This paper addresses the concern of whether, as a matter of law, Brexit is now unstoppable, without the agreement of the remaining 27 members states of the European Union. In other words, what would take place if, on a date prior to March 29, 2019, Parliament were to conclude that Britain should not leave the European Union, despite notification of its objective to do so having been used by the prime minister on March 28, 2017?
There are 2 parts to this question. The really first is whether an official (and lawfully binding) option to leave the European Union has in fact presently been taken as a matter of across the country constitutional law, or whether all that the prime minister has actually done so far, and all she has in fact had statutory authority to do, is notify these days federal government’s intent to leave. On this matter, this paper’s view is that an additional act of Parliament, not just an indication vote, is required prior to a constitutionally genuine decision can be required to leave the European Union. If no such statutory authority is provided before March 29, 2019, no constitutionally genuine choice to withdraw has really been made, and, in any occasion, the federal government might withdraw the notice of an intent to leave the European Union and decide to remain.The 2nd concern
is whether, as a matter of EU law, a member state that has really notified of an objective to leave the European Union is bound to leave, or whether it can nevertheless withdraw the notice and choose, unilaterally, to remain. This issue requires close aspect to think about of the text of short article 50, and what it might indicate, and close factor to consider of the Miller option. While this paper argues that the better view is that post 50 is unilaterally reversible previous to the two-year notification duration consisted of in post 50( 3) has actually ended, there is no case law on this question. On this, needs to it be inspected, the Court of Justice of the European Union would be the supreme arbiter.