FRESH from its defeat in the Supreme Court which caused the Brexit Bill to be brought before Parliament, the Westminster Government is facing three more court actions aimed at halting the Article 50 process.
In a move that has infuriated Prime Minister Theresa May – following Gina Miller’s successful challenge to May’s proposed unlawful use of the Royal Prerogative – cases will be heard in Dublin, Luxembourg and the High Court in London, with any one of the three capable of disrupting Brexit.
The most controversial case has been taken by Jolyon Maugham, above, an English QC who has rights of audience in the courts in Dublin.
Through crowdfunding he has raised more than £70,000 to take his case to the Dublin judges, and proceedings were issued in the High Court in the Irish capital last week.
Because the case is nominally against the Irish Government, Maugham hopes the Dublin judges will refer the matter to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, which is the highest court in the European Union.
The nub of Maugham’s case concerns whether a country leaving the EU can change its mind after Article 50 is triggered – the UK Government and Supreme Court judges said Brexit was irrevocable Maugham wrote in his blog: “The Dublin case is not about blocking Brexit. It recognises the result of the referendum. But it also recognises that people sometimes change their minds.” He told Sky News: “It’s a question of European Union law, whether, if you trigger Article 50 and later change your mind, you can.
“And it’s pretty clear that if we went on bended knee to the other 27 and we said, ‘Look we’ve had second thoughts about this, can we back out?’ and they all agreed, that we’d be able to do that.
“This case seeks to restore agency to our Parliament. If Parliament did change its mind, and if we won the Dublin case, we would not need to go on bended knee to seek the support of the 27. We’d be able to do it as right.”
He explained in his blog: “It must be in the national interest, in this uncertain world, that we have the option of changing our mind. Whether we actually change it will depend upon events. But what a tragedy it would be if we came to think our national interest lay in remaining but found that course barred.
“The question is about how Article 50 works. Having notified, can you withdraw your notification? Whatever the answer is for the UK will also apply to the other 27 member states.
“And this means that only a court to which we all subscribe can give an answer. Here, the European Court. We access the European Court via a national court.
“And it can’t be our courts – because the complaints includes that the other 27 have breached the Treaty by excluding us from Council meetings before we’ve notified.But whichever national court we choose it ends up in the same European Court.”
The second case has gone directly to that European Court of Justice. Also crowdfunded, the case has been taken by a group of British expats who are suing the European Commission President Jean-Claude Jucker over the decision – cited by Maugham – that the UK would not have any prior negotiations before Article 50 is triggered and would also be excluded from EU meetings.
Saying this decision would have a huge and unjust impact on expatriates in the EU, Wynne Edwards, of the Fair Deal for Expats group, said: “It doesn’t have to do with trade deals and the common market and all that.
“These are personal matters, involving real people, such as health issues, the right to remain – and it’s on both sides, it’s reciprocal.”
The third case in the High Court in London concerns the European Economic Area (EEA), which countries intending to join must give 12 months’ notice. Campaigners are seeking a judicial review as they want the Westminster Parliament to get a vote on whether the UK can join the EEA that allows EU members to trade freely with Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway in a single market.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel