
– JJ for Transparency and Monica
Sep 12 at 12:37
add a comment
|
It depends on your definition of "veto".
Under Article 50(4), the UK does not have a vote in the discussions on whether or not the European Council offers an extension. Thus, in the strictest sense, the UK does not have a veto.
However, under Article 50(3), the extension cannot take place without the UK's consent†. Declining any extension offered can be considered, for all intents and purposes, as effective as a veto.
† The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 limits the power of the UK Prime Minister to decline an extension offered before 31 October 2019.
answered Sep 10 at 19:02
Joe CJoe C
10.2k23 silver badges57 bronze badges
So a "yes, but" in your view then? then I suppose the follow up question would be does the brexit delay bill as passed into law (I've been unable to determine if any amendments were made b4 it was, so I suspect not) allow any way for the PM to declining (or otherwise avoid accepting) an extension if the EU offers one?
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 21:16
1
The PM would be allowed to decline an extension if (a) the extension is to some other date than 31 January at 23:00 GMT, and (b) the House of Commons votes against approving said extension.
– Joe C
Sep 10 at 21:27
OK, so an effective 'no' answer to the follow up question then :)
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 22:05
@Pelinore I'd say it's a "no". The UK doesn't have a vote, so it can't veto, which was what you were asking. The UK has other means of achieving the same result, such as not requesting an extension, or declining an extension offered, but none of those are vetos.
– David Richerby
Sep 11 at 12:20
4
The thing is "The UK" isn't exactly unified right now. The PM wants to leave on the current date, with or without a deal. Parliment on the other hand has passed a law ordering the PM to request an extension. I would assume the underlying question that motivated this one is "can the UK PM comply with the letter of the law ordering him to request an extension while preventing said extension actually happening"
– Peter Green
Sep 11 at 13:22
|
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No, by paragraph 4 of article 50 (citing 2 and 3 as well because 4 refers back to those):
- A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its
intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall
negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its
withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That
agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the
Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
- 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.
- For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the
Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of
the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
So specifically, the last part excludes the UK from participating in discussions of extension as well as negotiating and concluding an agreement on behalf of the EU Council.
Or as the author of Article 50, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, puts it in an interview with Politico (regarding paragraph four):
"It’s very important that Britain is not a third country throughout the whole process of the Article 50 negotiation. Up to the moment when we leave, we are a full member. Therefore you have to have sub-paragraph four, saying that when they’re talking about the divorce, the Brits won’t be in the room and if they are in the room, they won’t be voting."
answered Sep 10 at 13:19
JJ for Transparency and MonicaJJ for Transparency and Monica
19.9k5 gold badges57 silver badges104 bronze badges
Cheers for the swift reply :)
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 13:20
"unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period." seems to contradict the answer!
– phuzi
Sep 12 at 12:20
@phuzi in that case the leaving member state is not in agreement with the extension altogether. The question is about using a veto like EU members could. That's not normally an issue, but in case of PM Johnson he may not want the extension that his country has required him to request.
– JJ for Transparency and Monica
Sep 12 at 12:37
add a comment
|
No, by paragraph 4 of article 50 (citing 2 and 3 as well because 4 refers back to those):
- A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its
intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall
negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its
withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That
agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the
Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
- 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.
- For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the
Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of
the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
So specifically, the last part excludes the UK from participating in discussions of extension as well as negotiating and concluding an agreement on behalf of the EU Council.
Or as the author of Article 50, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, puts it in an interview with Politico (regarding paragraph four):
"It’s very important that Britain is not a third country throughout the whole process of the Article 50 negotiation. Up to the moment when we leave, we are a full member. Therefore you have to have sub-paragraph four, saying that when they’re talking about the divorce, the Brits won’t be in the room and if they are in the room, they won’t be voting."
answered Sep 10 at 13:19
JJ for Transparency and MonicaJJ for Transparency and Monica
19.9k5 gold badges57 silver badges104 bronze badges
Cheers for the swift reply :)
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 13:20
"unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period." seems to contradict the answer!
– phuzi
Sep 12 at 12:20
@phuzi in that case the leaving member state is not in agreement with the extension altogether. The question is about using a veto like EU members could. That's not normally an issue, but in case of PM Johnson he may not want the extension that his country has required him to request.
– JJ for Transparency and Monica
Sep 12 at 12:37
add a comment
|
No, by paragraph 4 of article 50 (citing 2 and 3 as well because 4 refers back to those):
- A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its
intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall
negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its
withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That
agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the
Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
- 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.
- For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the
Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of
the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
So specifically, the last part excludes the UK from participating in discussions of extension as well as negotiating and concluding an agreement on behalf of the EU Council.
Or as the author of Article 50, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, puts it in an interview with Politico (regarding paragraph four):
"It’s very important that Britain is not a third country throughout the whole process of the Article 50 negotiation. Up to the moment when we leave, we are a full member. Therefore you have to have sub-paragraph four, saying that when they’re talking about the divorce, the Brits won’t be in the room and if they are in the room, they won’t be voting."
answered Sep 10 at 13:19
JJ for Transparency and MonicaJJ for Transparency and Monica
19.9k5 gold badges57 silver badges104 bronze badges
No, by paragraph 4 of article 50 (citing 2 and 3 as well because 4 refers back to those):
- A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its
intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall
negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its
withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That
agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the
Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
- 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.
- For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the
Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of
the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
So specifically, the last part excludes the UK from participating in discussions of extension as well as negotiating and concluding an agreement on behalf of the EU Council.
Or as the author of Article 50, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, puts it in an interview with Politico (regarding paragraph four):
"It’s very important that Britain is not a third country throughout the whole process of the Article 50 negotiation. Up to the moment when we leave, we are a full member. Therefore you have to have sub-paragraph four, saying that when they’re talking about the divorce, the Brits won’t be in the room and if they are in the room, they won’t be voting."
answered Sep 10 at 13:19
JJ for Transparency and MonicaJJ for Transparency and Monica
19.9k5 gold badges57 silver badges104 bronze badges
edited Sep 10 at 13:21
answered Sep 10 at 13:19
JJ for Transparency and MonicaJJ for Transparency and Monica
19.9k5 gold badges57 silver badges104 bronze badges
answered Sep 10 at 13:19
JJ for Transparency and MonicaJJ for Transparency and Monica
19.9k5 gold badges57 silver badges104 bronze badges
answered Sep 10 at 13:19
JJ for Transparency and MonicaJJ for Transparency and Monica
19.9k5 gold badges57 silver badges104 bronze badges
19.9k5 gold badges57 silver badges104 bronze badges
Cheers for the swift reply :)
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 13:20
"unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period." seems to contradict the answer!
– phuzi
Sep 12 at 12:20
@phuzi in that case the leaving member state is not in agreement with the extension altogether. The question is about using a veto like EU members could. That's not normally an issue, but in case of PM Johnson he may not want the extension that his country has required him to request.
– JJ for Transparency and Monica
Sep 12 at 12:37
add a comment
|
Cheers for the swift reply :)
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 13:20
"unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period." seems to contradict the answer!
– phuzi
Sep 12 at 12:20
@phuzi in that case the leaving member state is not in agreement with the extension altogether. The question is about using a veto like EU members could. That's not normally an issue, but in case of PM Johnson he may not want the extension that his country has required him to request.
– JJ for Transparency and Monica
Sep 12 at 12:37
Cheers for the swift reply :)
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 13:20
Cheers for the swift reply :)
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 13:20
"unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period." seems to contradict the answer!
– phuzi
Sep 12 at 12:20
"unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period." seems to contradict the answer!
– phuzi
Sep 12 at 12:20
@phuzi in that case the leaving member state is not in agreement with the extension altogether. The question is about using a veto like EU members could. That's not normally an issue, but in case of PM Johnson he may not want the extension that his country has required him to request.
– JJ for Transparency and Monica
Sep 12 at 12:37
@phuzi in that case the leaving member state is not in agreement with the extension altogether. The question is about using a veto like EU members could. That's not normally an issue, but in case of PM Johnson he may not want the extension that his country has required him to request.
– JJ for Transparency and Monica
Sep 12 at 12:37
add a comment
|
It depends on your definition of "veto".
Under Article 50(4), the UK does not have a vote in the discussions on whether or not the European Council offers an extension. Thus, in the strictest sense, the UK does not have a veto.
However, under Article 50(3), the extension cannot take place without the UK's consent†. Declining any extension offered can be considered, for all intents and purposes, as effective as a veto.
† The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 limits the power of the UK Prime Minister to decline an extension offered before 31 October 2019.
answered Sep 10 at 19:02
Joe CJoe C
10.2k23 silver badges57 bronze badges
So a "yes, but" in your view then? then I suppose the follow up question would be does the brexit delay bill as passed into law (I've been unable to determine if any amendments were made b4 it was, so I suspect not) allow any way for the PM to declining (or otherwise avoid accepting) an extension if the EU offers one?
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 21:16
1
The PM would be allowed to decline an extension if (a) the extension is to some other date than 31 January at 23:00 GMT, and (b) the House of Commons votes against approving said extension.
