The case has been brought by a cross-party group of six Scottish MPs, MEPs and MSPs, along with Jolyon Maugham QC, the director of the Good Law Project, who helped arrange the case after a crowdfunding appeal. They want the ECJ to offer a definitive ruling on whether the UK can halt the article 50 process without needing the approval of the 27 other EU member states.
At the court of session in Edinburgh on Thursday, Lord Carloway, Scotlands most senior judge, rejected the arguments put by the advocate general, Lord Keen, on behalf of the UK government to appeal the decision before the supreme court in London.
Get the kids in! Farage gives HILARIOUS reply to Barniers Farage in every country dig
Carloway said that if the ECJ was required to await the decision of the supreme court, then there would be little prospect of the hearing taking place in advance of the Commons meaningful vote on Brexit, rendering the entire exercise academic.
Brexit talks: EU mulls deal summit without May
He added that he believed that the UK government could still seek to appeal following the ECJ hearing: This court does not consider that its decision fetters the options open to parliament or freedom of speech within its walls.
Article 50 is silent on whether the member state that triggered it unilaterally can also cancel it unilaterally. UK ministers and the European commission have indicated they believe that withdrawing an article 50 application requires the consent of the 27 other EU member states.
Read more Carloway was one of three judges to refer the case to the ECJ in September. He then noted that the Commons would be required to vote on whether to ratify any Brexit deal before 29 March 2019, and that a judgment from the ECJ would have the effect of clarifying the options open to MPs in the lead-up to what is now an inevitable vote.
The Scottish Green party MSP Andy Wightman, who led the group of politicians, welcomed the decision, saying that the UK government has failed in its attempts to frustrate our successful referral to the court of justice.
The SNPs Joanna Cherry, the only MP in Wightmans group after warnings from the government that the action was breaching parliamentary privilege, added: MPs need to know the answer to this question. The choice is not whatever deal Theresa May can get or no deal. The UK government will not now succeed in its ruse to keep parliament in the dark.
The Department for Exiting the EU said: The government has made submissions to the CJEU. In any event, the government will not be revoking Article 50.
LONDON — Theresa May could be handed the power to unilaterally reverse Brexit after a court refused an appeal by her government to block a landmark case on the issue being referred to European courts.
In September, Edinburghs Court of Session referred the question of whether the UK can revoke its Article 50 request to leave the EU to the European Court of Justice after a case was brought by a group of Scottish politicians.
They argued that Article 50 — which triggered the UKs EU withdrawal process — can be revoked without the agreement of the other 27 European member states.
Lord Carloway, Scotlands most senior judge, refused the application on Thursday, meaning the case will now proceed to the ECJ as planned, with a provisional date of November 27.
The case was initially brought by a cross-party group of anti-Brexit politicians including Joanna Cherry, an SNP MP, and lawyer Jolyon Maugham QC, director of the Good Law project.
After the hearing, Maugham tweeted: “The governments last-ditch effort to block our attempt to empower Parliament to act in the national interest has failed. Application for permission to appeal refused – and the end of the line for the government.”
“The government must now focus on meeting the promises made to voters in the Referendum campaign. If it cannot deliver that deal the people must be asked again – because it has no mandate to drive the country off a cliff.”
The court case argues that Article 50, which triggered the UKs EU withdrawal process in March 2017, can be revoked without the agreement of the other 27 European member states.
Handing Mays government the unilateral power to reverse Article 50 would allow the UK to retain the perks of its current membership including the economic rebate that Margaret Thatcher negotiated in 1984 and the UKs opt-out from the Euro. These would potentially be lost were Britain forced to seek the approval of the rest of the EU to reverse Brexit.
Gunther Oettinger, the EUs Budget Commissioner has previously stated that under those circumstances “the gradual exit from the rebate would still be kept.”
Jolyon Maugham told BI in October that having the power to unilaterally reverse Brexit “sweetens the option of remaining” for the UK government.
“Plainly it is better for the country if we can unilaterally revoke the Article 50 notice,” Maugham added. “In that circumstance, we know that we could treat Brexit as though it was all just a bad dream.”
Michel Barnier, the EUs chief Brexit negotiator, has previously said that the EU27 would need to provide their consent to reverse the Brexit process. In that scenario, should the government seek in future to remain in the EU, it could lose the perks of membership it currently enjoys.
However, it is not clear whether approval from other countries is required for a country to cancel the process because Article 50 has only been triggered once and the process has never been tested in court.
Lawyers who argued that the matter is “hypothetical” because the government does not intend revoke Article 50 were overruled by Scotlands highest judge in June, who said it was “neither academic nor premature” to ask whether it was legally competent to revoke the notice. That means has now been fast-tracked from a Scottish court to the European Court of Justice, where it is expected to be settled in as little as six weeks.
Legal opinion is split on the subject of whether the case will be successful. Those arguing against the viability of the case say handing member states the right to withdraw would undermine the integrity of the two-year notice period which defines Article 50.
“Its absolutely fair to say that legal opinion is divided on the matter,” Maugham told Business Insider. “I genuinely dont know which way the court will jump.”
A spokesperson for the Department for Exiting the Union said that it was considering the decision and added that it was “committed to implementing the result of the referendum.”
Our Brexit Insider Facebook group is the best place for up-to-date news and analysis about Britains departure from the EU, direct from Business Insiders political reporters. Join here.