Article 50: where are we now?

26th June 2016

Law and politics are separate things, and they do not often overlap.  It is rare that politics is driven, or even shaped, by legal process or any legal issue. But it does happen sometimes, and it is happening in the United Kingdom at the moment.

The legal issue is about a provision in a European Union treaty known as Article 50, which deals with Member States leaving the EU. The provision has a binary nature, in that the provision is either invoked (or activated, or whatever verb you want) or it is not. That is a legal question. If the provision is invoked, then there are certain legal consequences, and if it is not invoked then there are not those legal consequences.

Until a couple of weeks ago few people in the UK, and almost no politicians or pundits, knew or cared about Article 50.  What was important for them was instead something which had no real legal significance (even if politically significant), a non-binding referendum on whether the UK should remain part of the EU.  That referendum also had a binary nature: you either voted Remain or Leave.  As it happened, a couple of days ago, the clear (if not large) majority of voters voted Leave.

Now a problem in UK politics comes from a mismatch – a disconnection – between the result of the referendum vote and the invoking of Article 50. One has not automatically led to the other, and it may not do so.

The supporters of Remain campaign did not think about this, because they thought they were going to win.  But the supporters of the Leave campaign also did not think much about this, as it seems they regarded winning the referendum as an end in itself to bring about their desired “Brexit”.

It appears that few if any people involved in the campaigns on either side thought about what would come next in the event of a Leave vote.

On the day the result of the referendum became known, the Prime Minister David Cameron did not do something, and I believe the omission was significant (I have discussed this here).

In essence, Cameron did not invoke Article 50: no notification was sent to the European Union.  In my view, the failure to send the notification on the very day after the referendum will mean that there is a strong chance it will never be sent at all.

Since the referendum result there has been considerable media and political discussion and speculation about Article 50.  This post examines a few of the contentions which have been made about Article 50 – in particular the first two paragraphs of the Article – and sets out whether they seem good points or bad points.

The best place to start is the provision itself.  Article 50 contains a sequence of stages which are separated out as numbered paragraphs.  I will set out the Article as a whole, and I will then go through paragraphs one and two in particular.

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

So, to begin with, let’s look at paragraph one of Article 50:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

What does this mean? I think there are two key elements to this.  The first is “decide” and the second is “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”.

The reference to “decide” is crucial. It means there has to be a decision.  Without a decision, nothing else follows. It is the Marley’s Ghost of Article 50.

The provisions which come afterwards in Article 50 do not even become engaged unless there is a decision.

So what is a decision?

In my view a decision in a UK context may be one of a number of things:

– a decision by the Prime Minister in accordance with the “royal prerogative” (that is, in accordance with the legal fiction that the Prime Minister can exercise powers on behalf of the Crown);

– as above, but the decision being made by the Prime Minister either in consultation with his or her cabinet, or after a vote of cabinet (or conceivably the same but with consulting the Privy Council instead);

– a decision by the Prime Minster following a resolution or motion in either House of Parliament or by both houses;

– a decision not by the Prime Minister but one embedded somehow in a new Act of Parliament (or a special statutory instrument or “order in council”), or a decision made in compliance with an existing statutory or similar regime; or

– any of the above following consultation with – or even the consent of  – the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

Any of these would be a decision for the purposes of Article 50(1). And each would be decision it would be fair and plausible to say is “in accordance with [UK’s] own constitutional requirements”.

The UK does not have a codified constitution.  Some would say it has not got a “written constitution” (though my view is that the UK constitution is (largely) written down, it is just not written down in one place; it is instead spread out over many texts and legal instruments).

But what the UK constitutional does not have, at least not in any explicit way, are prescriptive “constitutional requirements” – where one could point to a text and say: A-ha! That is how to make a decision to exercise a power under an existing treaty!

Without such a helpful provision, one can only look at how formal decisions can be made by those with political power in the UK, and the five examples set out above seem to all meet the Article 50(1) wording: they are “decisions” made “in accordance with [UK’s] own constitutional requirements”.

What does not meet the Article 50(1) wording, either as a “decision” or something made “in accordance with [UK’s] own constitutional requirements” is the mere result of a non-binding referendum.

