Can the UK revoke Article 50 to reinvoke it later?
What stops the UK from revoking Article 50 simply to reinvoke it later for an additional 2 years of time to work out a deal?
united-kingdom brexit article-50
New contributor
add a comment |
What stops the UK from revoking Article 50 simply to reinvoke it later for an additional 2 years of time to work out a deal?
united-kingdom brexit article-50
New contributor
2
This is new territory for everyone involved. I'd be surprised if there's a specific processes for that scenario in place.
– yannis♦
3 hours ago
There is no provision that says it can be invoked again before the end of the two year period started by it's first invocation, so I'd say article 50 prevents article 50 from being invoked a second time before the first is resolved. After the first is resolved, the country is out, so it can't invoke it a second time anyways (without joining the EU again first).
– Morfildur
3 hours ago
@Morfildur the first invokation would be revoked first. - Aka cancel leaving the EU, before stating your like to leave a second time.
– Skeen
3 hours ago
2
Under the condition that it would be possible to even revoke the first invocation, which to my information is not guaranteed ( see politics.stackexchange.com/questions/12284/… ), then yes, it would probably be possible to revoke and then invoke, but the political ramifications would probably be... harsh. Upsetting the people you try to negotiate with by abusing the rules rarely produces better results.
– Morfildur
3 hours ago
2
@Morfildur Your comment is spot on but note that the question you link to is outdated, the EU court of justice recently handed down its ruling on a case pertaining to the possibility of revoking the article 50 invocation.
– Relaxed
2 hours ago
add a comment |
What stops the UK from revoking Article 50 simply to reinvoke it later for an additional 2 years of time to work out a deal?
united-kingdom brexit article-50
New contributor
What stops the UK from revoking Article 50 simply to reinvoke it later for an additional 2 years of time to work out a deal?
united-kingdom brexit article-50
united-kingdom brexit article-50
New contributor
New contributor
edited 20 mins ago
JJJ
3,83521738
3,83521738
New contributor
asked 4 hours ago
SkeenSkeen
1112
1112
New contributor
New contributor
2
This is new territory for everyone involved. I'd be surprised if there's a specific processes for that scenario in place.
– yannis♦
3 hours ago
There is no provision that says it can be invoked again before the end of the two year period started by it's first invocation, so I'd say article 50 prevents article 50 from being invoked a second time before the first is resolved. After the first is resolved, the country is out, so it can't invoke it a second time anyways (without joining the EU again first).
– Morfildur
3 hours ago
@Morfildur the first invokation would be revoked first. - Aka cancel leaving the EU, before stating your like to leave a second time.
– Skeen
3 hours ago
2
Under the condition that it would be possible to even revoke the first invocation, which to my information is not guaranteed ( see politics.stackexchange.com/questions/12284/… ), then yes, it would probably be possible to revoke and then invoke, but the political ramifications would probably be... harsh. Upsetting the people you try to negotiate with by abusing the rules rarely produces better results.
– Morfildur
3 hours ago
2
@Morfildur Your comment is spot on but note that the question you link to is outdated, the EU court of justice recently handed down its ruling on a case pertaining to the possibility of revoking the article 50 invocation.
– Relaxed
2 hours ago
add a comment |
2
This is new territory for everyone involved. I'd be surprised if there's a specific processes for that scenario in place.
– yannis♦
3 hours ago
There is no provision that says it can be invoked again before the end of the two year period started by it's first invocation, so I'd say article 50 prevents article 50 from being invoked a second time before the first is resolved. After the first is resolved, the country is out, so it can't invoke it a second time anyways (without joining the EU again first).
– Morfildur
3 hours ago
@Morfildur the first invokation would be revoked first. - Aka cancel leaving the EU, before stating your like to leave a second time.
