{"id":60649,"date":"2016-11-19T18:27:00","date_gmt":"2016-11-19T18:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.glass-cage.com\/dianas_blog\/?p=60649"},"modified":"2021-01-13T10:42:45","modified_gmt":"2021-01-13T10:42:45","slug":"article-50-could-be-reversed-government-may-argue-in-brexit-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/glass-cage.com\/dianas_blog\/2016\/11\/19\/article-50-could-be-reversed-government-may-argue-in-brexit-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Article 50 could be reversed, government may argue in Brexit case"},"content":{"rendered":"

Interesting. So we can leave then change our minds?
\nThis should be fun then.<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

\n

\"PoweredThis article titled “Article 50 could be reversed, government may argue in Brexit case” was written by Owen Bowcott Legal affairs correspondent, for The Guardian on Saturday 12th November 2016 06.40 UTC<\/a><\/p>\n

Government lawyers are exploring the possibility of arguing in the supreme court that the article 50 process could be reversed by parliament at any time before the UK completes its exit from the European Union.<\/p>\n

Prominent academic experts have told the Guardian they know the government\u2019s legal team has sounded out lawyers about the potential change of tack, which some argue would lead to a victory in the case brought by Gina Miller and other campaigners.<\/p>\n

Prof Takis Tridimas, an expert in EU law at King\u2019s College London, said: \u201cI know that the issue of revocation is a live issue in terms of the supreme court hearing.\u201d He had heard that the government had commissioned research on the subject, he said.<\/p>\n

Earlier this month, the high court ruled<\/a> that the government could only invoke article 50, which begins the EU exit process, through a parliamentary vote. The case was decided on the basis that, once article 50 was triggered it was irreversible and British citizens would inevitably lose rights granted through the 1972 European Communities Act.<\/p>\n

Royal prerogative powers \u2013 the government\u2019s executive authority \u2013 cannot be used to repeal rights granted by parliament, the three high court judges concluded in their ruling, which was sharply criticised by several tabloid newspapers, including the Daily Mail which described the judges as \u201cEnemies of the People\u201d.<\/p>\n

If the government argued that MPs could vote to revoke article 50 during the exit negotiation period, some academics say, the outcome of the government\u2019s appeal to the supreme court would be different, because it would imply that the sovereignty of parliament had not been removed.<\/p>\n

Dr Eirik Bjorge, a senior law lecturer at Bristol University and an expert in EU law, said: \u201cIf the government decides to \u2013 and is allowed to \u2013 argue that the article 50 notice can be revoked, then it is all but sure to win in the supreme court. In those circumstances it cannot be said that, once the trigger has been pulled, the bullet will inexorably hit the target and expunge our rights under the European Communities Act 1972.\u201d<\/p>\n

