header-logo header-logo

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

Reverse gear on Brexit?

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

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield welcomes new employment partner, Tom McLaughlin

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

National specialist pensions law firm strengthens team with three new appointments

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit appoints Christian Abletshauser to lead family law practice

NEWS
Burges Salmon appoints Benn Richards to strengthen Contentious Insolvency offering
A High Court decision has clarified that a home may be unfit for human habitation not only where conditions endanger health or safety, but also where they seriously undermine comfort and convenience

A longer time limit for employment tribunal claims, new charity law thresholds, property tribunal recruitment and appellate guidance on small-claims costs feature in the latest Civil Way round-up

A recent High Court ruling could make issue estoppel considerably more complex in cross-border litigation, requiring parties to consider the foreign law governing the underlying claim
The Supreme Court has overturned Cheshire West’s bright-line test for deprivation of liberty, replacing it with a broader, more contextual assessment that gives greater weight to an individual’s wishes, feelings and apparent consent
back-to-top-scroll