Europe's top court is set to rule on whether the UK can cancel Brexit

[Dubious]

• On Tuesday, the European Court of Justice's advocate general will issue a non-binding opinion on whether Britain could cancel Brexit without asking the permission of other countries.
• The case, brought by Scottish lawmakers, has met resistance from the U.K. government.
• The EU has also expressed concerns that such a unilateral power could destabilize Europe.

David Reid | @cnbcdavy
Published 4 Mins AgoCNBC.com

Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May walks behind flags of Europe as she arrives on the second day of a summit of European Union (EU) leaders and focusing on globalisation and migration, after the first day was dominated by the future of the EU and the Brexit, on June 23, 2017 in Brussels.


The advocate general for the European Union's top court will publish his opinion Tuesday on whether the U.K. can cancel Brexit without asking anybody else for permission.

A group of Scottish lawmakers have sought a legal ruling on if and how the U.K.'s request under Article 50 to leave the European Union could be unilaterally revoked before the Brexit deadline of March 29, 2019.

Article 50 allows a country to trigger the process that takes them out of Europe's political and economic union. U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May invoked the exit clause in March 2017.

Backed by a crowdfunding appeal, the case has been put together by a cross-party group of Scottish politicians, along with the high-profile barrister Jolyon Maugham QC. The final ruling on whether Article 50 could be canceled without input from the EU's other 27 countries will be granted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).


EU Court of Justice@EUCourtPress

#Brexit: Case C-621/18 Wightman on revocation of Article 50 - Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona will deliver his opinion on 4th December

384
3:39 PM - Nov 28, 2018
423 people are talking about this

What happens now?
The European court has already held the hearing, taking evidence from the group of lawmakers who said they wanted clarity to help decisions made by the U.K. Parliament. The British government has opposed the case, arguing it is a politically-motivated bid to frustrate Brexit.

The court also heard from lawyers representing the European Commission and Council of the European Union — which is the executive arm of the EU and the institution that represents member states' governments. They argued that revoking Article 50 should involve unanimous agreement from the other 27 nations.

The EU is worried that allowing a country to trigger Article 50 and then reverse the decision with no additional input could become a tool for those unsatisfied with the policies of Brussels. For the U.K. government and pro-Brexit politicians, there are likely concerns it could pave the way for a second referendum, giving the public an option of remaining in the EU.

The non-binding opinion of Advocate General Manuel Campos Sanchez-Bordona is to be issued on Tuesday at 9.a.m. CET. The full ruling will follow within days, though it's expected that the opinion of the advocate general will almost certainly be followed by the panel of judges.

Will it make any difference?
Not according to the U.K. government. May's team have stuck fast to the message that her deal is the only reasonable outcome of Brexit and that Britain will definitely leave the European Union on March 29 next year

In a statement the Department for Exiting the EU further played down the case's importance: "The government has made submissions to the CJEU. In any event, the government will not be revoking Article 50."


UK benefits enormously from being in the EU, analyst says 12 Hours Ago | 04:35

But writing in The National newspaper on Monday, one of the case's backers, Alyn Smith, argued that U.K. lawmakers were now "vulnerable to the government claims that there is no alternative to Brexit."

Smyth, a Scottish National Party member of the European Parliament, who opposes Brexit, added that "We might just find that it will be The Scottish Case that gets us out of this."

Journey through the courts
The initial request for a judicial review was rejected by Scotland's highest court, as the judge argued that the question of reversing Brexit was hypothetical, and that the matter encroached on the powers of the U.K. Parliament.

But appeal judges overturned that decision, noting that matters had moved on with the agreement of the Withdrawal Bill which sets out how Britain and Northern Ireland will leave the EU.

The British government then attempted to block the review's passage to Europe's highest court, arguing that the U.K.'s Supreme Court should first consider the case.

But that last-ditch appeal was turned down by Scotland's most senior judge who noted that delaying the final ruling any longer would risk pushing a decision beyond the wider U.K.'s "meaningful vote" on May's Brexit deal which is set to take place in the House of Commons on Tuesday December 11.



David ReidDigital Correspondent, CNBC.com

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/03/brexit-eu-top-court-is-set-to-rule-on-article-50.html

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

Kichri of Brexit is going nowhere

 

[waz]

Yes we can, and go away, no one gives a sh*T about the ECJ.

 

[Nilgiri]

Yes we can, and go away, no one gives a sh*T about the ECJ.

You have been issued a summons! *Shakes fist*

 

[waz]

You have been issued a summons! *Shakes fist*

I’m glad everyone else can see this BS, now they’ll understand why the majorty voted out . Fancy having a court in another land boss us about lol.

 

[UKBengali]

Kichri of Brexit is going nowhere

There will be no brexit after all.

