As the Brexit endgame approaches the UK Government is in crisis. It is clear there is no viable plan for Brexit. The majority of people in Scotland voted to remain in the EU and across the UK more and more people are wondering if Brexit could be reversed.
Legal opinion on whether Article 50 can be withdrawn by the UK without the permission of the 27 other member states is divided. The purpose of this case is to get a definitive answer. But why does this matter?
Read more: Scots battle to win MPs' right to halt Brexit 'likely to succeed'
Under the EU (Withdrawal) Act, MPs are required to vote on whether to ratify the Withdrawal Agreement. If no other proposal is put forward a vote against ratification will see the UK crashing out of the EU on March 29, 2019. MPs need to know what their options are and for that reason it is important to know whether it is legally competent to revoke the notification and remain in the EU.
Scotland’s top judge said: “The answer will have the effect of clarifying the options open to MPs in the lead-up to what is now an inevitable vote. Whatever the interest of MSPs and MEPs, MPs have an interest in seeing the matter resolved. On that basis the petition is competent at least at the instance of an MP.”
Read more: Exports to EU support 40,000 jobs in and around Glasgow, as no-deal cliff-edge fears mount
Even if there is no deal, the Institute for Government and others have argued the UK Government would probably come under political pressure to resign, subject itself to a vote of no confidence or to move a motion for an early general election. In these circumstances, whether Brexit can be reversed is something MPs willneed to know.
The presence of an MP among petitioners was vital to the application’s success and I am proud to be the sole MP who was prepared to take this case to appeal after we had failed to persuade the lower courts.
I look forward to the ECJ ruling and thank all those who have supported our efforts.
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