Is this a likely scenario?

[seeyoubugaboo]

Trying to get my head round the current shitshow. So they are voting again tonight... against a non deal brexit happening, then they plan to send T May hop skipping back to the EU to ask for an extension. When she can’t give a good enough reason why they tell her no can do. Thats when we come crashing out with no deal and the shit really does hit the fan! Anyone else care to shed their views on what might happen, I really hope someone who understands this better can give some reassurance.

No deal can only be stopped by

• a deal
• revoke

HoC has (twice) voted down the only deal there is so its revoke or no deal

I think they will say we can only have an extension for a second referendum.

The UK can revoke article 50 unilaterally between now and 29/3. The ECJ has already ruled on this.

The UK could then invoke article 50 again as and when it was ready to do so - as there is nothing in the treaties which covers this invoke/revoke scenario.

The EU know this. So “asking for permission to extend” is a formality.

Asking for an extension, rather than revoking article 50, actually limits
the UK’s freedom of manouevre as once the 2 year period is exceeded, they could only extend again with unanimous agreement from the other EU MS. But politically, revoking article 50 is a harder sell.

The timing of the EU elections is a complication. UK would have to take part if the extension went beyond the opening of the European Parliament election campaign.

The UK could then invoke article 50 again as and when it was ready to do so - as there is nothing in the treaties which covers this invoke/revoke scenario.

Did you read the court judgment? It's not quite as simple as that.

You can't just revoke Article 50 and then trigger it again when you're ready.

I did read the judgement and I acknowledge that it is not simple.

The ECJ ruled that the UK could revoke Article 50 without the agreement of the other MS. They did say that such a revocation should be “unequivocal” and “unconditional”. But that does mean that the UK could not invoke it again at a future date. There is nothing in the treaties which says they could not. This scenario is simply not covered.
And it is not clear what the EU could do if the UK were to take this course of action. Doing so would leave the UK in a much stronger position than asking for a temporary extension to the time limit.

This offers some useful background

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/ecj-ruling-article-50

I honestly can't see how pissing the EU off even more than we already have would put us in a better position. If we did that they would be well within their rights to just send back the withdrawal agreement and say, "take it or crash out, we don't care which, but we're not wasting any more time or money negotiating with you".

If we did that they would be well within their rights to just send back the withdrawal agreement and say, "take it or crash out, we don't care which, but we're not wasting any more time or money negotiating with you

That is exactly what many people do not understand about the EU. It is a RULES based organisation. They are bound by the treaties. So if the letter of the treaties says you can do something, you can. It does not matter if people don’t like it. cf the recent controversy over the appointment of Martin Selmayer. Everyone acknowledges that it was against the spirit of the rules. Everyone has criticised it. But he will be staying on.

It's pretty clear the EU want a deal, it's better for everyone involved. They'll agree a reasonable extension. But, they'll want to know why the UK wants an extension and what the UK wants to get from it.

The UK Government has been very backward in all of this. The original plan for Leave was:

• We'll decide what we want as a Parliament
• We'll trigger Article 50
• We'll negotiate for what Parliament said they wanted

Instead, the Government triggered Article 50, made no real suggestions about what they wanted, negotiated a good faith deal (on the part of the EU) and then found they had no support in Parliament for the deal they spent 2.5 years negotiating.

If No Deal gets rejected by the vote tonight (likely) then there are two more votes likely to follow - to seek and Article 50 extension, and possibly a vote to seek indicative votes to see what sort of deal Parliament would select.

Yes.. finally, after over two years and with just a couple of weeks left on the clock there might be a series of questions put to Parliament to see what MPs think a deal should look like.

It's extraordinary that a Government could think that a once-in-a-lifetime agreement without seeking a consensus at the start. Neither Conservatives nor Labour could ever have negotiated a position without consensus, they're both so riven on the subject they need the support of moderates on the opposing benches to get any deal across.

the Government triggered Article 50

Actually Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 by a majority of 461 to 89. It suits Labour to blame the Conservatives for this but it was a collective decision and a collective failure.

That is exactly what many people do not understand about the EU. It is a RULES based organisation. They are bound by the treaties. So if the letter of the treaties says you can do something, you can.

Yes, I know that, since I have a master's degree in EU law and wrote my dissertation on how Article 50 works.

Primary law is not the only form of EU law and the CJEU crafted their judgment very carefully to try and close that particular loophole.

I don't see how what I said above would be in contravention of Article 50 anyway. Sure, it provides for a two year negotiating period but the deal had already been negotiated so it won't be needed.

"Here's the deal that is on offer, take it or leave it."

The ECJ crafted their judgement very carefully to try to close that particular loophole

They may have tried to close it, but they have not succeeded. They ruled that if the UK revoked Article 50, it would stay in the EU “under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a member state”.

That means they would retain the right to invoke Article 50 at a date in the future as would any other Member State.

Article 50 has obvious gaps in it and the judgment was an attempt to fill those gaps.

The judgment is very clear that revoking Article 50 is not something that can be done capriciously, only where the member state concerned has a genuine, good faith intention to remain.

I don't know who you think is going to enforce the UK's "rights" to do what you think it is entitled to do. The institution responsible for enforcing those rights is the CJEU who have been very clear that the UK cannot do this.

I think they will say we can only have an extension for a second referendum

If the result is leave then what happens?

If the result is leave for an actual referendum, not an advisory one, then we leave via WA - assuming that was the Leave option on the paper. If the option on any paper is No Deal and that prevails, we leave on No Deal terms. At doesn't matter that I personally say, "Fuck all of you, then, I hope you suffer" , because that's how we have to leave. I would accept that and take what action I deem necessary in that scenario. Hint: it's not a violent one, before you all get excited.

The judgment is very clear that revoking Article 50 is not something that can be done capriciously, only where the member state concerned has a genuine, good faith intention to remain.

Where is it clear about that? Here's the judgment curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=208636&doclang=en

The only part of the judgment which I can see could (speculatively) be claimed to mean that, very clearly doesn't.