– Skeen
3 hours ago
2
Under the condition that it would be possible to even revoke the first invocation, which to my information is not guaranteed ( see politics.stackexchange.com/questions/12284/… ), then yes, it would probably be possible to revoke and then invoke, but the political ramifications would probably be... harsh. Upsetting the people you try to negotiate with by abusing the rules rarely produces better results.
– Morfildur
3 hours ago
2
@Morfildur Your comment is spot on but note that the question you link to is outdated, the EU court of justice recently handed down its ruling on a case pertaining to the possibility of revoking the article 50 invocation.
– Relaxed
2 hours ago
2
2
This is new territory for everyone involved. I'd be surprised if there's a specific processes for that scenario in place.
– yannis♦
3 hours ago
This is new territory for everyone involved. I'd be surprised if there's a specific processes for that scenario in place.
– yannis♦
3 hours ago
There is no provision that says it can be invoked again before the end of the two year period started by it's first invocation, so I'd say article 50 prevents article 50 from being invoked a second time before the first is resolved. After the first is resolved, the country is out, so it can't invoke it a second time anyways (without joining the EU again first).
– Morfildur
3 hours ago
There is no provision that says it can be invoked again before the end of the two year period started by it's first invocation, so I'd say article 50 prevents article 50 from being invoked a second time before the first is resolved. After the first is resolved, the country is out, so it can't invoke it a second time anyways (without joining the EU again first).
– Morfildur
3 hours ago
@Morfildur the first invokation would be revoked first. - Aka cancel leaving the EU, before stating your like to leave a second time.
– Skeen
3 hours ago
@Morfildur the first invokation would be revoked first. - Aka cancel leaving the EU, before stating your like to leave a second time.
– Skeen
3 hours ago
2
2
Under the condition that it would be possible to even revoke the first invocation, which to my information is not guaranteed ( see politics.stackexchange.com/questions/12284/… ), then yes, it would probably be possible to revoke and then invoke, but the political ramifications would probably be... harsh. Upsetting the people you try to negotiate with by abusing the rules rarely produces better results.
– Morfildur
3 hours ago
Under the condition that it would be possible to even revoke the first invocation, which to my information is not guaranteed ( see politics.stackexchange.com/questions/12284/… ), then yes, it would probably be possible to revoke and then invoke, but the political ramifications would probably be... harsh. Upsetting the people you try to negotiate with by abusing the rules rarely produces better results.
– Morfildur
3 hours ago
2
2
@Morfildur Your comment is spot on but note that the question you link to is outdated, the EU court of justice recently handed down its ruling on a case pertaining to the possibility of revoking the article 50 invocation.
– Relaxed
2 hours ago
@Morfildur Your comment is spot on but note that the question you link to is outdated, the EU court of justice recently handed down its ruling on a case pertaining to the possibility of revoking the article 50 invocation.
– Relaxed
2 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Mostly the EU court of justice willingness to get creative or even political at times. It's not obvious to me that article 50 was really meant to ever be used (as opposed to placate EU skeptics during negotiations) and it is pretty light on procedural details. Case in point the possibility to go back on the article 50 invocation unilaterally is something the court created recently, it is nowhere to be found in the text itself (but it does not exclude it either, it's just silent).
The court's role is major complaint of some Brexit enthousiasts but for now the UK is still a member and stuck under its jurisdiction. Unless it is willing to contemplate the hardest of no-deal Brexit and ignore the treaties entirely, it needs to follow the article 50 process and the court's interpretation of that process. I am not even sure British courts would contemplate breaking off with the EU in such a disorderly fashion (but I am far from a specialist on this topic).
Someone else noted recently in a comment that the advocate general suggested a slightly different wording allowing the process to be stopped “in good faith“ but the court did not retain it. However doing it in bad faith is sure to be met with some strong push back from the EU's side. Importantly, article 50 does state that an extension of the negotiation period has to be agreed unanimously by all EU member states. Effectively extending the process by cancelling and re-invoking article 50 flies in the face of this provision.
You also have to consider what the purpose would be. Reading British commentary on Brexit, you sometimes get the feeling there is only one party in all this. It's all about what the UK wants or its leverage and it can be as cynical or ruthless as it can all the while ignoring the other party's perspective and complaining that the EU is mean. But what's needed is an agreement. Tricking the EU into another two years of negotiation is unlikely to buy any good will or help find some common ground.
Mind, the farcical way the british govt has been trying to 'negotiate' a brexit deal ever since the referendum has been rapidly burning good will for some time now.
– Shadur
1 hour ago
add a comment |
It's possible but timing is an issue.
The European Court ruled that it is possible for the UK to unilaterally revoke Article 50. However, if you read the Advocate General's opinion, on which this ruling is based, you can see that it says cancelling Article 50 cannot be used as part of an "abusive process".
In other words the plan could not to be cancel and then quickly re-trigger it to get another 2 years on the clock. It would have to be cancelled in good faith, i.e. with the intention of not leaving the EU. Perhaps some years later it might be possible to have another go, under a different government or with a fresh democratic mandate.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Skeen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38092%2fcan-the-uk-revoke-article-50-to-reinvoke-it-later%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Mostly the EU court of justice willingness to get creative or even political at times. It's not obvious to me that article 50 was really meant to ever be used (as opposed to placate EU skeptics during negotiations) and it is pretty light on procedural details. Case in point the possibility to go back on the article 50 invocation unilaterally is something the court created recently, it is nowhere to be found in the text itself (but it does not exclude it either, it's just silent).
The court's role is major complaint of some Brexit enthousiasts but for now the UK is still a member and stuck under its jurisdiction. Unless it is willing to contemplate the hardest of no-deal Brexit and ignore the treaties entirely, it needs to follow the article 50 process and the court's interpretation of that process. I am not even sure British courts would contemplate breaking off with the EU in such a disorderly fashion (but I am far from a specialist on this topic).
Someone else noted recently in a comment that the advocate general suggested a slightly different wording allowing the process to be stopped “in good faith“ but the court did not retain it. However doing it in bad faith is sure to be met with some strong push back from the EU's side. Importantly, article 50 does state that an extension of the negotiation period has to be agreed unanimously by all EU member states. Effectively extending the process by cancelling and re-invoking article 50 flies in the face of this provision.
You also have to consider what the purpose would be. Reading British commentary on Brexit, you sometimes get the feeling there is only one party in all this. It's all about what the UK wants or its leverage and it can be as cynical or ruthless as it can all the while ignoring the other party's perspective and complaining that the EU is mean. But what's needed is an agreement. Tricking the EU into another two years of negotiation is unlikely to buy any good will or help find some common ground.
Mind, the farcical way the british govt has been trying to 'negotiate' a brexit deal ever since the referendum has been rapidly burning good will for some time now.
– Shadur
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Mostly the EU court of justice willingness to get creative or even political at times. It's not obvious to me that article 50 was really meant to ever be used (as opposed to placate EU skeptics during negotiations) and it is pretty light on procedural details. Case in point the possibility to go back on the article 50 invocation unilaterally is something the court created recently, it is nowhere to be found in the text itself (but it does not exclude it either, it's just silent).
The court's role is major complaint of some Brexit enthousiasts but for now the UK is still a member and stuck under its jurisdiction. Unless it is willing to contemplate the hardest of no-deal Brexit and ignore the treaties entirely, it needs to follow the article 50 process and the court's interpretation of that process. I am not even sure British courts would contemplate breaking off with the EU in such a disorderly fashion (but I am far from a specialist on this topic).
Someone else noted recently in a comment that the advocate general suggested a slightly different wording allowing the process to be stopped “in good faith“ but the court did not retain it. However doing it in bad faith is sure to be met with some strong push back from the EU's side. Importantly, article 50 does state that an extension of the negotiation period has to be agreed unanimously by all EU member states. Effectively extending the process by cancelling and re-invoking article 50 flies in the face of this provision.
