Will Yvette Cooper’s bill really prevent a no-deal Brexit?

Brexit Explained: If normal levels of trust in public life still held, and circumstances were less pressured, the Cooper bill should be entirely unnecessary

A group of backbench members of parliament led by Yvette Cooper, Oliver Letwin and Hilary Benn, are attempting to make a law that would effectively rule out a “no deal” Brexit.

As the current Brexit legislation stands, the UK will leave the EU on 12 April, without a deal if none has been agreed in the meantime.

The Cooper bill would force the prime minister to extend Article 50 and enable MPs to specify their own preferred date for the end of the process.

Theoretically, then, the bill puts the powers traditionally exercised without restriction by minsters into the hands of the House of Commons as a whole.

However, as so often, there is another interested party involved – the European Union.

Extending Article 50 is only possible if both the UK requests and the EU agrees to such a postponement. That means all of the EU member states’ own governments, which have varying views on the desirability of an extension.

Thus, the British parliament and prime minister might request a short delay – as Ms May has stated – but the EU might specify a long one, so that alternatives can be properly debated and decided, for example, via a general election or a second Brexit referendum.

Equally, the EU might simply refuse an extension at all. In that case, the only option left would be for the British government to cancel or revoke Article 50 – unilaterally ending Brexit at least for a time. The Cooper bill would not be relevant in such a case.

If normal levels of trust in public life still held, and circumstances were less pressured, the Cooper bill should be entirely unnecessary. After all, the prime minister has publicly ruled out a “no deal” Brexit, and the commons has rejected the option on a number of occasions by overwhelming majorities.

However, none of these has the formal force of law, and the fear still persists that the UK could leave the EU without a withdrawal agreement, future framework and transition period “by accident”.

Experts are divided about how swiftly the bill can make its way through both houses of parliament to gain royal assent – by the critical date of 12 April or before the EU summit next week. Eurosceptics in the House of Lords might filibuster the bill for so long it becomes redundant, for example.

The bill is also silent on what to do if the EU imposes certain conditions on an Article 50 process extension.

Got an unanswered question about Brexit? Send it to editor@independent.co.uk and we’ll do our best to supply an answer in our Brexit Explained series