LEGAL moves are being made in Scotland for a judicial review to establish whether Britain can stop Brexit by revoking Article 50.
A cross-party group of four Scots politicians are leading the crowdfunded legal move to establish whether the UK can firstly make the move and also if it can stop Brexit without permission of the other EU states.
The action taken by Greens MSPs Ross Green and Andy Wightman, long serving Labour MEP David Martin and SNP MEP Alyn Smith will be submitted to the Court of Session in Edinburgh with a view to referring it to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Lawyers have written to the UK Government asking what its position is on the unilateral revocability of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union and has been asked to respond by December 12.
The group say the letter forms the first stage in a "proposed judicial review" of the UK Government’s position.
The Scottish Greens said: "Article 50 was triggered on 29 March 2017 and provides that the UK will cease to be a member state of the EU on 29 March 2019 unless any extension is agreed by the EU27.
"We know that the UK can withdraw its notification with the permission of the other 27. But the question as to whether it can revoke its Article 50 letter unilaterally is a legal question that has not yet been answered."
Andy Wightman
This move is said to have been supported by legal counsel in Edinburgh and by Jo Maugham QC and the Good Law Project.
A crowdfunding site that has gone live says: "The future of Brexit is increasingly uncertain.
"The promises the Government made – that there would be 'no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside' and that a deal would be the 'easiest in history' – look like falling short. And new facts about Brexit are emerging every day: only today it became clear that to leave will involve us settling a staggering €50,000,000,000 liability.
The message now is 'damage control'.
"This makes it vital that we leave all options on the table for Parliament, including staying in the EU."
The supporting statement added: "Many experts believe we can choose to stay in the EU without permission. That, if we want, we can just withdraw our notice. But there is only one way to be sure: a court has to decide what Article 50 means.
"And because Article 50 must mean the same thing to everyone, a national court can’t give the answer. Only the specialist European Court in Luxembourg can interpret Article 50 definitively. So we will ask the Court of Session in Scotland to ‘refer’ it to Luxembourg.
"This is the only way to give our Parliament the best negotiating hand. To maximise its power if the right choice is to stick with what we have."
Article 50 author Lord Kerr said earlier this month that Article 50 can be reversed and “we can change our mind at any stage of the process” during a speech at an Open Britain event in London.
He said that the just because Theresa May sent the Article 50 letter in March 2017, it does not mean Britain has no choice but to leave in March 2019.
“We can change our minds at any stage during the process,” said the Scots cross-bench peer, who added that the legalities of Article 50 had been misrepresented in Britain. “The British people have the right to know this: they shouldn’t be misled.”
Lord Kerr's speech came just after Theresa May confirmed plans to amend the withdrawal bill to ensure that Britain leaves the EU on March 29 2019.
In March 2017, Mrs May triggered Article 50 - the step that started the timer on two years of EU exit talks before the UK must leave the EU.
Brexit supporters argue any attempt to halt the exit process would be anti-democratic, while opponents say the country should have a right to pass final judgement on any exit deal negotiated.
Last week Lord Callanan, a Brexit minister, apologised to the House of Lords for wrongly telling peers that Article 50 cannot be revoked.
The crowdfundraisers explained: "We are seeking to raise funds for the permission stage and any adverse costs. If we are successful in obtaining permission - and we believe we will be - we are likely to need to raise further sums. Given the obvious public interest in the outcome we will ask the court to make a protective costs order. "
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel