Britain’s exit from the EU is not inevitable once Prime Minister Theresa May triggers Art 50 on 29 March, a senior barrister has said.
Hugh Mercer QC, of Essex Court Chambers, who chairs the Bar Council’s Brexit Working Group, said: “Though Art 50 includes no express provision for revocation of the UK notice, it is clearly arguable for example on the grounds of the duties of sincere cooperation between member states (Art 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union) that, were the UK to feel on mature reflection that leaving the EU and/or the European Economic Area (EEA) is not in the national interest, the notice under Art 50 could be revoked.”
Legal proceedings regarding the revocability or otherwise of Art 50 were launched in Ireland in January by Jolyon Maugham QC, with the intention of referring the question to the European Court of Justice.
Mercer, who is not involved in Maugham’s case, added: “The UK could not take a decision to leave the EU without assessing and debating the pros and cons of the different solutions—that would include the financial costs of each solution and the potential benefits.
“Whether or not there is scope for further legal challenges would depend on the robustness of the political process which is now about to begin.”
Last week, the Bar Council launched The Brexit Papers:Second edition—an easy-to-read legal guide to Brexit, with a plan to fill the gaps in the labour market and retain the status of the City post-Brexit while maintaining UK sovereignty and autonomy. It proposes a worker registration system that would allow EU citizens into the UK without a visa to seek work without restriction, while giving free movement to students, the self-employed and those with the means to be self-sufficient.
It also suggests a bespoke agreement with the EU to deal with the loss of the financial services “passport”. Mercer said: “Other mechanisms used by countries outside the EEA to access financial services markets, such as the equivalence regime and the emergent third country passport, will not fill the gaps created by the loss of the passport, and World Trade Organization terms, will not suffice. What we need is a bespoke agreement with the EU, replicating the status quo as far as possible and covering the gaps created by the loss of the passport regime.”
