header-logo header-logo

Reverse gear on Brexit?

05 December 2018
Issue: 7820 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

The UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50, an Advocate General has said

As Parliament continues its five-day debate on the terms of the Brexit deal the government has been forced to publish the Attorney General’s legal advice to the cabinet on the Withdrawal Agreement and Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.

The advice, made available through a written ministerial statement from Attorney General Geoffrey Cox QC after the government had been found to be in contempt of Parliament earlier this week, states that the proposed backstop arrangement with the EU to prevent a hard Irish border could ‘endure indefinitely’. It can be read in full on the government’s website.

Meanwhile, an Advocate General has ruled that the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50.

Giving his Opinion in the case, Wightman & Ors v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU (Case C-621/18), AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona said Art 50 of the Treaty on European Union allows revocation ‘until such time as the withdrawal agreement is formally concluded, provided that the revocation has been decided upon in accordance with the Member State’s constitutional requirements, is formally notified to the European Council and does not involve an abusive practice’.

He emphasised that withdrawal from an international treaty is by definition a unilateral act of a state party and a manifestation of its sovereignty. Moreover, Art 50 states that a member state must notify the European Council of its ‘intention’ not its decision to withdraw, and such an intention may change.

Advocate General’s Opinions are not binding on the European Court of Justice (ECJ) but are nearly always followed.

One of the litigants, Jolyon Maugham QC, Devereux Chambers, director of the Good Law Project, said the ruling ‘puts the decision about our future back into the hands of our own elected representatives—where it belongs’.

David Greene, senior partner at Edwin Coe and NLJ consultant editor, who represented one of the litigants in the Art 50 case at the Supreme Court last December, said: ‘If the court goes with the Advocate General it will increase the pressure on the government because a live option for Parliament now is the complete withdrawal of the Article 50 Notice.

‘This doesn’t of course address the political issues but it does give MPs another string to their bow as to options should the draft withdrawal agreement be defeated. Whichever way it goes in the ECJ it is unlikely to alter the likelihood of a second referendum because that could be effected under the terms of Art 50 by extending the notice period with the unanimous agreement of the European Council. 

‘That is a much more likely course than a full withdrawal although with backs against the wall and without agreement from the European Council withdrawal of the notice may be the final card. Interesting times.’

Issue: 7820 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll