Since entering Downing Street, British Prime Minister Theresa May has quickly dispelled hopes that the UK might change its mind about leaving the EU.
“Brexit means Brexit,” she said in her inaugural speech.
She added later that Britain would take the time it needs to invoke the now notorious Article 50 of Europe’s de facto constitution governing a member’s divorce from the EU.
Both May and her new minister for Brexit have said Article 50 would not be triggered before the end of the year.
However, once May gets the UK onto the Brexit runway, can she turn back the aircraft?
That is the question many UK and continental European legal minds are now pondering.
One London firm of human rights lawyers has formally asked the government’s legal department to clarify whether a country can invoke Article 50 and begin the process of EU divorce — but then revoke it down the line.
May’s administration is also looking into the issue, as ministers study their position regarding the timing and aftermath of invoking Article 50, according to a person close to the government.
Article 50 of the EU’s 2009 Lisbon Treaty, which was drafted by a former British ambassador to the EU, has never been used, providing no legal precedent for how it works.
Yet how May navigates the 256-word provision is ultimately a political decision, government officials said, that will define her premiership and the future of Britain’s ties with the rest of Europe.
If Article 50 can be revoked after it is invoked, then May’s calculations of when and how to start Britain’s EU divorce could be radically different from the widely assumed “irrevocable trigger” of Article 50, according to lawyers and government sources.
Charles Streeten, a British barrister who has examined the legal arguments around the invocation and possible revocation of Article 50, said a country can unilaterally pull back at any point prior to the expiry of the two-year period during which, according to the Lisbon Treaty, the EU and the exiting state need to work out the terms of their divorce.
“The benefits of this should not be underestimated. If I am right, Britain would have a much stronger hand to play in the EU negotiations,” Streeten told reporters.
Streeten said the government should seek formal advice from the European Court of Justice on the matter.
Bindmans, a top London firm of human rights lawyers, has written to the government’s legal department seeking clarification on the revocability issue as well.
“It would appear to be in the UK’s interests for that issue to be resolved before the Article 50 process is commenced,” Bindmans wrote.
The department declined comment.
In Brussels, another view prevails.
EU lawyers said Britain could only revoke an Article 50 notification if all the other 27 members of the EU agreed. Otherwise, Britain could theoretically pull out of its divorce a day before the two-year negotiating period is up and start again, tangling the world’s biggest trading bloc in years of divorce talks.
The referendum has opened up the biggest period of British financial, political and constitutional uncertainty in modern times.
The vote has been cast by some lawyers as a “peasants’ revolt” that is now facing a “counterrevolution” because the vote went against the wishes of most of Britain’s political, financial and business elites.
Former UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage has said there is a concerted attempt to slow — or even prevent — a British exit, just like the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 was ultimately crushed.
Since the referendum, several legal challenges have been mounted aimed at giving lawmakers a say over both Brexit and Article 50.
At least seven lawsuits have been started arguing that only parliament has the authority to decide whether Britain should trigger Article 50.
The first of such lawsuits is to be heard in October.
“I believe that people have been fooled,” said Gina Miller, 51, a co-founder of London fund manager SCM Private, who is the main claimant in the challenge. “They have not realized that the referendum was not legally binding and secondly there is no Brexit plan.”
Dominic Chambers is a senior lawyer who has filed another lawsuit aimed at forcing the government to allow parliament to decide whether Brexit goes ahead. That case form part of Miller’s case.
Chambers — who is acting for hairdresser Deir Dos Santos — wants parliament involved because he believes “Article 50 is a one-way street; once Article 50 has been triggered it is irreversible,” he said.
However, two of Britain’s top law professors, Michael Dougan and Derrick Wyatt, said they believe Britain could revoke a divorce notification before the two-year negotiation period is up.
Still, Dougan, professor of European law at the University of Liverpool, said any revocation would in practice depend on making a political agreement with the other member states.
King’s College London law professor Keith Ewing believes there is no provision for revoking Article 50.
However, he too believes there might be the possibility of a political “fudge” with the rest of the EU.
“But this is all moot: It is not foreseeable that the British government will change its mind,” he said.
Any attempt at a fudge would enrage supporters of Brexit, including many lawmakers in May’s government, which has a majority of 16 in the 650-seat British House of Commons.
Brendan O’Neill helped organize a protest outside Downing Street on May’s first day in office.
O’Neill — who described himself as a Marxist libertarian — said any attempt to block Brexit would thrust Britain into an even deeper political crisis as the elites would be seen to be frustrating the clearly expressed wishes of voters.
He said he hopes Brexit will happen, but that he has his worries.
“What I think might happen is that we get Brexit light,” he said.
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his