UK PM to request Brexit delay if no new deal with EU

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson attends a bilateral meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the annual United Nations General Assembly in New York City, New York, U.S., September 24, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Tista' taqra bil- Malti.

The British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said that if he is unable to agree a new deal with the European Union on the UK’s departure by the deadline of October 19th, he will request a further delay of Article 50.

This news was broken to a Scottish court earlier today by a group lawyers currently challenging the government.

A series of documents provided to the Court of Session in Scotland outline that the Prime Minister would request the extension despite his previous statements that he would not push for an extension.

Updated: UK Attorney General said prorogation was ‘lawful’

The move follows a new legal challenge against Mr Johnson by petitioners against Brexit, who want to force the Prime Minister to abide by law.

The law states that if Mr Johnson can’t agree a new deal, he will need to delay Brexit.

In September, a new law was passed stating that the Prime Minister must seek an extension of Article 50 if he could not approve a renegotiated deal through the House of Commons by October 19th.

Bill to block No-Deal passes House of Lords; to become law on Monday

No-Deal bill to be debated in UK House of Lords on Friday

The intention of the law was also designed to prevent the government from taking the UK out of the EU without a deal, a No-Deal Brexit.

This news also comes in the wake of the UK Supreme Court judging that the government’s decision to prorogue (close) the UK Parliament for 5 weeks prior to the Brexit departure of October 31st, was unlawful.

‘They are hiding behind a procedure to avoid discussing No-Deal’s impact’

Updated: Queen approves Boris Johnson’s request to suspend parliament

There was also embarrassment for the government’s senior lawyer Attorney General Geoffrey Cox, who had said the move was ‘legal’ and those who disagreed would do so out of political obstruction.