THE UK Government has lost a last-ditch bid to prevent a group of Scottish politicians from finding out if Westminster can stop Brexit, adding to the pressure on Theresa May.
It means the European Court of Justice [ECJ] will now deliver a definitive ruling on whether MPs can unilaterally revoke the Article 50 withdrawal process behind Brexit.
An oral hearing has been scheduled at the Luxembourg court on November 27.
If the ECJ agrees that Westminster could halt Brexit, it would give MPs another option to consider when they come to vote on the Prime Minister’s withdrawal plan.
Read more: 'Delaying tactics' claim as UK Government launch further appeal in Brexit legal battle
At the moment, Mrs May says the only choice is between her deal and No Deal.
The UK Supreme Court cleared the way for the ECJ hearing by today refusing the UK Government permission for an appeal hearing.
It followed a series of decisions at the Court of Session in Scotland on a case brought by a cross-party group of Scottish politicians led by Green MSP Andy Wightman.
He said: "This a welcome ruling by the Supreme Court. We now look forward to our hearing at the Court of Justice of the European Union on 27 November.
"The question as to whether the UK Parliament can unilaterally revoke Article 50 is becoming more relevant as the chaos around Brexit shows no sign of being resolved.
"It is vital that Parliament is fully informed of all of its options.”
Also involved were Labour MEPs Catherine Stihler and David Martin, SNP MEP Alyn Smith, SNP MP Joanna Cherry QC, Green MSP Ross Greer, and Jolyon Maugham QC of the Good law Project.
The group asked Scotland’s highest court for a referral to the ECJ to discover whether MPs could order Article 50 to be revoked - and so halt Brexit - without the EU’s consent.
The UK government said the issue was “hypothetical” and “academic” and won an initial decision at the Court, when Lord Boyd agreed with ministers.
However this was overturned on appeal by Scotland’s most senior judge, the Lord President Lord Carloway, who said the matter was very much a live one, and referred it to the ECJ.
He said it was "clear" that MPs at Westminster would be required to vote on any Brexit deal agreed by the EU and the UK Government
After being refused leave by Lord Carloway and two other judges to appeal the matter to the UK Supreme Court, on the grounds it would scupper the ECJ referral, the government tried to appeal directly to the Supreme Court to secure a hearing.
However the UK Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, effectively saying that the UK Government was being premature, as the Court of Session’s ruling was “preliminary” rather than final, and it would still have to reach a view on the decision from the ECJ.
A statement issued by the Supreme Court said: "It is clear that this interlocutor [Court of Session order] did not constitute a final judgment."
It continued: "As both this court and the [ECJ] have made clear, the preliminary ruling is merely a step in the proceedings pending before the national court - it is that court which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision.
"It will therefore remain for the Court of Session to give judgment in the light of the preliminary ruling, any relevant facts which it may find and any relevant rules of domestic law. It is only then that there will be a final judgment in the proceedings."
Mr Maugham tweeted: “I wonder if [The Brexit department] care to say how much they spent on hiring five QCs to make a hopeless application to the Supreme Court to try and stop Parliament from understanding what options it has?
“No Government acting in the public interest could spend money blinding the eyes of MPs to the options before them. This is, or with an Opposition worthy of the name would be, a scandal.”
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