Appeal judges have ruled that a Scottish court has to properly examine claims that the UK should be able to unilaterally abandon Brexit without permission from other EU member states.

A panel of three judges led by Scotland’s most senior judge, Lord Carloway, the lord president, said the cross-party group of politicians behind the case had raised a point “of great importance” that had to be fully heard.

The group, which includes Labour, Scottish Green party, Scottish National party and Liberal Democrat politicians, wants the European court of justice to issue a definitive ruling on whether the UK can unilaterally withdraw its article 50 letter which triggered the Brexit process.

They say UK government ministers and the European commission are wrong to insist that the article 50 process can only be abandoned if all the other 27 EU member states agree. They argue that EU treaties make no mention of that condition.

The group, whose members include MSPs from Holyrood, Westminster MPs and two MEPs, need the permission of a Scottish court to send the case to the European court.

The appeal hearing at the court of session, Scotland’s civil court, was arranged after another judge, Lord Doherty, had thrown out the group’s initial application for an interim hearing of the case for a referral to the European court.

The appeal hearing ruled Doherty was wrong to claim the issue was hypothetical and academic since the UK government had insisted it had no intention of abandoning Brexit and so far there was no evidence parties at Westminster would block it.

Carloway said that raised significant problems for the petitioners because the statements so far by UK ministers on whether article 50 could be unilaterally withdrawn were ambiguous.

Even so, in a legal victory for the petitioners, Carloway said they were right to argue that the Westminster parliament was sovereign.

“The issue of whether it is legally possible to revoke the notice of withdrawal is one of great importance,” he said. “After all, if parliament is to be regarded as sovereign, the government’s position on the legality of revoking the notice may not be decisive.”

</s>A legal challenge to the UK Government on Brexit can proceed to a full hearing in the Scottish courts, the country's most senior judge has ruled.

Lord Carloway, the Lord President, said a previous decision to dismiss the case had "erred" in ruling that there was "no real prospect of success".

He has now granted permission for the challenge - which has been brought by a cross-party group of politicians from Holyrood and the European Parliament - to proceed.

Jo Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project and one of the petitioners, tweeted: "The Inner House of the Court of Session has given us permission."

While Lord Carloway was critical of the "rhetoric and extraneous and irrelevant material" in the petition, he stated there was a "point of substance" which should be "argued in the normal way" in court.

Labour, Scottish Green and SNP representatives united to bring forward the legal challenge, with Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer, SNP MEP Alyn Smith and Labour MEPs David Martin and Catherine Stihler all involved, along with Mr Maugham.

The group believe the UK Parliament could unilaterally halt the Brexit process if the final deal negotiated by the Government is rejected by MPs in the House of Commons.

They claim this offers a third option, instead of Britain having to choose between a bad deal on the UK's future relationship with Europe or crashing out of the EU with no deal.

The group is ultimately seeking a definitive ruling from the European Court of Justice (CJEU) on whether the withdrawal process triggered under Article 50 of theTreaty on European Union can be revoked by the UK on its own, without first securing the consent of the other 27 EU member states.

Their legal team went to the Court of Session - Scotland's highest civil court - in Edinburgh in February to ask a judge to refer the question to the Luxembourg court.

Judge Lord Doherty originally refused to move the case on, saying the issue was "hypothetical and academic", and that he is "not satisfied the application has a real prospect of success".

However, in his opinion Lord Carloway said: "The issue of whether it is legally possible to revoke the notice of withdrawal is, as already stated, one of great importance."

He added: "On one view, authoritative guidance on whether it is legally possible to do so may have the capacity to influence Members of Parliament in deciding what steps to take in advance of, and at the time of, a debate and vote on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

"After all, if Parliament is to be regarded as sovereign, the Government's position on the legality of revoking the notice may not be decisive."

Lord Carloway said that given the case related to "a matter of very great constitutional importance", the court had taken "quite some time to consider the petition" - although he said this was "an exceptional course and it is not one which a court should follow in the ordinary case".</s>A legal attempt by anti-Brexit campaigners to establish that Britain could unilaterally reverse Brexit was given a boost on Tuesday by Scotland's top court, which said it wants to examine the case in greater depth.

The group behind the legal challenge, who include pro-EU Scottish lawmakers, want to show that Britain could stay in the European Union after all -- if, for example, the final terms of Brexit negotiated by the government were rejected by parliament.

The campaigners are ultimately seeking a formal opinion by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) asserting that Britain could reverse its decision to invoke Article 50 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty, the formal step that kickstarted the Brexit process.

