EU already preparing for inevitable delay to Article 50

"Postpone Article 50". What on earth does that mean?

Article 50 is the notification, and its procedures, and the notification been given: it's a simple as that. If you mean extension of the 2-year negotiation period, agreeing this is not outside of Art 50 but explicitly provided for under the Article. The only outcome that it outside of Art 50's provisions, thus far contemplated, is unilateral revocation of the notification. Sadly, no big political mover has the balls to suggest it. This pedantic point is worth making because you, and others, are not aware of the technical details yourself yet pretend the Govt's management of the technical details has been inadequate. In other words, your challenge is sheer rhetoric

If we were to wait till we had a good idea of what we were gonna get, then at the start of Jan 2019 we would still not know and would still not be able to notify. Indeed, we will only know the exact agreement after the transition period has started; when the finer details will be negotiated. I think the point you're making ignores the political pressure put on the PM by Brexiteers to notify ASAP.

Frankly, Corbyn's complaining is gonna do him nor the country any good -- the last thing we need is him attempting to come up with something, when he couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery. Or him ruining negotiations, so we're forced to No Deal. Along with a few years of uncertainty and economic depression, through his unfocused and misguided political opportunism.

Yes, I was using shorthand, it is indeed a suggestion that the negotiating period would be extended. However, I don't share your view that there is no possibility of cancelling the Article 50 invocation with a view to putting in again at some later date to be agreed - that I think is what will happen if as seems possible her government collapses next week. In any event, if the EU are willing to permit technical delays to it for longish periods, it pretty much adds up to the same thing - a delay to our leaving. I don't underestimate the pressure that was coming in from Brexiteers at the time, but leaders have to lead and when the going gets tough is when real tough leadership is required. Unfortunately her leadership all along has been to act not as if the country was split 52:48 but as if it was an overwhelming and unitary victory for Brexit. This has been particularly painful to watch given that these theatrics have only taken place because as a known Remainer she had to 'prove' her Brexitness and has used and abused the country ever since in that vain pursuit.

Corbyn might win his confidence motion if the DUP decide they haven't been bribed enough, er, I mean make a principled rejection of the totally unacceptable position on the backstop, in which case, all bets are off and the Corbynium could be just around the corner.

There is a negotiating difference between extending the period (with required assent of the 27) and withdrawing the notice (within our hands though legal position re the how is not totally certain, see below). The first buys some time but still with a ticking clock dictating events that may be difficult to work with if the clock runs down again the second fully stops the clock and would require a complete restart later if required.

This analysis re the legal position re revoking is worth reading, to avoid suspense, if you read it, the writers come to no conclusive legal view of the required UK constitutional process.

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/revoking-article-50-after-the-ecjs-ruling/

There is a negotiating difference between extending the period (with required assent of the 27) and withdrawing the notice (within our hands though legal position re the how is not totally certain, see below). The first buys some time but still with a ticking clock dictating events that may be difficult to work with if the clock runs down again the second fully stops the clock and would require a complete restart later if required.

This analysis re the legal position re revoking is worth reading, to avoid suspense, if you read it, the writers come to no conclusive legal view of the required UK constitutional process.

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/revoking-article-50-after-the-ecjs-ruling/

The irony is that had we just left the day after the referendum we would almost certainly be in a much better position right now, parliament has proper fooked this up, wilfully too.

FoS is talking about the political possibility of unilateral revocation, should May's deal be rejected by the Commons. I don't happen to think this marries with Corbyn's stated position, but I would personally welcome it.

Art 50, it has been argued, has a bona fide limit. If notification or revocation were done in bad faith, then only then could the Council refuse to accept a notification or a revocation. This means we could potentially withdraw and re-notify at a later point.

You mean left without negotiation? I guess, yeah, everything would be good now, with the economy down 10 or 15%, the pound having completely tanked, everything in the shops costing twice as much, 6m unemployed, massive social dislocation, fury in the streets from both migrant protesters and the disenchanted attacking them at the urging of the far right (for who else will the Faragistas be blaming when it all goes pear shaped but the poor immigrants?) - yes, apart from that, everything would I am sure have been just great.

This morning on the Andrew Marr show he seemed to be hinting (in so far as one could glean actual statements from the generalised bearded blather) that Labour would call for a postponed A50, but naturally he didn't specify how that would happen. He admitted that in the event of a general election, it would be impossible to go through with Mar 29th.

I'm no lawyer, but it does sound as though either Parliament on a vote, or the government on an edict, can cancel A50 with little more than a nod.

Given that it was all the result of a referendum might of course make that only theoretical, but if it is was announced to be in the essential national interest, as I'm sure it would be, it would be difficult to imagine the ageing Kippers and Home County types rushing out of their bungalows in yellow vests to protest.

FoS is talking about the political possibility of unilateral revocation, should May's deal be rejected by the Commons. I don't happen to think this marries with Corbyn's stated position, but I would personally welcome it.

Art 50, it has been argued, has a bona fide limit. If notification or revocation were done in bad faith, then only then could the Council refuse to accept a notification or a revocation. This means we could potentially withdraw and re-notify at a later point.

But there is also legal process, what is required to happen to permit HMG to submit a letter to revoke, the article I linked suggests the position is not totally clear- we may need to revert to our own courts with a ticking clock.

We are now into the legal how rather than the may we.

" The UK’s constitution is uncodified and largely unwritten, so its requirements are often subject to debate and disagreement. Hence the process to trigger Article 50 had to be determined by the UK Supreme Court. Indeed, the Court of Session will be required to issue a declarator on how Article 50 can be revoked as the next stage in the Wightman case. "

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/revoking-article-50-after-the-ecjs-ruling/

I am sure an Act would clear everything up.

All the talk, all the posturing will come down to does may go back on everything she has said or does she stick to it.

There will be twists such as a second vote but it will come down to her.

She may, by the 21st or shortly thereafter, have little choice in the matter, the H of C may effectively take over from HMG if she cannot carry the H of C to conduct business.

And that is done how.....

Well per John Hemming, a former MP, on Lemonfool

" The procedural nub is that the rules of the House of Commons are in its standing orders. These are subject to a modification by a motion passed by a majority of members of parliament. Such a motion does not have to be moved by a member of the government it can be moved by any MP.

I presume the same applies to the House of Lords.

There clearly is a majority in the house for parliament to pass motions that the government does not agree with. Whether that majority can come together to push any particular change (such as withdrawing the article 50 notice) is unclear at this stage.

However, any effectively constitutional changes needed to parliamentary process to circumvent the government merely require a majority vote in the House of Commons. "

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=15597&p=193319#p193319

Now I am no lawyer, and maybe there are lawyers who would disagree, but his having served as an MP (Lib) lends a little weight to his knowledge of parliamentary procedure.