European Court must decide if UK can stop Brexit

Author's right of the image
Getty Images

Anti-Brexit activists have been allowed to take their case to the highest court in Europe because they demand to be judged.

The multi-party political group argues that Article 50 can be revoked if MPs vote to do so.

The Edinburgh session court had previously rejected their offer to remit the case to European judges.

But now they have won an appeal and the European Court of Justice will have to decide definitively.

The Court of Session's appeal judges declared that "the urgency of the problem" – the UK having to leave the EU on March 29 – meant that its application to the European Court was in accelerated procedure.

• May: EU must respect UK in Brexit negotiations
• Read the judgment of the Court of Session

The UK government said it was "disappointed" by the decision and granted it a "careful scrutiny".

But a spokesman stressed that the government remained committed to implementing the outcome of the EU referendum and "will not revoke Article 50".

The lawsuit was filed by politicians, including Scottish MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer, Labor MEPs David Martin and Catherine Stihler and SNP MEP Alyn Smith, who claimed that Brexit is "not inevitable "and that there is still time to change course".

Welcoming the decision, Mr Greer said: "If negotiations collapse, as it seems to be the case, we must know that no disaster is possible."

Lawyer Jolyon Maugham, director of the Good Law Project, joined politicians to say that the latest judgment was a "bomb" that could "decide the fate of the nation" and allow the country to "get on with it". wake up from the nightmare that is the Brexit of this government ".

Prime Minister Theresa May admitted that negotiations with the EU had resulted in a "stalemate" after the rejection of her Brexit plans at a summit in Salzburg earlier this week.

But in a speech outside Downing Street, she insisted that "no one wants much more than me – but I will not overturn the result of the referendum and I will not separate my country".

Prime Minister Nicola Sturgeon described the speech as "terrible", claiming that May's so-called Brexit proposals were now a "dead duck" and that Brexit "should not happen" in the single market and the customs union.

To unilaterally stop Brexit

The petitioners claim that the UK should now be allowed to change its opinion on Brexit, without the need for authorization from the other 27 EU members.

If it succeeds, their case could strengthen the hand of any attempt by MPs to keep the UK in the EU after the final details of its terms of departure have been known.

Indeed, this would give Parliament the power to unilaterally interrupt Brexit if it believes that a final agreement – or no agreement – is unacceptable, even if the government wants to leave without worrying.

Lord Boyd, judge of the Court of Session, ruled in June that the case could not be submitted to the European Court of Luxembourg because it was "hypothetical" and did not reflect the political reality, because "it is highly improbable that this Government revokes the notification ".

Author's right of the image
Getty Images

The activists appealed this decision and on Friday the court ruled in their favor.

The decision was made by the highest judge in Scotland, Lord Carloway, and his colleagues, Lord Menzies and Lord Drummond Young.

The appeal judges said that the case had evolved since the initial decision of Lord Boyd, the European Union withdrawal law now establishing the manner in which parliamentary approval must be obtained once the negotiations between the British government and the EU ended.

Lord Carloway stated that it was therefore "clear" that Westminster deputies would be required to vote on any Brexit agreement agreed by the EU and the UK government.

"Clarify the options"

He said: "It seems neither academic nor premature to ask if it is legally competent to revoke the notification and thus stay in the EU.

"The question is uncertain to the extent that it is the subject of a dispute, as this litigation may demonstrate.

"The answer will have the effect of clarifying the options open to MEPs from the perspective of what is now an inevitable vote."

The judge also said that the European court would not advise parliament on "what it should or should do".

Instead, he said that it would be "simply to declare the law as part of its central function", adding that "the way in which Parliament chooses to react to this declarant is entirely up to this institution".

In their draft referral to the European Court, the judges ask: "When a Member State has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, EU law allows it to this Member State to notify this notification unilaterally?

"And, in the affirmative, subject to what conditions and with what effect compared to the remaining member state in the EU?"