2nd referendum will have a majority for Remain. Even if everyone voted the same as last time,
the vote will swing to Remain as a lot of the older mainly Brexit voters have died, and younger mainly Pro-Remain voters will be able to take part for the first time.

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

There will be no brexit after all.

2nd referendum will have a majority for Remain. Even if everyone voted the same as last time,
the vote will swing to Remain as a lot of the older mainly Brexit voters have died, and younger mainly Pro-Remain voters will be able to take part for the first time.

People thought leaving Europe is piece of cake and now reality bite and still there is uncertainty about what will happen next

1) No deal Brexit
2)second referendum
3) another election

all three options possible if members of British parliament say "NO" to deals of threase May on 11 dec

 

[waz]

There will be no second referendum, this isn't a banana republic, only a small minority want this, many who have vested interests. The UK's most respected statistician has said that the result will still be a leave victory, beside the ridiculous myth that many leave voters have died (it's only been 2 years).
If parliament votes it down, it will either be Canada plus, or no deal.

 

[The Diplomat]

There will be no second referendum, this isn't a banana republic, only a small minority want this, many who have vested interests. The UK's most respected statistician has said that the result will still be a leave victory, beside the ridiculous myth that many leave voters have died (it's only been 2 years).
If parliament votes it down, it will either be Canada plus, or no deal.

I'll tell you what, I'm in A2 right now and by the time I leave college we will have had two different PMs. A caretaker and a new PM. A vote of no confidence is likely to take place in my mind, section 13 will not be passed... May doesn't even have the backing of DUP.

Let's not be naive and say that there was perfect information, the remain team failed to point out any points what so ever, the leave team were somewhat organised. Why don't we hold Boris Johnson accountable for our £350m?

I know for a fact that my local MP won't be voting for May's deal. Was it Norway that had two or three referendums? And most of all it's my future, why didn't I get the right to vote?

 

[waz]

I'll tell you what, I'm in A2 right now and by the time I leave college we will have had two different PMs. A caretaker and a new PM. A vote of no confidence is likely to take place in my mind, section 13 will not be passed... May doesn't even have the backing of DUP.

Let's not be naive and say that there was perfect information, the remain team failed to point out any points what so ever, the leave team were somewhat organised. Why don't we hold Boris Johnson accountable for our £350m?

I know for a fact that my local MP won't be voting for May's deal. Was it Norway that had two or three referendums? And most of all it's my future, why didn't I get the right to vote?

We haven't left the EU, when we do, and stop the yearly payments then folks hold Boris to account.
The MP's will probably reject it. Ireland and Greece have had multiple referendums, but they are no benchmark to follow for a multitude of reasons.
You didn't get the right to vote because you were out of the timeline. Sure it effects your future, but it also effects the future of everyone else and they chose to leave.

 

[The Diplomat]

We haven't left the EU, when we do, and stop the yearly payments then folks hold Boris to account.
The MP's will probably reject it. Ireland and Greece have had multiple referendums, but they are no benchmark to follow for a multitude of reasons.
You didn't get the right to vote because you were out of the timeline. Sure it effects your future, but it also effects the future of everyone else and they chose to leave.

That's fair however lets not forget during the Scottish referendum 16 year olds were allowed to vote. If 16 year olds were allowed to vote then there would not be a large chunk of people asking for a second referendum; now that's not to say that all young people were going to vote 'remain'.

Waz, I respect your point of view. If we look at it this way; 51 per cent voted to leave and 49 per cent voted to remain. Majority of people had no idea what they were voting for; there was little to no talk about trade/customs union. The only thing that was touched was immigration and 'taking back our jobs'. Undemocratic it may be however there is a very high chance if there is a second referendum most people will vote to 'remain'. The will of the people has changed. It's funny how towns and cities that benefited the most from EU funding voted to leave.

The people at the Nissan factory can be happy when they lose their jobs, most of the cars are exported to the EU. After all they voted to leave, they should face their vote with a smile now. Our economy will suffer.

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

There will be no second referendum, this isn't a banana republic, only a small minority want this, many who have vested interests. The UK's most respected statistician has said that the result will still be a leave victory, beside the ridiculous myth that many leave voters have died (it's only been 2 years).
If parliament votes it down, it will either be Canada plus, or no deal.

Another referendum

Alternatively, MPs might suddenly shift in large numbers towards the idea of another referendum to break the Parliamentary impasse and open the possibility of stopping Brexit.

At the moment, about eight Tory and 44 Labour MPs have publicly committed to another referendum.

Theresa May is dead set against another referendum and it's hard to see an alternative Tory leader picking up that baton.

But the Labour leadership has said all options should remain on the table (including another referendum) and the SNP and Lib Dems say there should be one too.

