This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46428579

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
European law chief to set out view on Brexit case Law officer says UK can cancel Brexit
(about 9 hours later)
A top European law officer is to deliver an opinion on whether the UK can call off its exit from the EU without the backing of member states. The UK should be able to unilaterally cancel its withdrawal from the EU, according to a top European law officer.
A group of Scottish politicians have asked the European Court of Justice to rule on whether the UK can halt Brexit. The non-binding opinion was delivered by the the European Court of Justice's advocate general.
Advocate General Manuel Campos Sánchez-Bordona is to publish a non-binding opinion on the case on Tuesday morning. A group of Scottish politicians has asked the court whether the UK can call off Brexit without the consent of other member states.
It is not the final judgement in the case, but could be an indication of how the court's 27 judges will rule. The Court of Justice (ECJ) will deliver its final ruling at a later date.
The politicians pressing the case hope it could provide extra options for MPs as they begin the Commons debate of the UK government's draft Brexit deal. The advice from advocate general Manual Campos Sanchez-Bordona comes as the House of Commons begins five days of debates on Prime Minister Theresa May's proposed Brexit deal, with a vote due to be held next Tuesday.
MPs will vote on whether to accept the draft withdrawal agreement agreed with European negotiators on 11 December, after five full days of debate at Westminster. In a written statement, the ECJ said Mr Campos Sanchez-Bordona believes that if a country decides to leave the EU, it should also have the power to change its mind during the two-year exit process specified in Article 50 of the EU treaty, and without needing the consent of the other 27 member states.
The UK government has said it has no intention of calling off Brexit, and says the politicians bringing the case are using it as "ammunition" in their fight against withdrawal. While the advocate general's opinions are not binding, the court tends to follow them in the majority of its final rulings.
Mr Sánchez-Bordona's opinion is to be published one week after judges heard arguments about the case in Luxembourg. The anti-Brexit politicians and campaigners who have brought the case hope it will give MPs an extra option when considering whether to approve Mrs May's draft deal or not, because it could keep alive the prospect of calling off Brexit.
The case has been brought by a cross-party group of Scottish politicians including Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer, MEP Alyn Smith and MP Joanna Cherry of the SNP, and Labour MEPs David Martin and Catherine Stihler. The ECJ statement said the advocate general had proposed that the Court of Justice should declare that Article 50 allows the unilateral revocation of the notification of the intention to withdraw from the EU.
They want the court to rule on whether the UK can unilaterally halt "Article 50", the notification of withdrawal which MPs triggered in 2016 and which will see the UK leave the EU on 29 March, 2019. "That possibility continues to exist until such time as the withdrawal agreement is formally concluded."
Lawyers for the EU institutions argued that allowing countries to do this without the backing of other member states would create "endless uncertainty". The case has been brought by a cross-party group of politicians including Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer, MEP Alyn Smith and MP Joanna Cherry of the SNP, and Labour MEPs David Martin and Catherine Stihler.
Hubert Legal, the chief lawyer for the European Council, argued that allowing unilateral withdrawal could therefore lead to "disaster", of which "the main victim could be the European project altogether". Their case was was opposed by the UK government and the EU institutions in a hearing before all 27 ECJ judges last week.
The UK government's lawyers meanwhile argued that the judges should refuse to hand down a judgement on the issue of Brexit at all. Hubert Legal, the chief lawyer for the European Council, argued that allowing unilateral withdrawal could create "endless uncertainty" by allowing countries to announce they are leaving the EU in an attempt to secure better membership terms, before cancelling its withdrawal.
They said that the court has "long refused for very good reasons" to answer hypothetical questions which could interfere with domestic politics, and because "the UK does not intend to revoke its notification", the question of whether it can do so unilaterally is a hypothetical one. And the UK government's lawyers argued that the case is hypothetical as "the UK does not intend to revoke its notification", and said ECJ judges should therefore refuse to rule on it.
The Scottish politicians who brought the case say it is "vital" that parliament be "fully informed of all of its options".
And QC Aidan O'Neill argued that the UK should be allowed to halt the Brexit process if its citizens demanded such a move, saying: "It cannot be in the interest of the union as a whole to force a member state to leave the union against the wishes of the people."