The referendum on EU membership was advisory not mandatory. It was deliberately drafted by Parliament not to have any legal consequences.  (The last UK-wide referendum, on the AV voting system, did have such a binding provision, but this time Parliament chose not to include one).

As such, the result of the poll has no more legal standing than the result of a consultation exercise.  It was a glorified opinion survey, and that is what Parliament intended it to be.

The result is not a “decision” for the purposes of Article 50(1) and, on this basis, the other provisions in the provision are not engaged.

(For more on this, see this excellent post by Professor Mark Elliott.)

In my opinion, it could have been open to the Prime Minister on Friday, either on the basis of the royal prerogative or after involving the cabinet or the Privy Council, to have made the “decision”.  It was not even a decision to enter a new international treaty but to exercise a power within an existing one; in other words, it is the sort of decision a Prime Minister can usually make.

When the Prime Minister chose not to make that decision, that was a matter for him; and he in turn said it is a matter for his successor.

There is also a point about the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.  If the governments of any of the devolved states chose to (somehow) formally to object to the Leave decision then that opens the issue of whether the decision to Leave “in accordance with [UK’s] own constitutional requirements”.  

This is not to say there would be a legal bar – but in an un-codified constitution, force is given to “conventions”, as well as laws.  It would seem that many believe it is arguable that there is a convention at play here – that there should be consent by the devolved governments, even if not an absolute legal requirement.

As Article 50(1) talks vaguely of constitutional requirements”  it seems to me that a convention may be as capable of being a constitutional requirement as any statutory provision.

In other words: say if the Scottish government chose to formally object to a Leave proposal then it may make it harder to make out that the “in accordance with [UK’s] own constitutional requirements” element of Article 50(1) has been satisfied.

This is not (strictly) a legal point – as Professor Elliott explains in another post – but I still think it can still be significant in terms of Article 50(1): for if a convention is breached then a constitutional requirement cannot have been met.

But in any case, it certainly will be significant in terms of politics.  Not a formal veto perhaps – but important.

We now come to Article 50(2):

2. 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.

Remember this paragraph only even matters if there has been an Article 50(1) decision – if there is no decision, Article 50(2) falls away.  In effect, we don’t get past the fifth word of this rather wordy paragraph.

But it is not the fifth word which has been much-discussed over the last couple of days; it is the ninth – “notify“.

Once a decision has been made – which is not the case – then the decision shall be notified: there will be a notification.

What is a notification?

It has been suggested (including by those who should know better) that there could be a notification by accident or by informal means – a situation of “whoops I made a notification“.  This could be by the mere presence of the Prime Minister at a council meeting, or by an admission of the referendum result, or even one imposed upon the UK by another Member State or organ of the European Union.

Much of this speculation is utter twaddle.

The thing about words in formal legal document is that they must mean something and cannot mean anything.  A “notification” – especially of something which would have fundamental and (it would seem) irreversible legal consequences – is not something to be taken lightly, but should be taken reverently and responsibly in the sight of any number of lawyers.

In particular, the notification would have to be (a) formal and (b) intended to be communicated: that is what “notify” means.  There has to be no doubt (or room for doubt) as to what the statement means and that it was intended to be communicated as such.

One would think this was obvious.  But this has not stopped the “all depends” mongers coming with ingenuous hot-takes on what “notification” means.

But in any case, a spokesperson for the European Union has now put it beyond doubt:

“The notification of Article 50 is a formal act and has to be done by the British government to the European Council,” the spokesman said. “It has to be done in an unequivocal manner with the explicit intent to trigger Article 50.”

Indeed.  There will be no “whoops we notified the Council”.

The spokesperson’s statement also expressly confirms what was the position all along: that the if and when of the Article 50 notification is entirely a matter for the UK government.

It is up to the UK whether to make the notification and, if so, the timing of it.  This in turn means that the notification may never be made.

There is nothing – nothing at all – which the EU can do at law to force the UK to make that notification.

It may be an irony, but this is what sovereignty looks like.

**

For email alerts for my posts at Jack of Kent, the FT and elsewhere, please submit your email address in the “Subscribe” box on this page.

header banner image

Regular blogging at Jack of Kent is made possible by the kind sponsorship of Hammicks Legal Information Services.  

Please click on this link to Hammicks and have a browse.

 

32 thoughts on “Article 50: where are we now?”

  1. Surely it is the most fundamental constitutional requirement of all that parliament should abide by the wishes of the people?

  2. I once bought a flat. The seller insisted we move very fast, but then as we got close to exchange; the solicitors on the other side went quiet. We informed them that our offer would reduce by £5,000 for every week that they failed to exchange: we exchanged contracts at the end of that week.

    While they can’t force it, the EU could presumably make it clear that the longer we delay, the eventual negotiations will be steadily harder and less favourable. And the longer that goes on, then presumably the likelihood of decision and notification decreases further.

    And separately, while this seems very unlikely, presumably Cabinet could over-ride Cameron and make a decision (Scots issues etc. notwithstanding).

    1. They’re a bit stuck there. They can’t threaten to worsen the conditions of our exit without first saying what those conditions might be, which is what they’re refusing to do. Saying “We won’t tell you what our offer is, but we’ll take something off it if you delay” is not a credible threat.

  3. There is nothing *official* which the EU can do at law to force the UK to make that notification.

    There. Fixed that for you.

  4. Given that uncertainty is the common enemy and contagion is the EU fear, what chance that if the Tories prevaricate the EU goes for the nuclear option of Article 7?

    1. On the basis of Article 7, it seems that the prejudice against minorities in central and eastern Europe could justifiably have triggered it already. Not sure what breaches of Article 2 could be pinned on UK for now!

  5. Clarity. Thank you so much, Mr G.

    Is it so hard for journalists to seek this kind of information before appearing in front of cameras and asking clueless politicos questions (not that their answers would be illuminating).

  6. I can’t help wondering whether Scottish Independence gives the EU a potential way to skirt round this. Consider the following scenario:
    Scotland runs Indyref 2, and gets a majority for independence. The EU then declares that it regards Scotland as the successor-state to the no-longer-united Kingdom, and that article 50 notification is now irrelevant; the rump UK will be out of the EU as soon as Scottish independence officially happens, and will need to apply through the usual diplomatic channels if it wants anything.
    Would that make sense within the current EU legal framework? They’re not expelling a country, they’re just choosing only to admit one of the successors of a collapsed state.

  7. Very interesting article.
    Political question – if the PM (Cameron or successor) stalls on activating Article 50 would it be possible for a pro-Brexit MP to propose a piece of legislation compelling the government/PM to do so within 30 days? Individual MPs would have to vote and be in the uneviable position of choosing between what they think is right (around 75% were Remain) and how their constituencies voted (nearly all English and Wales shires were Leave).

      1. MPs who are really committed to Remain… or want to retire anyway etc. vote Remain.

        Then do the sums and work out which Remain MPs can vote Leave and which have to take one for the team.

  8. Thank you for this. A calm and reasoned explanation of the legal situation. There is also the political situation to consider in which an advisory vote (as you say, the referendum was specified as advisory in the bill creating it) had a choice between a clearly understood outcome (Remain) and an unclear one (Leave). The reason I believe “Leave” is an unclear situation is that there is no definition of what leaving the EU meant in detail. Norway is not in the EU, but is a member of the EEA. Is this what is meant by “Leave”, but what is the EU27 wouldn’t accept that for the UK? What if they required the UK to withdraw from all EU-related status?
    To me, the sensible way forward would be:

    1. For the UK government to informally negotiate a binding offer of an exit agreement without notifying the Council under Art 50. A binding referendum on “stay in the EU; accept this treaty exit agreement” could then be held. At that point the lies on things like immigration, incl. free movement (into the UK of EU citizens) and funding (what about that 350m pounds Johnson, Gove and Farage?) could be held. It would also be possible at that point to have separate referenda in each of the four constituent nations of the UK with a subsidiary question; if the UK as a whole decides to leave, stay in the EU as a newly independent nation.

