One of the most important questions in the Brexit process is whether we can change our mind after Theresa May triggers Article 50. A case being filed in the Irish High Court could provide the answer.
If we can change our mind, parliament could refuse to ratify the exit treaty the prime minister negotiates with our EU partners. It might do this if it concludes the deal will be destructive – as it probably will be.
Parliament might then call for a new referendum to determine whether the electorate still wants to leave the EU or would prefer to stay a member. Given that the European Commission plans to conclude negotiations several months before Article 50’s two-year period ends, we would have time to do all this.
But it would be pointless if we couldn’t change our mind.
Article 50 itself is silent on the question of whether we can change our mind. The government has said we can’t in its Supreme Court appeal over the High Court’s decision that it doesn’t have the authority to start the divorce process without asking parliament’s approval.
But many lawyers and experts – including John Kerr, the British diplomat who wrote Article 50 – say we can change our mind. Donald Tusk, the European Council president, has said something similar. Insofar as there is a consensus, it is probably that the matter would be determined by political considerations. If the other big European powers wanted us to stay, we could reverse course. But that, in turn, would probably be determined by whether they thought we had really changed our mind or would continue to flip-flop.
The legal action in the Irish High Court seeks to provide certainty about this murky question. It has been instigated by Jolyon Maugham, a UK QC. The aim is to get the Irish High Court to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice, which will be able to give a definitive view. If everything goes according to plan, there could be an answer by the summer of next year.
It may appear bizarre that this case would be heard first in Ireland rather than the UK. But there are sound, albeit complex, reasons for doing so. For one, it allows Maugham to kick off the process now rather than waiting for May to announce that she is triggering Article 50.
It’s possible that other lawyers will find a way to bring a similar action in the UK courts to clarify whether we can revoke Article 50 once we’ve invoked it. But for now, Maugham’s case is the only game in town.
Edited by Michael Prest