They argue that once the terms of Brexit have been negotiated, Britain's sovereign parliament may well decide not to go ahead with it, so lawmakers need to know in advance if that is legally possible.

As things stand, there is no suggestion of a change of course over Brexit, which British voters backed by 52 to 48 percent in a June 2016 referendum. The ruling Conservative Party and main opposition Labour Party are both committed to Britain leaving the European Union.

The legal case, headed by anti-Brexit campaigning lawyer Jolyon Maugham, had been rejected by a lower Scottish court.

The British government argued that the question of whether Britain could unilaterally stop Brexit was irrelevant because the will of the voters was clear and the government was not going to back out of Brexit.

On Tuesday, the Court of Session, Scotland's highest court, overturned an earlier ruling, saying the case raised important issues and there should be a full hearing so all the arguments could be debated.

"The issue of whether it is legally possible to revoke the notice of withdrawal is, as already stated, one of great importance," the Court of Session said, referring to the Article 50 process which started in March 2017.

"On one view, authoritative guidance on whether it is legally possible to do so may have the capacity to influence(lawmakers) in deciding what steps to take in advance of, and at the time of, a debate and vote on the European Union(Withdrawal) Bill."

Once a full hearing has taken place in Edinburgh, a decision will be made on whether to refer it to the ECJ, the court said, although it may ultimately decide that it should not.

If the Scottish court decided not to refer to the ECJ, the petitioners can take their appeal to Britain's Supreme Court.

They argue that while there is no doubt that Britain could stop Brexit with the permission of the other 27 members, it should seek to establish a legal right to do so unilaterally whether the rest of the bloc likes it or not.</s>A group of Scottish politicians who want to stop Brexit have won an appeal to have their case heard at the Court of Session.

The petitioners want the European Court of Justice to decide if the UK could unilaterally halt the withdrawal process.

Those behind the petition include two Green MSPs as well as Labour and SNP MEPs.

The UK Government has argued that triggering Article 50 means Brexit cannot be halted and the only two options are to leave with an agreed deal or to exit without a deal at all.

Earlier this year, Lord Doherty of the court's Outer House threw out the petition, calling it "hypothetical and academic", but appeal judges ruled on Tuesday that he had "erred" and the case should indeed be considered at the Court of Session.

The Court of Session will now decide whether to refer the case to the European Court of Justice, the highest court in EU law, to give its opinion on the question.

In his written judgment on the appeal, Lord Carroway wrote: "The issue of whether it is legally possible to revoke the notice of withdrawal is, as already stated, one of great importance.

"On one view, authoritative guidance on whether it is legally possible to do so may have the capacity to influence Members of Parliament in deciding what steps to take in advance of, and at the time of a debate and vote on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

"After all, if Parliament is to be regarded as sovereign, the government's position on the legality of revoking the notice many not be decisive."

He added later: "In short, therefore, having regard to all the circumstances, the court is of the view that the Lord Ordinary erred in holding that there is no 'real prospect of success' in this petition.

"There is a point of substance, albeit one heavily concealed by the averments which should be argued in the normal way."

Download: The STV News app is Scotland's favourite and is available for iPhone from the App store and for Android from Google Play. Download it today and continue to enjoy STV News wherever you are.</s>A legal attempt by anti-Brexit campaigners to establish that Britain could unilaterally reverse Brexit was given a boost on Tuesday by Scotland's top court, which said it wants to examine the case in greater depth.

The group behind the legal challenge, who include pro-EU Scottish lawmakers, want to show that Britain could stay in the European Union after all, if for example the Brexit negotiations resulted in an unfavourable deal.

The campaigners are ultimately seeking a formal opinion by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) asserting that Britain could reverse its decision to invoke Article 50 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty, the formal step that kickstarted the Brexit process.

They argue that once the terms of Brexit have been negotiated, Britain's sovereign parliament may well decide not to go ahead with it, so lawmakers need to know in advance if that is legally possible.

As things stand, there is no suggestion of a change of course over Brexit, which British voters backed by 52 to 48 per cent in a June 2016 referendum. The ruling Conservative Party and main opposition Labour Party are both committed to Britain leaving the European Union.

The legal case, spearheaded by anti-Brexit campaigning lawyer Jolyon Maugham, had been rejected by a lower Scottish court.

On Tuesday, the Court of Session, Scotland's highest court, rejected the earlier ruling, saying the case raised important issues and there should be a full hearing so all the arguments can be developed.

Once such a hearing has taken place, a decision will be made on whether the case should be referred to the ECJ.

If it ultimately requests the ECJ clarify the issue, the Luxembourg-based court will be "bound to reply to the questions asked," the court said.

