The UK Supreme Court’s decision that a parliamentary vote is needed before the government can trigger Brexit is not the only significant feature of the ruling, a top lawyer says.
“It may surprise some that the question of whether an article 50 notice could be revoked by the UK after the Brexit process has been triggered remains unanswered,” Charles Brasted,a partner at the regulatory practice of
Hogan Lovells, wrote in an advisory posted on the global firm site.
Noting that the government expressly resisted the issue to be ruled on, the issue could ultimately be determined by the Court of Justice of the European Union, he said.
The Supreme Court handed down the ruling Tuesday with an 8-3 majority. The decision blocks Theresa May from beginning talks with the European Union until MPs back the Brexit with a vote. However, Brasted noted that it is expected ministers will “no doubt…react quickly.”
“The Government will be looking to get a Bill through quickly. The expectation is that it will be able to do that,” he wrote
. He added, however, that there’s a real risk concessions must be given by the government on parliamentary involvement in the process.
Brasted also noted that one of the most significant features of the ruling is that the Brexit does not require approval by the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies.
“From a practical perspective, it will be at least as important for the Government that the Court confirmed that it has no legal obligation to consult any of the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales – something which could have caused material delay, not least given the forthcoming Stormont elections,” Brasted wrote.
The lead claimant of the case, investment manager Gina Miller, was represented by law firm Mishcon de Reya.
Related stories:
Brexit makes UK GCs linger
Leaked document hints at 5-year Brexit transition