You also have to consider what the purpose would be. Reading British commentary on Brexit, you sometimes get the feeling there is only one party in all this. It's all about what the UK wants or its leverage and it can be as cynical or ruthless as it can all the while ignoring the other party's perspective and complaining that the EU is mean. But what's needed is an agreement. Tricking the EU into another two years of negotiation is unlikely to buy any good will or help find some common ground.
Mind, the farcical way the british govt has been trying to 'negotiate' a brexit deal ever since the referendum has been rapidly burning good will for some time now.
– Shadur
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Mostly the EU court of justice willingness to get creative or even political at times. It's not obvious to me that article 50 was really meant to ever be used (as opposed to placate EU skeptics during negotiations) and it is pretty light on procedural details. Case in point the possibility to go back on the article 50 invocation unilaterally is something the court created recently, it is nowhere to be found in the text itself (but it does not exclude it either, it's just silent).
The court's role is major complaint of some Brexit enthousiasts but for now the UK is still a member and stuck under its jurisdiction. Unless it is willing to contemplate the hardest of no-deal Brexit and ignore the treaties entirely, it needs to follow the article 50 process and the court's interpretation of that process. I am not even sure British courts would contemplate breaking off with the EU in such a disorderly fashion (but I am far from a specialist on this topic).
Someone else noted recently in a comment that the advocate general suggested a slightly different wording allowing the process to be stopped “in good faith“ but the court did not retain it. However doing it in bad faith is sure to be met with some strong push back from the EU's side. Importantly, article 50 does state that an extension of the negotiation period has to be agreed unanimously by all EU member states. Effectively extending the process by cancelling and re-invoking article 50 flies in the face of this provision.
You also have to consider what the purpose would be. Reading British commentary on Brexit, you sometimes get the feeling there is only one party in all this. It's all about what the UK wants or its leverage and it can be as cynical or ruthless as it can all the while ignoring the other party's perspective and complaining that the EU is mean. But what's needed is an agreement. Tricking the EU into another two years of negotiation is unlikely to buy any good will or help find some common ground.
Mostly the EU court of justice willingness to get creative or even political at times. It's not obvious to me that article 50 was really meant to ever be used (as opposed to placate EU skeptics during negotiations) and it is pretty light on procedural details. Case in point the possibility to go back on the article 50 invocation unilaterally is something the court created recently, it is nowhere to be found in the text itself (but it does not exclude it either, it's just silent).
The court's role is major complaint of some Brexit enthousiasts but for now the UK is still a member and stuck under its jurisdiction. Unless it is willing to contemplate the hardest of no-deal Brexit and ignore the treaties entirely, it needs to follow the article 50 process and the court's interpretation of that process. I am not even sure British courts would contemplate breaking off with the EU in such a disorderly fashion (but I am far from a specialist on this topic).
Someone else noted recently in a comment that the advocate general suggested a slightly different wording allowing the process to be stopped “in good faith“ but the court did not retain it. However doing it in bad faith is sure to be met with some strong push back from the EU's side. Importantly, article 50 does state that an extension of the negotiation period has to be agreed unanimously by all EU member states. Effectively extending the process by cancelling and re-invoking article 50 flies in the face of this provision.
You also have to consider what the purpose would be. Reading British commentary on Brexit, you sometimes get the feeling there is only one party in all this. It's all about what the UK wants or its leverage and it can be as cynical or ruthless as it can all the while ignoring the other party's perspective and complaining that the EU is mean. But what's needed is an agreement. Tricking the EU into another two years of negotiation is unlikely to buy any good will or help find some common ground.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
RelaxedRelaxed
16.4k3558
16.4k3558
Mind, the farcical way the british govt has been trying to 'negotiate' a brexit deal ever since the referendum has been rapidly burning good will for some time now.
– Shadur
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Mind, the farcical way the british govt has been trying to 'negotiate' a brexit deal ever since the referendum has been rapidly burning good will for some time now.