However, a second referendum can only happen if the government brings forward legislation to hold one and a majority in the Commons supports it. There would have to be legislation. The rules for referendums are set out by the Political Parties, Elections & Referendums Act 2000.

The Electoral Commission's recommendation is that there should be six months between the legislation being passed and referendum day.

This could be shortened but, realistically, not by all that much. The UCL Constitution Unit, a research centre on constitutional change, suggests that could be 22 weeks.

So for the referendum to happen there would have to be a delay to Brexit - and that would require all 27 EU member states and the UK to agree.

A general election

Image copyright Getty Images
But perhaps there will be a general election instead? That is Labour's preferred outcome to the deal being rejected.

But as Dr Jack Simson Caird from the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law says, "with the ticking clock of Article 50 it's very difficult to see that this represents a solution to the problem" of a deadlocked parliament.

That will be the other critical factor at play.

Unless the government asks for an extension to the negotiating period - ie Brexit being delayed - the time for parliament and the government to agree a way forward is incredibly tight. The clock won't wait.

There are two routes to a general election through the Fixed Term Parliament Act.

Two-thirds of MPs could vote for one. This is the quickest route - a poll could be held as soon as 25 working days later.

Alternatively MPs could go for a no confidence motion in the government. This is a straight majority rather than requiring two thirds of MPs to vote for it.

This gives two weeks for someone to demonstrate they can command a majority in the Commons. If that does not happen, the 25 working days countdown to a general election kicks in.

Any election now would be on the existing constituency boundaries. The new ones have to be approved by the Commons and the Lords. And that has been put on hold until after Brexit.

'Negotiated no deal'

Another idea that has been floated is a "negotiated no deal" in the which the UK would ask the EU for a (paid) one year extension of membership before leaving on World Trade Organisation terms.

Some Brexiteers might like the idea but it's hard to see Parliament supporting such a move - with or without an explicit vote.

Because Parliament will have to come to a view.

As Maddy Thimont Jack, from the Institute for Government think tank says: "We do have Parliamentary sovereignty and there are clear ways for Parliament to express a very strong political view.

"I cannot see how a government can get through a legislative programme, for no deal, for example, if you don't have the support of Parliament."

Theresa May might have neutralised the chance of defeat in the Commons if she had found a Parliamentary consensus for the Brexit she planned to negotiate right at the start of the process.

Instead, she faces three fraught weeks and a vote that will define the country's future for many years.

Right now, it looks like the government's deal cannot get through the Commons.

But the mood in Westminster could shift quickly in the current pandemonium.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46320368

 

[The Diplomat]

@Proudpakistaniguy would you be for a second referendum?

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

@Proudpakistaniguy would you be for a second referendum?

Yes I voted Brexit but now I think it was a wrong decision. It was close win for leave side which might change now ..There was so much lies and propaganda from those who was leading s Brexit camp and we have seen that they have no capacity to deliver it ..

 

[waz]

That's fair however lets not forget during the Scottish referendum 16 year olds were allowed to vote. If 16 year olds were allowed to vote then there would not be a large chunk of people asking for a second referendum; now that's not to say that all young people were going to vote 'remain'.

Waz, I respect your point of view. If we look at it this way; 51 per cent voted to leave and 49 per cent voted to remain. Majority of people had no idea what they were voting for; there was little to no talk about trade/customs union. The only thing that was touched was immigration and 'taking back our jobs'. Undemocratic it may be however there is a very high chance if there is a second referendum most people will vote to 'remain'. The will of the people has changed. It's funny how towns and cities that benefited the most from EU funding voted to leave.

The people at the Nissan factory can be happy when they lose their jobs, most of the cars are exported to the EU. After all they voted to leave, they should face their vote with a smile now. Our economy will suffer.

The thing is the Scottish nationalists banked on the idea that allowing 16 year olds the vote would tip the vote in their favour, they were still beaten decisively. There just isn't that level of political engagement among young people.
Thank you for respecting my view, as I do yours.
As for people didn't know what they were voting, I would firmly disagree with that considering the masses of information that was both available in the print, electronic and viewed media. The pro-remain government at the time sent an information booklet to every household outlining the virtues of a remain vote, people still voted out. I've heard many say the will of people has changed but there is zero evidence of this, aside a couple polls which vary greatly and they had their creditability blown by the result, when they predicted a remain victory. I wrote earlier how the UK's most respected statistician has come on national TV to state that views remain unchanged, and the leave vote has become more hardened with the EU's belligerent behaviour.
The towns who are benefiting from EU are only benefiting because the UK is among the five net contributors and has the third highest contribution;

they i.e. UK towns are benefiting from OUR MONEY.

As for Nissan leaving and other 'what if' scenarios, that is just speculation. Will the economy be hurt? Yes a little, but the gains will be far greater in the long-term.