   <figure class=\"element element-video element--supporting\" data-canonical-url=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/world\/video\/2016\/jun\/29\/what-is-article-50-brexit-video-explainer\" data-short-url=\"https:\/\/gu.com\/p\/4mqd2\" data-show-ads=\"true\" data-video-id=\"2578097\" data-video-name=\"What is article 50? \u2013 video explainer\" data-video-provider=\"guardian.co.uk\"> <video data-media-id=\"gu-video-577251eee4b030d83eb4b037\" class=\"gu-video\" controls=\"controls\" poster=\"\">  <\/video> <figcaption><a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/world\/video\/2016\/jun\/29\/what-is-article-50-brexit-video-explainer\">What is article 50?<\/a><\/figcaption> <\/figure>   <p>Tridimas is one of those who believes the article 50 process could be reversed before the UK\u2019s exit from the EU had been completed. \u201cMy view is that it is reversible,\u201d he said. \u201cThere\u2019s nothing in the wording of article 50 which says that it cannot be withdrawn. The Vienna convention on the law of treaties says that they can be reversed unless they state otherwise. The point of no return is two years after notification has been given [to the EU].\u201d<\/p> <p>Prof Paul Craig, an Oxford University expert on both EU and constitutional law, said the triggering of article 50 should be revocable by parliament. \u201cIt is a cardinal legal principle that a party is not bound by a contract or treaty until agreement has been reached,\u201d he has argued in a blogpost. \u201cThe consequences of not being able to revoke would be particularly severe: withdrawal would have to proceed even if invocation of article 50 triggered an economic meltdown in the country.\u201d<\/p> <p>However, Craig said, enabling parliament to give its approval at an early stage might have dangerous consequences for democracy later on: \u201cThere is a deeper paradox in this litigation.\u201d <br><\/p> <p>He said the claimants, who he said would like Britain to remain in the EU, were \u201cwilling to risk everything for some parliamentary voice at the trigger stage\u201d, but this could result in a decisive parliamentary vote to invoke article 50, which would be difficult to undo subsequently.<\/p> <p>\u201cThe government wishes to exit the EU. It conceded the article 50 point knowing that it might then lose the immediate battle, and would therefore have to seek parliamentary approval, but was confident enough that this would be forthcoming, and that thereafter the war was won, since the triggering, once done, was irrevocable.\u201d<\/p> <p>The government has already submitted its initial grounds for appeal at the supreme court. The papers do not indicate any shift of emphasis so far in the way the case will be presented, although it is possible that could change before the hearing in December.<\/p> <p>A government spokesman said: \u201cOur position is clear: the country voted to leave the EU and we will respect the will of the British people. The government told the high court that as a matter of firm policy, once given, the article 50 notice would not be withdrawn. Because legal proceedings are under way it would not be appropriate to comment further.\u201d\n<\/code><\/pre>\n
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010<\/p>\n
Published via the Guardian News Feed<\/a> plugin<\/a> for WordPress.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Lawyers consider potential change of tack for supreme court challenge to ruling that MPs must vote to trigger EU exit<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":true,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[3],"tags":[59,304,324,233,232,307,126,51,77,308,45,53,301,46,306],"class_list":["post-60649","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-musings","tag-article","tag-article-50","tag-brexit","tag-europe","tag-european-union","tag-foreign-policy","tag-law","tag-main-section","tag-news","tag-owen-bowcott","tag-politics","tag-the-guardian","tag-uk-home-news","tag-uk-news","tag-uk-supreme-court"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6NRDR-fMd","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":134227,"url":"https:\/\/glass-cage.com\/dianas_blog\/2018\/12\/31\/there-is-a-path-to-a-second-referendum-and-only-labour-can-win-it\/","url_meta":{"origin":60649,"position":0},"title":"There is a path to a second referendum \u2013 and only Labour can win it","author":"diana Stone","date":"December 31, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"As the political class returns to Westminster, this could be the time that, through the Brexit process, Labour finds its path to power","rel":"","context":"In "Musings"","block_context":{"text":"Musings","link":"https:\/\/glass-cage.com\/dianas_blog\/category\/musings\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Powered by Guardian.co.uk","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/image.guardian.co.uk\/sys-images\/Guardian\/Pix\/pictures\/2010\/03\/01\/poweredbyguardianBLACK.png?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":134283,"url":"https:\/\/glass-cage.com\/dianas_blog\/2019\/01\/01\/doctor-who-resolution-review-old-foes-and-brexit-gags-in-spectacular-satire\/","url_meta":{"origin":60649,"position":1},"title":"Doctor Who: Resolution review \u2013 old foes and Brexit gags in spectacular satire","author":"diana Stone","date":"January 1, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"The classy New Year\u2019s Day special gave us a generous helping of the Doctor we wish were world leader \u2013 and it will have to tide us over until 2020","rel":"","context":"In "Musings"","block_context":{"text":"Musings","link":"https:\/\/glass-cage.com\/dianas_blog\/category\/musings\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Powered by Guardian.co.uk","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/image.guardian.co.uk\/sys-images\/Guardian\/Pix\/pictures\/2010\/03\/01\/poweredbyguardianBLACK.png?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":132644,"url":"https:\/\/glass-cage.com\/dianas_blog\/2018\/12\/01\/brexit-facts-vs-fear-with-stephen-fry\/","url_meta":{"origin":60649,"position":2},"title":"Brexit: Facts vs Fear, with Stephen Fry.","author":"diana Stone","date":"December 1, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"How a mythical EU dragon was conjured up and the striking truth behind it all. A trick of forced perspective put fear in the way of facts. Voiced by Stephen Fry. Immigrants contributed \u00a320bn to the UK between 2000-2011, paying 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits. Study\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Musings"","block_context":{"text":"Musings","link":"https:\/\/glass-cage.com\/dianas_blog\/category\/musings\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":9150,"url":"https:\/\/glass-cage.com\/dianas_blog\/2015\/05\/01\/the-guardian-view-britain-needs-a-new-direction-britain-needs-labour\/","url_meta":{"origin":60649,"position":3},"title":"The Guardian view: Britain needs a new direction, Britain needs Labour","author":"diana Stone","date":"May 1, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Election 2015 poses some profound questions for this country. Ed Miliband has better answers than his rivals, and so deserves a chance to govern","rel":"","context":"In "Musings"","block_context":{"text":"Musings","link":"https:\/\/glass-cage.com\/dianas_blog\/category\/musings\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Powered by Guardian.co.uk","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/image.guardian.co.uk\/sys-images\/Guardian\/Pix\/pictures\/2010\/03\/01\/poweredbyguardianBLACK.png?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":151035,"url":"https:\/\/glass-cage.com\/dianas_blog\/2019\/10\/31\/labour-party-manifesto\/","url_meta":{"origin":60649,"position":4},"title":"Labour Party Manifesto","author":"diana Stone","date":"October 31, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Re Brexit: This is what it says \"A Labour government will immediately legislate for a referendum once elected. \" \"What will happen in a second referendum? A second referendum won\u2019t be a re-run of 2016. This time the choice will be between leaving with a sensible deal or remaining in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Musings"","block_context":{"text":"Musings","link":"https:\/\/glass-cage.com\/dianas_blog\/category\/musings\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":88603,"url":"https:\/\/glass-cage.com\/dianas_blog\/2017\/08\/14\/88603\/","url_meta":{"origin":60649,"position":5},"title":"If you were wondering why\u2026","author":"diana Stone","date":"August 14, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"If you were wondering why the Tories have quietly dropped their dodgy \u2018Bill of Rights\u2019, it\u2019s because they don\u2019t need it any more \u2013 they can achieve the same aims, with far less fuss, in their so-called \u2018Repeal Bill\u2019. The Bill will be the most dishonest piece of legislation to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Musings"","block_context":{"text":"Musings","link":"https:\/\/glass-cage.com\/dianas_blog\/category\/musings\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/glass-cage.com\/dianas_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60649","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/glass-cage.com\/dianas_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/glass-cage.com\/dianas_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/glass-cage.com\/dianas_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/glass-cage.com\/dianas_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=60649"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/glass-cage.com\/dianas_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60649\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/glass-cage.com\/dianas_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60649"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/glass-cage.com\/dianas_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60649"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/glass-cage.com\/dianas_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60649"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}