PM’s Brexit deal unlawful and should not be put to vote, court told

Support us and go ad-free

The Brexit agreement Boris Johnson has claimed is a “great new deal” is unlawful and should not be considered by parliament, a court has heard.

A legal challenge argues the proposed deal negotiated with the EU breaches UK law by leaving Northern Ireland in a separate customs arrangement to the rest of the country.

But Government lawyers defended the deal and claimed the legal action is a “direct and manifest interference with Parliament”.

The petition is being heard in the Court of Session in Edinburgh – Scotland’s highest civil court – which previously ruled Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament was unlawful.

Aidan O’Neill QC, acting for the petitioners, told the court on Friday the proposed Brexit deal would mean a “continuing regime of EU law applicable to Northern Ireland” – contrary to Section 55 of the Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Act 2018.

Brexit
The action is led by campaigner Jo Maugham (Jane Barlow/PA)

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

He said this would breach the Act’s terms by creating different customs rules in Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK, leaving the deal void and unsuitable to be put before Parliament.

O’Neill said:

What we have before us is a void agreement that has been presented publicly and to Parliament as valid.

The agreement which was presented yesterday is void; is of no effect as a matter of law.

If the interim suspension is granted on the basis that the agreement as a matter of national law is void, then there’s no agreement which can be laid before the House

The prime minister and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker on Thursday announced the two sides had come to an agreement on a Brexit withdrawal deal, ahead of a crucial EU summit in Brussels.

EU leaders then approved the deal, and MPs are expected to vote on it on Saturday.

When asked what the effect of granting the petition would be on parliament sitting on Saturday, O’Neill said it could potentially repeal the law which currently prevents Northern Ireland being part of any different customs arrangements to the rest of the UK.

He added:

Parliament is the supreme and sovereign body, it can – if so advised – pass or vote on legislation which would repeal the relevant provision: Section 55 of the Taxation Act.

It could retrospectively validate the agreement that has been reached.

All this court can do is apply the law as it currently stands.

Brexit
Aidan O’Neill QC arriving at the Court of Session (Jane Barlow/PA)

The challenge has been brought before Lord Pentland at the Outer House of the Court of Session by the Good Law Project, led by Jolyon Maugham QC.

Gerry Moynihan QC, acting for the Government, described the legal challenge as a “direct and manifest interference with Parliament” and revealed the House of Commons Speaker’s counsel had written to both parties urging them not “inhibit” bringing a matter before Parliament.

Moynihan said suspending the agreement would prevent the deal being brought before parliament, acknowledging the Government would not be able to claim a deal had been done or agreed if the court ruled the agreement unlawful.

“It would be utterly futile to lay a copy of that non-agreement before the House,” he said.

“It is a gross intrusion into the separation of power,” he said of the legal challenge, which he claimed was “simply incompetent”.

He argued Northern Ireland would remain in the UK’s customs territory because “a substantial part” of trade would still be with the UK.

Lord Pentland said he would make a decision by 5pm on Friday.

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us