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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll