The Speaker of the British House of Commons, John Bercow, on Monday 18 March, gave a negative assessment of the possibility that British leader Theresa May could submit for a third vote the agreement on an orderly Brexit that she has negotiated with the European Union (see EUROPE 12172/1, 12212/1).
On the basis of a 1604 convention, Mr Bercow explained that a draft law cannot be put to the vote for British MPs multiple times if its substance remains unchanged.
On Monday, Mrs May also made holding of a third parliamentary vote conditional on the agreement on the political support of the DUP party, its Northern Irish ally, as well as that of the entire Conservative Party. She will call for a vote on Wednesday 20 March, on the eve of the European Summit, only if it has a good chance of being positive.
But the verdict of the Speaker of the House of Commons makes it difficult from the outset to hold a third vote, it being understood that Mrs May will not have time to renegotiate further substantive clarifications with her European partners.
If the blockage persists in the United Kingdom, the British Prime Minister would arrive in Brussels on Thursday 21 March with a request for a relatively long extension of the negotiation period provided for in Article 50 of the TFEU, as she had suggested last week following the second rejection of the agreement.
On Tuesday 19 March, the 27 European Affairs Ministers will take stock of the situation in preparation for the European Council (see other news). The latter will be asked to decide, or even unanimously accept, the United Kingdom's request to extend the talks even if, legally, the Member States have until Friday 29 March, the scheduled date of Brexit, to take such a decision.
A simple written procedure would suffice to grant this extension, still leaving room for a fourth vote in the British Parliament after the European Summit, if a third vote takes place and confirms the rejection of the Members.
On the European side, the Twenty-Seven will only grant a technical extension until the end of June to allow the United Kingdom to ratify the draft agreement definitively, if it is successful in the British Parliament.
In the event of a further failure or decision by Mrs May not to resubmit the agreement on an orderly Brexit to the vote by MPs, EU leaders could then consider a longer request for an extension of the negotiation deadlines. The United Kingdom would then be unable to avoid holding European elections on its territory.
A note, published by the Financial Times and submitted to the ambassadors of the Twenty-Seven on Friday 15 March, states that it is too late to change the Treaty and grant a derogation to the United Kingdom to exempt it from European elections. If the country were not to organise a European election, it would not be able to benefit from an extension beyond 1 July.
The published note also deals with the technical details of this request, as the UK government does not have to follow a specific request procedure. The Twenty-Seven, for their part, will not be able to impose a multitude of conditions on this extension, but they will be able to rely on the global context of the request.
On the other hand, it has been made clear that in a period of extended negotiations, the United Kingdom will not be able to claim to negotiate the substance of its future relations with the EU. This negotiation can only be conducted with a third country.
The expiry date of a possible extension could be one of the topics of the Twenty-Seven discussions on Thursday afternoon, as well as the possibility of further extending the deadlines set out in Article 50. This article does not prohibit this possibility, but neither does it expressly provide for it. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)