UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50 and stop Brexit, top EU

THE UK can stop the process under which the country will leave the EU on March 29 regardless of whether or not an exit deal has been agreed, according to the European Court of Justice’s Advocate General.

Theresa May started the two-year countdown to Brexit when she triggered the Article 50 process.

But Manuel Campos Sanchez-Bordona’s legal opinion makes the case that the UK can stop this. He rejected the argument that it can only be stopped following a unanimous decision by the European Council.

The Advocate General says Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty allows the “unilateral revocation of the notification of the intention to withdraw from the EU, until such time as the Withdrawal Agreement is formally concluded”.

The opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice but has been strongly welcomed by pro-EU campaigners who favour a second referendum.

Cardiff North Labour MP Anna McMorrin said: “This is very significant. Brexit is not a done deal and can be stopped. Today’s Advocate General view is an important signal ahead of the imminent court ruling.

“A people’s vote gives the public the right to reverse the disastrous course we’re on.”

A cross-party group of politicians brought the case forward, and it was referred by Scotland’s Court of Session.

Eloise Todd of pro-referendum group Best for Britain said: “The courts have confirmed what we have known to be true morally, politically and given what Article 50 itself says. No country can be forced out of the EU while it is still a full member, as the UK is.

“This is a wake-up call for all MPs to judge May’s deal – and any other deal that might have caught their eye – against the deal we have now, a bespoke deal negotiated over 40 years which gives us our voice, our vote and our veto in Europe.”

The Court of Justice notes the opposition of the UK Government, stating: “The UK Government contends that the question referred for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible, given that it is hypothetical and merely theoretical, since there is no indication that the UK Government or Parliament are going to revoke the notification of the intention to withdraw.”

But the Advocate General ruled that “the dispute is genuine, the question is not merely academic, nor premature or superfluous, but has obvious practical importance and is essential in order to resolve the dispute.”

Lawyers for the European Commission and the Council of the European Union had argued that while revocation was possible, it would