A CROSS-PARTY group of Scottish politicians has secured a judicial review of whether the UK can halt Brexit by revoking the Article 50 withdrawal process.
Lord Doherty rejected the group’s application for a review at the Court of Session last month, saying it was “hypothetical and academic” and had “no real prospect of success”.
However the campaigners appealed, and a panel of three judges has now ruled the group’s petition does raise a “point of substance” that should be argued at a full hearing.
READ MORE: Russian propaganda outlet expelled from Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce
However the judges noted the crowd-funded petition had “significant problems”, with “rhetoric and extraneous and irrelevant material” that obscured its core arguments.
Lords Carloway, Menzies and Drummond Young also said it was “highly questionable” whether it was even possible to review the UK government’s “unstated” position on the matter.
The pro-Remain group launched its legal action in November, asking the Court to seek a ruling from the European Court of Justice on whether the UK can halt Article 50 unilaterally.
It includes Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer, SNP MEP Alyn Smith and Labour MEPs David Martin and Catherine Stihler, and is backed by the Good Law Project.
The UK Government opposed the request for review.
In his opinion, Lord Doherty said the issue of Article 50 revocability was academic as neither the UK parliament or UK government had any plan to do it.
READ MORE: Tories would be 'wrong winner' in Scotland if election tomorrow
However the group hopes a ruling from the ECJ that Article 50 could be withdrawn would inspire MPs to vote against Brexit.
It says greater clarity would “inform the democratic process”, so that politicians would know “what options are open to them”.
Delivering the appeal opinion, Lord Carloway, the Lord President, said it was “not clear” from the petition that the UK Government had a stated policy on revocability to review.
He said: “The statements from the Secretary and Minister of State for Exiting the EU are, at best for the petitioner, ambiguous.
“Whether it is possible to review a Government’s ‘position’, especially an unstated one, is highly questionable.
“Nevertheless, if this petition were shorn of its rhetoric and extraneous and irrelevant material and were reduced, after adjustment, to a manageable size… a case of substance, albeit not necessarily one which is likely to succeed, can be discovered.”
He accepted the issue of whether it was legally possible to revoke Article 50 was of “great importance and could influence MPs as they voted on the EU withdrawal Bill.
“After all, if Parliament is to be regarded as sovereign, the Government’s position on the legality of revoking the notice may not be decisive.”
He said that if the Court of Session sought a reference from the ECJ on the issue the European Court would be “bound to reply to the questions asked”.
READ MORE: Russian propaganda outlet expelled from Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce
He concluded: “In short therefore, having regard to all the circumstances, the court is of the view that the Lord Ordinary [Lord Doherty] erred in holding that there is no ‘real prospect of success’ in this petition.
“There is a point of substance, albeit one heavily concealed by the averments, which should be argued in the normal way.
“The court’s decision, having heard full argument, may ultimately reflect the Lord Ordinary’s view, but that is for another day.”
He said he allow the campaigners and the UK government time to formulate their arguments further before hearings were set for a full review hearing at the Court of Session.
A spokesperson for the parliamentarians said: “We warmly welcome the judgment and are heartened by many of the comments, especially Lord Carloway's statement that the issue is ‘of great importance’.
"We remain of the view that the revocability of Article 50, and indeed how it should be revoked given this is new territory for everyone, is an important if technical point, and that it is open to the UK to revoke the Brexit process in accordance with constitutional procedure.
"Nothing in Brexit is inevitable, and we look forward to the full hearing in due course."
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