British Prime Minister Theresa May sent her letter to European Council President Donald Tusk on Wednesday 20 March, asking the Twenty-Seven to grant the government an extension of the Article 50 period until 30 June.
An extension that the Pole considered possible, if it is used to validate the draft agreement with the EU. However, the requested decision poses some legal and political challenges, he said.
Therefore the Twenty-Seven will discuss an extension until 30 June this Thursday 21 March, with an address expected from Mrs May to her European colleagues before they meet. For the President of the European Council, a decision could very well be taken as early as Thursday. “I do not foresee an extraordinary European Council”, he said, an extension could be made “by written procedure”. However, the issue was not settled and even created divisions amongst Member States on Wednesday.
In any case, if Donald Tusk agrees with Mrs May that the Twenty-Seven will be able to reinforce what was acquired in Strasbourg on 11 March alongside Jean-Claude Juncker (an interpretative document in particular), the objective of an extension must be to encourage a positive vote in the House of Commons, he clearly indicated.
Because, as EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier summarised it on 19 March, what would be the point of an extension if it meant “returning to the same situation as today?” Mrs May will therefore have to demonstrate on Thursday, if possible, that this extension is useful.
But the 30 June date could be a problem, confirmed Donald Tusk. It was the European Commission that first thwarted the chosen timetable, stressing that there would be a problem of legality if it was extended beyond 23 May, the first day of the European elections. Jean-Claude Juncker had indeed made several such comments in recent weeks, considering that the country would have to hold European elections if it were a member of the EU after 26 May. The United Kingdom would be in breach of its obligations as a Member State.
The EU Council perceives it differently and on the side of some Member States, an extension that does not exceed the constituent date of the new European Parliament, set for 2 July, is still legally defensible. However, for the Commission, the institutions could be threatened in their legal integrity as early as 23 May.
“What the Twenty-Seven will look at first is this legal risk”, explains one diplomat. He then added: “In other words, does this run the risk of an institutional blockage of the EU?” From 23 May, the Commission could launch an infringement procedure against London. But “from 1 July, any citizen will be able to bring an action before the European Court of Justice and say that Parliament is in breach and that all its actions are null and void”, insists this diplomat.
For France, in this sense, the extension should be as short as possible, allowing the strict necessary for ratification “sufficiently before 23 May”.
In addition to these legal questions, the Twenty-Seven will also mainly ask Mrs May about the reasons for this short extension this Thursday. Barring surprises, they should not oppose it, as they should prefer the “prospect of success on 30 June to that of failure on 29 March”, a diplomat points out.
However, will the Twenty-Seven be satisfied with some of Mrs May's assurances of a third vote? It is very likely that they will ask her for a little more vision. In this sense, they could wait until next week and another European summit to validate this extension, possibly after a new vote that the Prime Minister has planned, in her letter, to reschedule.
But if that fails, what would they do? If Article 50 does not exclude repeated extensions, Europeans may not have “much enthusiasm” to prolong uncertainty, a diplomat said, and more than ever, ‘no deal’ could then become a very real possibility.
See the letter from Mrs May: http://bit.ly/2HwYbsM. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic with the editorial staff)