A CROSS-party legal challenge to the UK Government on Brexit is not “hypothetical or academic”, Scotland’s highest civil court has been told.
At a hearing at the Court of Session, lawyers acting for a group of nine politicians contested claims that the action was “premature” and “incompetent”.
The group is seeking a ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on whether the withdrawal process triggered under Article 50 can be revoked by the UK on its own without the consent of the other 27 EU member states.
The nine argue that the legal uncertainty surrounding the issue has to be resolved so they can carry out their duties as democratically-elected representatives.
The group includes Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer, SNP MEP Alyn Smith, Labour MEPs David Martin and Catherine Stihler, SNP MP Joanna Cherry and Jo Maugham QC and has recently been joined by two English MPs.
Their attempt to have the issue referred to the Luxembourg court has already been knocked back by a Scottish judge on the basis the issue was “hypothetical and academic”, but that decision was overturned by Lord Carloway, the Lord President, earlier this year.
At a full hearing yesterday, Aidan O’Neill QC, acting for the petitioners, said the issue was “certainly not premature because it would come too late if left longer”.
He said: “This is not some ivory tower, theoretical question. We are not here to waste the court’s time or raise hypothetical issues. It’s a real dispute, a real reason this matter requires to be resolved.”
David Johnston QC, for the UK Government, argued there has been no suggestion Article 50 would be revoked, adding: “It’s not for the court to enter into a hypothetical or premature debate.”
Judge Lord Boyd said he understood the “need for speed” and would issue his decision “in very short order”.
SCOTS CAMPAIGNERS LAUNCH BID
TO HALT BREXIT – PAGE 10
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