– Joe C
Sep 10 at 21:27
OK, so an effective 'no' answer to the follow up question then :)
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 22:05
@Pelinore I'd say it's a "no". The UK doesn't have a vote, so it can't veto, which was what you were asking. The UK has other means of achieving the same result, such as not requesting an extension, or declining an extension offered, but none of those are vetos.
– David Richerby
Sep 11 at 12:20
4
The thing is "The UK" isn't exactly unified right now. The PM wants to leave on the current date, with or without a deal. Parliment on the other hand has passed a law ordering the PM to request an extension. I would assume the underlying question that motivated this one is "can the UK PM comply with the letter of the law ordering him to request an extension while preventing said extension actually happening"
– Peter Green
Sep 11 at 13:22
|
show 1 more comment
It depends on your definition of "veto".
Under Article 50(4), the UK does not have a vote in the discussions on whether or not the European Council offers an extension. Thus, in the strictest sense, the UK does not have a veto.
However, under Article 50(3), the extension cannot take place without the UK's consent†. Declining any extension offered can be considered, for all intents and purposes, as effective as a veto.
† The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 limits the power of the UK Prime Minister to decline an extension offered before 31 October 2019.
answered Sep 10 at 19:02
Joe CJoe C
10.2k23 silver badges57 bronze badges
So a "yes, but" in your view then? then I suppose the follow up question would be does the brexit delay bill as passed into law (I've been unable to determine if any amendments were made b4 it was, so I suspect not) allow any way for the PM to declining (or otherwise avoid accepting) an extension if the EU offers one?
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 21:16
1
The PM would be allowed to decline an extension if (a) the extension is to some other date than 31 January at 23:00 GMT, and (b) the House of Commons votes against approving said extension.
– Joe C
Sep 10 at 21:27
OK, so an effective 'no' answer to the follow up question then :)
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 22:05
@Pelinore I'd say it's a "no". The UK doesn't have a vote, so it can't veto, which was what you were asking. The UK has other means of achieving the same result, such as not requesting an extension, or declining an extension offered, but none of those are vetos.
– David Richerby
Sep 11 at 12:20
4
The thing is "The UK" isn't exactly unified right now. The PM wants to leave on the current date, with or without a deal. Parliment on the other hand has passed a law ordering the PM to request an extension. I would assume the underlying question that motivated this one is "can the UK PM comply with the letter of the law ordering him to request an extension while preventing said extension actually happening"
– Peter Green
Sep 11 at 13:22
|
show 1 more comment
It depends on your definition of "veto".
Under Article 50(4), the UK does not have a vote in the discussions on whether or not the European Council offers an extension. Thus, in the strictest sense, the UK does not have a veto.
However, under Article 50(3), the extension cannot take place without the UK's consent†. Declining any extension offered can be considered, for all intents and purposes, as effective as a veto.
† The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 limits the power of the UK Prime Minister to decline an extension offered before 31 October 2019.
answered Sep 10 at 19:02
Joe CJoe C
10.2k23 silver badges57 bronze badges
It depends on your definition of "veto".
Under Article 50(4), the UK does not have a vote in the discussions on whether or not the European Council offers an extension. Thus, in the strictest sense, the UK does not have a veto.
However, under Article 50(3), the extension cannot take place without the UK's consent†. Declining any extension offered can be considered, for all intents and purposes, as effective as a veto.
† The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 limits the power of the UK Prime Minister to decline an extension offered before 31 October 2019.
answered Sep 10 at 19:02
Joe CJoe C
10.2k23 silver badges57 bronze badges
answered Sep 10 at 19:02
Joe CJoe C
10.2k23 silver badges57 bronze badges
answered Sep 10 at 19:02
Joe CJoe C
10.2k23 silver badges57 bronze badges
answered Sep 10 at 19:02
Joe CJoe C
10.2k23 silver badges57 bronze badges
10.2k23 silver badges57 bronze badges
So a "yes, but" in your view then? then I suppose the follow up question would be does the brexit delay bill as passed into law (I've been unable to determine if any amendments were made b4 it was, so I suspect not) allow any way for the PM to declining (or otherwise avoid accepting) an extension if the EU offers one?
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 21:16
1
The PM would be allowed to decline an extension if (a) the extension is to some other date than 31 January at 23:00 GMT, and (b) the House of Commons votes against approving said extension.
– Joe C
Sep 10 at 21:27
OK, so an effective 'no' answer to the follow up question then :)
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 22:05
@Pelinore I'd say it's a "no". The UK doesn't have a vote, so it can't veto, which was what you were asking. The UK has other means of achieving the same result, such as not requesting an extension, or declining an extension offered, but none of those are vetos.