The petitioners argue that while there is no doubt that Britain could stop Brexit with the permission of the other 27 members, it should seek to establish a legal right to do so unilaterally whether the rest of the bloc likes it or not.

The British government argues that the question of whether it alone can stop Brexit is irrelevant, since the issue was decided by the 2016 referendum and there are no plans for a second referendum.

The petitioners have said they will go all the way to Britain's Supreme Court if necessary.</s>A cross-party group of Scottish politicians has won permission for a judicial review of whether the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50.

The MEPs and MSPs want to get a ruling from the European Court of Justice on whether Brexit could be called off.

Lord Doherty had originally rejected their application for a review, saying it had little prospect of success.

However, after an appeal a panel of judges said there was "a point of substance" to be addressed in the case.

Lord Carloway, Scotland's top judge, overturned Lord Doherty's decision and has allowed permission for a judicial review to proceed.

The legal action was launched by a group of politicians from the SNP, Labour, the Scottish Greens and the Lib Dems following a crowdfunding campaign.

The politicians, who are backed by the Good Law Project campaign group, said they were seeking "clarity to inform the democratic process" on whether Brexit could be halted, so that politicians know "what options are open to them".

They want their case referred to the EU's Court of Justice to determine whether it would be lawful for the UK to revoke Article 50, the mechanism which was used to trigger exit in March 2017.

However Lord Doherty said that "given that neither parliament nor the government has any wish to withdraw the notification", the question whether or not it could be done unilaterally "is hypothetical and academic".

He said: "The fact of the matter is that parliament has not proposed, let alone enacted, legislation directed to the United Kingdom's withdrawal of its Article 50 notification.

"The government's policy is not in conflict with the legislative will of parliament. Parliament authorised the government to give the notification. Neither parliament nor the government wishes that the notification be withdrawn.

"In those circumstances it is not a matter which this court, or the Court of Justice of the European Union, require to adjudicate upon."

The politicians appealed against this ruling, and this was subsequently considered by a panel of judges in the Inner House of the Court of Session, led by Lord Carloway.

He was critical of the arguments put forward, saying the petition had "significant problems" and calling the position of the UK government "ambiguous".

He said that if the petition was "shorn of its rhetoric and extraneous and irrelevant material and reduced, after adjustment, to a manageable size", then "a case of substance - albeit not necessarily one which is likely to succeed - can be discovered".

Lord Carloway added: "The issue of whether it is legally possible to revoke the notice of withdrawal is one of great importance. On one view, authoritative guidance on whether it is legally possible to do so may have the capacity to influence members of parliament in deciding what steps to take in advance of, and at the time of, a debate and vote on the EU Withdrawal Bill.

"After all, if parliament is to be regarded as sovereign, the government's position on the legality of revoking the notice may not be decisive."

He concluded that there was "a point of substance, albeit one heavily concealed" in the case, "which should be argued in the normal way".

The judge said he would allow some time for the two sides to formulate their arguments before further hearings in the Scottish courts are set.</s>EDINBURGH, March 20 (Reuters) - - Scotland's top court gave a favourable ruling on Tuesday to a legal case brought by anti-Brexit campaigners seeking to obtain a court opinion that Britain could unilaterally reverse Brexit if it wanted to.

The campaigners want a formal opinion by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) asserting that Britain could reverse its decision to invoke Article 50 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty, the formal step that kickstarted the Brexit process.

Scotland's Court of Session, reversing an unfavourable ruling by a lower court, said that the case should be given consideration by the ECJ.

The case will not go directly the the ECJ, however, as it must clear other legal hurdles within Britain. The campaigners have said they would go all the way to Britain's Supreme Court if necessary to make their case. (Reporting by Elisabeth O'Leary; Editing by Estelle Shirbon)</s>A cross party group of Scottish politicians have won the right to have their attempt to find out if Brexit can be cancelled heard in the courts.

The group of Green, SNP and Labour politicians are attempting to find out if the UK can go to the European Court of Justice for a judicial review on whether it can unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notification.

Earlier this year a judge at the Court of Session refused to allow their action to proceed. Lord Doherty rejected their application on the grounds that “the prospect of success falls very far short”.

But Andy Wightman and Ross Greer of the Greens, the SNP MEP Alyn Smith and Labour MEP’s David Martin and Catherine Stihler have successfully appealed Lord Docherty’s decision.

In upholding the politicians’ appeal in the Court of Session the Lord President Lord Carloway said a “case of substance albeit not necessarily one which is likely to succeed, can be discovered”.

