No Legal Force Nor Effect.

The British Parliament is currently conducting it's Indicative Votes on Brexit.

All you need to know about this is right there in the name; "Indicative."

The purpose is to allow MP's to indicate their hopes, dreams, fears and other emotions regarding Brexit. It in no way affects Britain's Brexit policy. Let alone the EU's Brexit policy.

Quite why MP's would want to indicate to voters that they still do not understand the Brexit process is completely beyond me. However that is their choice.

The much more pressing issue is over whether Article 50 has been extended and the date of Brexit has been changed from March 29th (29/3/19).

On Monday (25/3/19) Prime Minister Theresa May claimed that it had been. That she has used an executive action or; "Royal Prerogative" to change the date at the March 22nd (22/3/19) EU Council (EUCO) Summit. At which the EU's offer to extend Article 50 was made.

That legal position is wholly incorrect and unsupported. In the winter of 2016/17 there was a huge Court case, brought by Gina Miller, over whether Royal Prerogative can be used in matters relating to Article 50.

The ruling of the British Supreme Court was that Royal Prerogative cannot be used in matters relating to Article 50. Particularly when it involves amending an Act of Parliament. Extending Article 50 requires the 2018 EU Withdrawal Act to be amended.

During Monday's Parliamentary debate the MP Peter Bone challenged Prime Minister May on this matter. Taking her down with a sniper's precision.

Late in the bad tempered debate he asked the friendly, jokey question of whether Prime Minister May would like to pop over to the EU and unilaterally adopt the Withdrawal Agreement.

Due to his tone and the fact that he didn't actually use the words; "Royal Prerogative" Prime Minister May mistook this for a sign of friendship. Responding that while she would like to she's not allowed to use executive action in this way.

Not realising that in doing so she'd just admitted the legal position she'd stated in her opening remarks is wholly incorrect and unsupported.

Today Prime Minister May faced the weekly; "Prime Ministers Questions (PMQ's)" in Parliament. There she attempted to put forward another argument as to why the date of Article 50 had been extended.

She claimed that Parliament had already given her the authority to do so. By instructing her to seek an extension to Article 50 from the EU.

You do not need to be a lawyer to notice the problem with that argument.

Parliament gave the Prime Minister permission to "Seek" an extension to Article 50. It did not give her permission to "Accept" an EU offer of an extension.

The differences in meaning between the word; "Seek" and the word; "Accept" are clear and well understood.

These two failed legal arguments of course come from the same source which claims the Withdrawal Agreement does not contain legally binding guarantees. Another false claim which has been a major sticking point in adopting the Withdrawal Agreement.

On the EU's side no-one has formally commented in this Article 50 issue.

However on Monday (25/3/19) the European Commission declared that it had completed its preparations for extending Article 50.

The European Commission is the EU's civil service. So while it is able to prepare plans on all sorts of things it lacks the legal authority to unilaterally enact any of those plans.

The European Commission announcing that it has completed its preparations for an Article 50 extension to well be viewed as a hint to the British Civil Service. That it too also needs to start preparations to extend Article 50.

Prime Minister May's Monday (25/3/19) statement coincided almost exactly with US President Trump signing a declaration. Recognising the Golan Heights as part of Israel.

This declaration seems to have emerged as something of a euphemism for the Article 50 issue.

The United Nations (UN) went first. Announcing on Tuesday (26/3/19) that the unilateral declaration has neither legal force nor effect.

When it comes to matters of international law the UN are the gold standard experts. Disputes under international law are either resolved at the UN General Assembly (UNGA). Or the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Which is a body of the UN.

Today (27/3/19) the EU has come out and restated the UN's position. The unilateral declaration has neither legal force nor effect.

Just before the start of today's (27/3/19) Indicative Votes debate the Speaker of the Commons, John Bercow, has stated that if there is to be another vote on the Withdrawal Agreement there must be a substantial, material change to the motion.

So the British government really needs to hurry up and reintroduce the Withdrawal Agreement as the statutory instrument required to extend Article 50.

Otherwise, on Friday (29/3/19) we're going to find ourselves in a very bizarre situation.

Where Britain claims that it is still a member of the EU.

Only to have the EU explain to Britain that it has already left.

17:00 on 27/3/19 (UK date).