– David Richerby
Sep 11 at 12:20
4
The thing is "The UK" isn't exactly unified right now. The PM wants to leave on the current date, with or without a deal. Parliment on the other hand has passed a law ordering the PM to request an extension. I would assume the underlying question that motivated this one is "can the UK PM comply with the letter of the law ordering him to request an extension while preventing said extension actually happening"
– Peter Green
Sep 11 at 13:22
|
show 1 more comment
So a "yes, but" in your view then? then I suppose the follow up question would be does the brexit delay bill as passed into law (I've been unable to determine if any amendments were made b4 it was, so I suspect not) allow any way for the PM to declining (or otherwise avoid accepting) an extension if the EU offers one?
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 21:16
1
The PM would be allowed to decline an extension if (a) the extension is to some other date than 31 January at 23:00 GMT, and (b) the House of Commons votes against approving said extension.
– Joe C
Sep 10 at 21:27
OK, so an effective 'no' answer to the follow up question then :)
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 22:05
@Pelinore I'd say it's a "no". The UK doesn't have a vote, so it can't veto, which was what you were asking. The UK has other means of achieving the same result, such as not requesting an extension, or declining an extension offered, but none of those are vetos.
– David Richerby
Sep 11 at 12:20
4
The thing is "The UK" isn't exactly unified right now. The PM wants to leave on the current date, with or without a deal. Parliment on the other hand has passed a law ordering the PM to request an extension. I would assume the underlying question that motivated this one is "can the UK PM comply with the letter of the law ordering him to request an extension while preventing said extension actually happening"
– Peter Green
Sep 11 at 13:22
So a "yes, but" in your view then? then I suppose the follow up question would be does the brexit delay bill as passed into law (I've been unable to determine if any amendments were made b4 it was, so I suspect not) allow any way for the PM to declining (or otherwise avoid accepting) an extension if the EU offers one?
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 21:16
So a "yes, but" in your view then? then I suppose the follow up question would be does the brexit delay bill as passed into law (I've been unable to determine if any amendments were made b4 it was, so I suspect not) allow any way for the PM to declining (or otherwise avoid accepting) an extension if the EU offers one?
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 21:16
1
1
The PM would be allowed to decline an extension if (a) the extension is to some other date than 31 January at 23:00 GMT, and (b) the House of Commons votes against approving said extension.
– Joe C
Sep 10 at 21:27
The PM would be allowed to decline an extension if (a) the extension is to some other date than 31 January at 23:00 GMT, and (b) the House of Commons votes against approving said extension.
– Joe C
Sep 10 at 21:27
OK, so an effective 'no' answer to the follow up question then :)
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 22:05
OK, so an effective 'no' answer to the follow up question then :)
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 22:05
@Pelinore I'd say it's a "no". The UK doesn't have a vote, so it can't veto, which was what you were asking. The UK has other means of achieving the same result, such as not requesting an extension, or declining an extension offered, but none of those are vetos.
– David Richerby
Sep 11 at 12:20
@Pelinore I'd say it's a "no". The UK doesn't have a vote, so it can't veto, which was what you were asking. The UK has other means of achieving the same result, such as not requesting an extension, or declining an extension offered, but none of those are vetos.
– David Richerby
Sep 11 at 12:20
4
4
The thing is "The UK" isn't exactly unified right now. The PM wants to leave on the current date, with or without a deal. Parliment on the other hand has passed a law ordering the PM to request an extension. I would assume the underlying question that motivated this one is "can the UK PM comply with the letter of the law ordering him to request an extension while preventing said extension actually happening"
– Peter Green
Sep 11 at 13:22
The thing is "The UK" isn't exactly unified right now. The PM wants to leave on the current date, with or without a deal. Parliment on the other hand has passed a law ordering the PM to request an extension. I would assume the underlying question that motivated this one is "can the UK PM comply with the letter of the law ordering him to request an extension while preventing said extension actually happening"
– Peter Green
Sep 11 at 13:22
|
show 1 more comment
2
No, but the UK is relatively wealthy so the PM could potentially bribe/incentivize another member state to use their veto...
– jl6
Sep 10 at 21:33
2
@jl6 : I like it, doesn't seem plausible though, can't think 'who' in the EU might be amenable to 'incentives' :)
– Pelinore
Sep 10 at 21:40
2
@jl6 If he could find another member state that believed he would be in power long enough to pay the bribe.
– Oscar Cunningham
Sep 11 at 8:51
1
@jl6 He would have to request funds from Parliament to issue the bribe, and they are extremely unlikely to acquiesce.
– James
Sep 11 at 13:46
3
@James Nah, he could just launch a GoFundMe.
– reirab
Sep 11 at 21:30