Lord Carloway said: “The issue of whether it is legally possible to revoke the notice of withdrawal is, as already stated, one of great importance. On one view, authoritative guidance on whether it is legally possible to do so may have the capacity to influence Members of Parliament in deciding what steps to take in advance of, and at the time of, a debate and vote on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. After all, if Parliament is to be regarded as sovereign, the Government’s position on the legality of revoking the notice may not be decisive.“

DOWNLOAD THE SCOTSMAN APP ON ITUNES OR GOOGLE PLAY</s>The Scottish government's alternative to the EU Withdrawal Bill has been passed by MSPs.

Ministers put forward their "continuity bill" as part of an ongoing row over UK frameworks of post-Brexit powers.

It has undergone more than 20 hours of debate and scrutiny across three weeks, and the finalised bill was backed by a margin of 95 votes to 32.

Brexit minister Mike Russell said he still hoped to strike a deal with the UK government rather than use the bill.

There is now a period of four weeks in which a Supreme Court legal challenge could be lodged by law officers. The UK government said the competence of the bill - previously questioned by Holyrood Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh - would be "considered".
• What is the continuity bill?
• Look back on the debate and vote on Holyrood Live

The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill was put forward as an emergency stop-gap measure after Scottish ministers warned they may not put forward the Westminster EU Withdrawal Bill for a consent vote at Holyrood.

Both UK and Scottish ministers still say they would rather come to an agreement over post-Brexit powers than have to rely on continuity bills being passed in Edinburgh and Cardiff, but no deal has been yet been finalised despite a series of high-level meetings.

The Welsh National Assembly passed its own continuity legislation just hours before the Holyrood bill.

All 129 of Holyrood's MSPs were present for the final debate and votes.

There was fierce debate once again over section 13 of the bill, despite opposition members stripping back the powers involved in the committee stage.

This part of the bill, which is not mirrored in the Westminster legislation, would allow ministers to propose "keeping pace" with EU laws post-Brexit, in order to maintain regulatory equivalence with the EU in key fields.

Tory MSP Jamie Greene claimed this was "a back door excuse for the SNP to hand powers back to Brussels", while other members said they were "very extensive" powers to be held by ministers rather than by the parliament.

However, Mr Russell argued that the provisions were "necessary", and could indeed prove "vitally important" for fields like environmental protection.

Ultimately, 40 amendments were accepted, including proposals from members of all parties.

Mr Russell said he was still hopeful that an agreement could be struck with UK ministers over the EU Withdrawal Bill, which would render the Holyrood bill unneeded - but warned that the Westminster bill in its current form is "incompatible with the devolution settlement".

He said the continuity bill would ensure that Scottish law could "continue to operate effectively after withdrawal" should members "be unable to consent" to the UK bill, and said passing it proved MSPs were "resolute in defending devolution".

He said parliament had "risen to the occasion" of dealing with the bill in emergency procedure - which included 11 hours of scrutiny by the finance committee, sifting through 231 proposed amendments.

After the final vote, Mr Russell said: "We are still committed to discussions with the UK government. We now expect them to acknowledge the overwhelming view expressed by the Scottish Parliament - and the Welsh National Assembly - and come forward with proposals that respect the devolution settlement and allow us to come to an agreement."

The Scottish Conservatives were the only party to wholly oppose the bill, with Labour and the Greens backing it and the Lib Dems split.

Tory MSP Adam Tomkins said there were "grave doubts" about the competence of the bill, urging law officers to refer it to the Supreme Court - something Mr Russell rejected, saying ministers had "no doubt" the legislation was above board.

He contended that the bill was "bad law which we have been asked to make badly", with a "rushed, reckless" passage through parliament. He also claimed it "trespasses on reserved powers" - something he said did not "respect the devolution settlement" or the UK's constitution.

Mr Tomkins said the "real purpose" of the bill was to "sow the seeds of division within the United Kingdom", to "create legal chaos and confusion".

Labour's Neil Findlay also said he would prefer a deal to be done with UK ministers, saying: "We should not easily forget that it is the Tories that have gotten us into this mess and time is running out for them to get us out of it."

Green MSP Patrick Harvie urged ministers to "defend this bill robustly" if it is challenged, praising MSPs for maximising the amount of cross-party scrutiny MSPs managed to carry out despite the emergency timetable.

And Lib Dem Tavish Scott noted that "most of us would rather not be here", saying that the day the UK leaves the EU would be a "bad day" - adding that parliament would have a "huge workload" in the aftermath.

The Lib Dems were divided in the final vote, with Mike Rumbles saying he wanted "no part of voting for what I believe to be an illegal bill".

