The Guardian: The EU allowed Britain to cancel Brexit, but will the parliament agree to this?

After the statement of the Court of the EU on the right of Britain, to withdraw a notification of withdrawal from the Union, the path to maintaining membership remains difficult, but there are fewer obstacles, writes British lawyer Jolion Maugham, the initiator of the Brexit cancellation in The Guardian. The Insider offers a complete translation of the article.

We can cancel the exit of Great Britain from the European Union. On Tuesday morning, the chief adviser to the EU court, the Supreme Court of Europe, told us about this.

Advisor Manuel Campos Sanchec-Bordon said that the UK could unilaterally cancel its notification under Article 50. This means that if our own parliament decides that the country's interests are best to maintain EU membership, then there will be no obstacles from the EU.

His position will not necessarily support the full composition of the court, which has not yet announced when he makes his decision, but in the vast majority of cases the courts follow their chief adviser. And if this happens, we will have much more chances to stay in the EU.

Article 50 does not say anything about whether the member state, who decided to leave the Union, can change its opinion. And there was a lot of doubts after the lawyer Gina Miller <Investment banker, who in January 2017, who won the government in the UK Supreme Court and achieved a decision that the government cannot launch the Brexit procedure without the approval of the parliament. - The Insider> told the Supreme Court that this is impossible. But on Tuesday morning, the Court of the EU did not agree with this.

In addition, we learned that, while remaining in the EU, we can continue to use the same benefits as now, for example, a discount from membership dues of £ 100 million a week <Contribution of the UK to the EU budget for 2017 amounted to £ 8.9 billion - The Insider> and the full control of our borders, a determined refusal to participate in the Sungenic agreement about the Sungen agreement Free movement <In 2005, the UK joined the provisions on a police and judicial cooperation under the Schengen agreement, but this is valid only on the territory of Gibraltar. - The Insider>. Politicians know that in case of abandoning these benefits, there will be much fewer arguments in favor of staying in the EU, and that is why only last week Michael Gov <Minister of Environment, Food and Agriculture, in the past - the Minister of Justice and an active supporter of Brexit. - The Insider> categorically stated: “We will be forced to accept much more stringent conditions than now. Save a discount? Forget about it. " But now we know - as he probably knew then - that this could hardly be true.

One of the possible options is to simply withdraw a notification of output without a referendum

The conclusion of the adviser clears the legislative path to preservation. One of the options for parliamentarians is to simply withdraw a notification under Article 50 without a further referendum. This is the path that the adviser recognized as open to the parliament. In the end, the referendum of 2016, following which the parliament decided on the exit, was just advisory.

Today, deputies, faced with such a choice, undoubtedly rejected it. But the fact that the group of European research <Group of supporters of the "hard Brexit" within the conservative party, opposing the policy of the government. - The Insider> could not collect 48 votes of parliamentarians to raise the issue of trust in Teresa May, proves how little support in parliament is leaving the EU without a transaction. And if before the deadline - March 29, 2019 - deputies will discover that there is no agreement on the transaction, the idea to give a return move in order to avoid catastrophic conditions of exit without a transaction, may become attractive to the majority. And they can think about such a paradox: if the vote in June 2016 was legitimate, then how can we consider another referendum? And if it was illegitimate, then why do we need one more?

The biggest difficulty on the alternative path - the path of the second referendum - lies in time. Even after the statement of the Court of the EU, we still need the permission of other EU member states to postpone the exit for the second referendum. But in the presence of political will, it can be carried out in a short time. A referendum in Greece about whether to accept the conditions of the EU financial assistance took place a week after the parliament voted for it. And such a decision of the parliament will give the European Union every reason to extend the time. The choice in favor of the European Union made by the people will be a stronger mandate than the decision to stay in the EU, adopted by parliamentarians alone.

It would be arrogant to pretend that all this is either simple, or predetermined or already done. There are huge obstacles on the way of deputies seeking to make a decision contrary to the will of the government. We will learn about this at least out of attempts to force the government to publish its legal conclusions on the controversial issue of the special situation of Northern Ireland. But it cannot be denied that now the path to preserving membership in the European Union has become easier.