Cross-party group wins right to take Article 50 plea to a full hearing

A CROSS-PARTY group of Scottish politicians has secured a judicial review of whether the UK can halt Brexit by revoking the Article 50 withdrawal process.

Lord Doherty rejected the group’s application for a review at the Court of Session last month, saying it was “hypothetical and academic” and had no real prospect of success.

However the campaigners appealed, and a panel of three judges has now ruled the group’s petition does raise a “point of substance” that should be argued at a full hearing.

However the judges noted the crowd-funded petition had significant problems with “rhetoric and extraneous and irrelevant material” that obscured its core arguments.

Lords Carloway, Menzies and Drummond Young also said it was highly questionable whether it was even possible to review the UK Government’s “unstated” position on the matter. The pro-remain group launched its legal action in November, asking the Court to seek a ruling from the European Court of Justice on whether the UK can halt Article 50 unilaterally.

It includes Green MSPS Andy Wightman and Ross Greer, SNP MEP Alyn Smith and Labour MEPS David Martin and Catherine Stihler, and is backed by the Good Law Project.

The UK Government opposed the request for review.

In his opinion, Lord Doherty said the issue of Article 50 revocability was academic as neither the UK parliament or UK Government had any plan to do it. However the group hopes a ruling from the ECJ that Article 50 could be withdrawn would inspire MPS to vote against Brexit.

It says greater clarity would “inform the democratic process”, so that politicians would know “what options are open to them”.

Delivering the appeal opinion, Scotland’s most senior judge, Lord Carloway, the Lord President, said it was not clear from the petition that the UK Government had a stated policy on revocability to review.

He said: “The statements from the Secretary and Minister of State for Exiting the EU are, at best for the petitioner, ambiguous. Whether it is possible to review a Government’s position, especially an unstated one, is highly questionable.”

A spokesman for the parliamentarians said: “We warmly welcome the judgment and are heartened by many of the comments.”

We warmly welcome the judgment