– Shadur
1 hour ago
Mind, the farcical way the british govt has been trying to 'negotiate' a brexit deal ever since the referendum has been rapidly burning good will for some time now.
– Shadur
1 hour ago
Mind, the farcical way the british govt has been trying to 'negotiate' a brexit deal ever since the referendum has been rapidly burning good will for some time now.
– Shadur
1 hour ago
add a comment |
It's possible but timing is an issue.
The European Court ruled that it is possible for the UK to unilaterally revoke Article 50. However, if you read the Advocate General's opinion, on which this ruling is based, you can see that it says cancelling Article 50 cannot be used as part of an "abusive process".
In other words the plan could not to be cancel and then quickly re-trigger it to get another 2 years on the clock. It would have to be cancelled in good faith, i.e. with the intention of not leaving the EU. Perhaps some years later it might be possible to have another go, under a different government or with a fresh democratic mandate.
add a comment |
It's possible but timing is an issue.
The European Court ruled that it is possible for the UK to unilaterally revoke Article 50. However, if you read the Advocate General's opinion, on which this ruling is based, you can see that it says cancelling Article 50 cannot be used as part of an "abusive process".
In other words the plan could not to be cancel and then quickly re-trigger it to get another 2 years on the clock. It would have to be cancelled in good faith, i.e. with the intention of not leaving the EU. Perhaps some years later it might be possible to have another go, under a different government or with a fresh democratic mandate.
add a comment |
It's possible but timing is an issue.
The European Court ruled that it is possible for the UK to unilaterally revoke Article 50. However, if you read the Advocate General's opinion, on which this ruling is based, you can see that it says cancelling Article 50 cannot be used as part of an "abusive process".
In other words the plan could not to be cancel and then quickly re-trigger it to get another 2 years on the clock. It would have to be cancelled in good faith, i.e. with the intention of not leaving the EU. Perhaps some years later it might be possible to have another go, under a different government or with a fresh democratic mandate.
It's possible but timing is an issue.
The European Court ruled that it is possible for the UK to unilaterally revoke Article 50. However, if you read the Advocate General's opinion, on which this ruling is based, you can see that it says cancelling Article 50 cannot be used as part of an "abusive process".
In other words the plan could not to be cancel and then quickly re-trigger it to get another 2 years on the clock. It would have to be cancelled in good faith, i.e. with the intention of not leaving the EU. Perhaps some years later it might be possible to have another go, under a different government or with a fresh democratic mandate.
answered 1 hour ago
useruser
6,95221431
6,95221431
add a comment |
add a comment |
Skeen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Skeen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Skeen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Skeen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38092%2fcan-the-uk-revoke-article-50-to-reinvoke-it-later%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
This is new territory for everyone involved. I'd be surprised if there's a specific processes for that scenario in place.
– yannis♦
3 hours ago
There is no provision that says it can be invoked again before the end of the two year period started by it's first invocation, so I'd say article 50 prevents article 50 from being invoked a second time before the first is resolved. After the first is resolved, the country is out, so it can't invoke it a second time anyways (without joining the EU again first).
– Morfildur
3 hours ago
@Morfildur the first invokation would be revoked first. - Aka cancel leaving the EU, before stating your like to leave a second time.
– Skeen
3 hours ago
2
Under the condition that it would be possible to even revoke the first invocation, which to my information is not guaranteed ( see politics.stackexchange.com/questions/12284/… ), then yes, it would probably be possible to revoke and then invoke, but the political ramifications would probably be... harsh. Upsetting the people you try to negotiate with by abusing the rules rarely produces better results.
– Morfildur
3 hours ago
2
@Morfildur Your comment is spot on but note that the question you link to is outdated, the EU court of justice recently handed down its ruling on a case pertaining to the possibility of revoking the article 50 invocation.
– Relaxed
2 hours ago