What happens next?

The bill has been passed by MSPs, but it is not yet on the statute books.

There is now a 28-day period in which law officers - such as Scotland's Lord Advocate James Wolffe, the UK's top law officer in Scotland, Advocate General Lord Keen, or Attorney General Jeremy Wright - can trigger a legal challenge.

If any of them think the bill might be acting beyond Holyrood's powers - as Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh thinks it might be - they could refer the case to the Supreme Court in London.

If there were a legal challenge during this period, the bill would have to wait until the case was settled before it could receive Royal Assent and actually enter into law.

This would be unprecedented at Holyrood - law officers have never sent a Scottish bill to the Supreme Court, although there have been a few examples concerning the National Assembly for Wales. As such, its hard to know what the timeline would be for any court case - but given the significance of the bill, it might be reasonable to expect the court to treat it as a high priority.

After the Queen has signed off the bill, there could still be a legal challenge from any party with a relevant interest - like in the case of alcohol minimum pricing, which was held up for several years by challenges from the drinks industry.

Of course, at any point through this process, a deal over devolved powers could be struck between Scottish and UK ministers - which would see the Scottish government move to withdraw the bill wholesale.

To this end, a "self-destruct" clause has been written into the bill, which allows MSPs to repeal the bill via a vote of parliament.</s>The voice of Remain voters in Scotland has been muted as political parties concentrate on protecting the devolution settlement or arguing for a soft Brexit, a think tank has warned.

The Scottish Centre on European Relations (SCER), which celebrates its first anniverary this week, claimed “all remains to be played for” ahead of Brexit despite there being an “untapped energy, anger, concern and passion” north of the Border on the issue of leaving the European Union.

“Given Theresa May’s stance on leaving the EU’s customs union and single market, the UK is heading, at best, for a ‘Canada-dry’ free trade deal with the EU,” said SCER director Dr Kirsty Hughes.

“That could cut UK-EU trade by almost half – and by more for services trade.

“So why is the Remain voice in Scotland so muted? Current polls show two-thirds or more of Scottish voters now support ‘remain’. The other third are split between those who want Brexit as part of the UK and the ‘yes leavers’ who want independence outside the EU. On top of the ‘power grab’ over devolved powers, a cross-party outcry and campaign against Brexit might not seem unreasonable.

“But we are a long way now from the 92-0 vote in the Scottish Parliament (with the Tories abstaining), a week after the Brexit vote in 2016, to explore ways to keep Scotland in the EU and its single market. The ambition fell rapidly from staying in the EU to a focus on the single market – and currently Scottish Labour isn’t even supporting that.”

READ MORE: Brexit ‘will not be constitutional game changer’ for SNP

The SCER was established in Edinburgh as a non-aligned independent think tank with the aim of informing the debate on Europe and providing high-quality research and analysis on EU developments.

It has launched an online fundraiser with a view to funding its work for another year.

Dr Hughes added: “It’s a year since Nicola Sturgeon’s abortive attempt to hold a second independence referendum on the back of Brexit. The Scottish Government continues to repeatedly express its ‘regret’ at the UK leaving the EU and to state that the best option would be to stay. But there is no strategy to back this up: how does the Scottish Government think this might happen and what is its role in pushing for a halt to Brexit?

“Instead, the Scottish Government’s main efforts are focused on two areas: protecting the devolution settlement including through its introduction of an EU ‘continuity’ bill at Holyrood; and linking up with Labour rebels, LibDem and Green MPs at Westminster to argue for a ‘soft’ Brexit of staying in the customs union and single market.”

Brexit minister Michael Russell said the Scottish Government was already working hard to mitigate any potential damage caused by the decision to leave the EU.

“The people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly – by a 24-point margin – to remain in the European Union,” he said. And, short of continued EU membership, the least damaging outcome for Scotland and the UK is continued membership of the single market, which is around eight times bigger than the UK’s alone, and customs union.

“The Scottish Government has set out both the significant impact of Brexit on Scotland and detailed practical policy proposals for how Scotland can retain a future relationship with the EU – indeed we were the first administration in the UK to do this in December 2016, with further information published in January this year. We will continue to work to mitigate the damage Brexit will cause to jobs, trade, investment, education and to our public services. In everything we do, we will continue to seek agreement in the best interests of the people of Scotland.”
The Court of Session allows an appeal by a cross-party group of Scottish politicians seeking court permission for a referral to the European Court of Justice. The group wish for a ruling that the UK can abandon Brexit without permission from the European Union's other member states. A lower court will examine the claim.