  9. If you want to know what happens next, I think we should be looking at Article 48. Article 50 seems to be unusable, but Article 48 offers an alternative route where they can’t refuse to engage entirely.

  10. Avery useful article to those of us on the outside of the Uk and with only basic understanding of international human rights law. Thank you

  11. David
    good to see your website back on the air, thanks for the interesting posts.
    I am not a lawyer so I am still a bit confused about the issue of sovereignty. I *do* trust experts though so could someone tell me the flaw(s) in the following reasoning.
    The argument seems to be that Brexit cannot ‘take back our sovereignty’ because we never lost it. This seems to be based, ultimately, on the fact that parliament gave the EU the powers that it has, and gave EU laws the weight that they have, by passing the 1972 European Communities Act. Since the UK parliament has the power to repeal that act whenever it chooses then it is sovereign. In other words the UK parliament is sovereign because it can choose to leave the EU.
    However, we now seem to be saying that in the light of the referendum, push has come to shove, and many people think that we should not ( will not ) make the article 50 declaration because the consequences for the UK would be too awful for any responsible politician to do it. This means that the UK will remain in the EU. So it is not actually possible for us to leave, and if it is that way now then ( for all practical purposes ) it is impossible for us to leave ever. If it is not possible for us to ever leave then is parliament still sovereign? It may, in theory, be in its power to repeal the 1972 act, but if it could never do it in practice then isn’t its sovereignty a fiction.
    This appears to suggest that if we leave the EU then our parliament is sovereign but we will possibly suffer economic damage in the short term. Whereas if we remain parliament is not sovereign and we will possibly be damaged at a time and in a manner of someone elses choosing, because we will have no way to stop a gradual ( but monotonically advancing ) ever closer union?

    1. There are all kinds of things that Parliament can’t in practice do, not because they are legally prohibited but because they’re really stupid ideas. It can’t give everyone £1 million. It can’t ban imports altogether. It can’t launch a mission to relocate the population of the UK to Mars. The fact that it can’t in practice do these things is not a limitation on its sovereignty, and so if leaving the EU turns out to be in the same category, that’s also not a limitation on our sovereignty. It only affects our sovereignty if the restriction on our ability to do it is legal, not practical.

      1. Thanks for the reply. Sorry, my question was not terribly well phrased.
        I understand the point that just because something can’t be done by parliament that isn’t a limitation on it’s sovereignty. Your examples are clearly instances of that, however isn’t the point that nothing rests on parliament’s ability to do those things?
        With regard to the EU: the supremacy of its laws is a legal restriction on what our parliament can do, and would limit its sovereignty were it not for parliament’s ability to repeal the European Communities Act. ( even if it never chooses to do that, it could do, therefore parliament is sovereign )
        If we remain a member of the EU because the economic consequences of leaving are so bad as to make it impossible to ever leave, haven’t we lost sovereignty *not* because we cannot leave the EU per se, but because *being able* to do so is what underpins our parliament’s sovereignty despite the supremacy of EU laws under the treaty?

  12. Can someone please explain why the Leavers are reacting this way, with such arrogance? I have never seen such a disdain against people, with their : you lost, get a grip, you can’t reverse what happen.

    I do understand that most of it was a vote of protest and not really to leave, I know that there’s always going to be a part of the population who are extremes. What I don’t get is that there’s no place to discuss this is not right, like a fatality.

    IT’S Not BeCause you WIN that you are RIGHT….,It’s not because you win that you are right…

    History is full of errors like this; so, saying that you have to get on with it, is like being in your worst nightmare: paralysed and stuck, while seeing your life going on without you.

    Plus, how on earth can you think this is a good victory when around the world the ONLY persons that said it’s a good think are extreme parties and racists people?

    I don’t understand and lost.

  13. What about the Act that took us in? Wouldn’t that to be repealed or replaced by a majority vote in the Commons and Approved by the Lords? Pretty sure the Royal Prerogative can’t override an Act of Parliament. They would have thought of that when agreeing the Magna Carte?

  14. A strong article, but the first sentence is completely wrong. Law is an essential aspect of politics and part of the framework in which politics takes place.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *