UK House of Commons: Debating Article 50 Revocation - Reality vs Misconception

The title of the article, 'This Saturday the UK House of Commons could pass a bill revoking the Article 50 Brexit notice', highlights a point that has gained significant attention in the political discourse. However, the reality is more nuanced. Is the attempt to pass such a bill genuinely being considered, or is it simply a minor session of posturing for political gain?

Why Is This Not Being Mentioned?

The question posed in the headline: 'Why is this not being mentioned' is an interesting one. The answer lies in the likelihood of such a bill actually passing and the broader political context.

Firstly, it almost certainly won't pass. Despite the presence of MPs who aim to frustrate the government's Brexit objectives, not all of them are pro-EU. Significant Labour MPs, for example, might want to leave but are against the Tories doing it for party political reasons. Handing the Conservatives a Brexit would result in a political backlash, likely harming the party at the next general election, whenever it might be.

Secondly, the posturing from minor parties is primarily about electioneering. While they strive to influence the debate, their actions are driven more by electoral ambitions than genuine concerns about Brexit's technicalities. This is evident in the accusations against Corbyn for being dishonest when it comes to his stance on a Brexit or remain policy.

Parliament's Current Position

Currently, the UK House of Commons is focused on debating the deal agreed upon with the EU. Should this deal gain parliamentary support, a bill will follow for a formal vote. One of the proposed amendments during this debate is the revocation of Article 50. Even if this amendment were to win support, it wouldn't result in revocation. The current laws, particularly the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, mandate leaving the EU on terms approved by Parliament, which can only be changed through another act.

Because of these inherent legal constraints, the prospect of revoking Article 50 is highly improbable. Instead, the greater risk lies in whether the deal is ultimately approved or rejected. If Parliament votes in favor of the deal, it aligns with the Benn Act, which necessitates presenting the required bill to Parliament before October 31st. In the event of failure to do so, the UK may default to a no-deal Brexit, which some suspect might be the goal of certain parties.

Oliver Letwin's proposed amendment seeks to address this potential risk by ensuring the presentation of the necessary bill before the deadline. This amendment, if passed, would mitigate the possibility of a no-deal Brexit.

Conclusion

The title of the article is a misinterpretation of the current legislative processes and the political realities. The UK House of Commons is engaged in a complex debate about the future of Brexit, but the notion of quickly revoking Article 50 is a stretch. The focus should instead be on how the deal is structured and the legal mechanisms in place to address uncertainties.