SCOTLAND: BREXIT

THE highest court in the UK has been urged to strike down the SNP’s Brexit legislation because it relates to international powers which are not devolved to Holyrood.

A legal battle between the Scottish and UK Governments is underway in the Supreme Court. It could have huge ramifications for Theresa May’s Brexit plans.

The UK’s top law officers argued that the SNP’s Continuity Bill, which has been passed by a majority of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament, “cannot stand” because it is “fundamentally inconsistent” with the law.

But the Scottish Government’s top legal officer insisted that the Bill was “carefully framed” not to cut across EU laws and was modelled on the UK Government’s Withdrawal Bill.

The case was called after the SNP opted to press ahead with its own Brexit legislation following its decision to refuse to give consent to Mrs May’s Bill.

The legislation was fast-tracked through parliament, despite Holyrood’s Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh concluding that it was “not within the legislative competence of the parliament”.

The Supreme Court is considering the issue after UK law officers asked for a judgment. The case is continuing, with a verdict expected in October.

Presenting the UK case, Advocate General for Scotland Lord Richard Keen told the seven judges considering the matter that “the Scottish Bill as a whole cannot stand”.

He told the panel, including Supreme Court president Lady Hale and deputy president Lord Reed, that the Bill “impermissibly modifies the UK Act on withdrawal from the EU” and is “fundamentally inconsistent” with legislation passed by MPs.

He argued that the Continuity Bill was “directly inconsistent with the UK Act at the most basic of levels” and that “the two simply cannot stand together”.

The UK law officers’ written case states: “The Scottish Bill is not law because it relates to the reserved matter of international relations as defined in Section 7 (1) of Schedule 5, and is therefore outside of competence.”

The UK Bill was given Royal Assent on June 26 and became the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

The law officers say that the Scottish Bill was passed “without knowledge” of the outcome of negotiations between the UK Government and the EU.

In his written case, Scottish Lord Advocate James Wolffe said: “The purpose of the Scottish Bill is to promote legal certainty by making provision for the continuity within the domestic legal system of existing EU-derived law upon and following withdrawal.”

HOLYROOD’S Brexit Bill is “perfectly practical”, the Lord Advocate told the UK Supreme Court as the Scottish Government continued its unprecedented constitutional battle with Whitehall.

In the second and final day of the court hearing in London, James Wolffe rejected the UK Government’s main contention that, by Passing Edinburgh’s Continuity Bill, the Scottish Parliament was in some way trying to cut across Westminster’s authority in international relations.

He argued that the Scottish bill was not incompatible with EU law, which was based on the principles of “legal certainty and continuity”.

The Lord Advocate said the Holyrood legislation only impacted on the “domestic legal order” and so could not affect the UK’s negotiations with Brussels.

Crucially, Mr Wolffe told the court the Scottish legislation had been passed by MSPs several months before the UK Government’s flagship EU Withdrawal Bill became law, noting: “It was not intended to modify the UK bill and could not do so.”

On the first day of the hearing, Lord Keen of Elie, Advocate General for Scotland, leading for the UK Government, argued that “any reasonable consideration” of the Scottish bill and the UK act showed the former sought to modify, that is undermine, the latter and so the “two simply cannot stand together” as they produced two “dual but inconsistent regimes” in respect of retained EU law.

But the Lord Advocate’s points were supported by Michael Fordham for the Welsh Government, who claimed the UK Government’s contention that the Scottish bill would cut across Whitehall’s reserved powers on international relations was “wrong and incoherent”.

He said the UK’s argument that devolved administrations could not legislate in devolved areas currently managed by the EU because they touched on international treaty negotiations was an “extravagant claim which has very alarming logical implications”.

He explained that this would have the effect of restricting the powers of devolved parliaments even after Brexit and EU law was transferred on to the UK Statute Book.

John Larkin, the Northern Irish Attorney General, also argued that the Scottish bill was “within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament”.

But, in response, Lord Keen suggested it was “unjustified” for devolved governments to expect that all devolved powers should be handed over after Britain left the EU because, when the devolution settlement was drawn up 20 years ago, no one could have predicted Brexit.

He said it was “not open to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to assume that no new legislative constraints” would be introduced because of Britain leaving the EU.

He claimed the Continuity Bill was “fundamentally inconsistent” with the purpose of the UK act and that the confusion over which Parliament had jurisdiction over which European regulations would result in the undermining of the UK Government’s Brexit strategy.

Seven judges of the Supreme Court, including two Scottish judges, will now spend the summer considering their ruling. If they were to find for the Scottish Government, then this would mean the Continuity Bill would receive royal assent and become law.

However, this would mean there would be two competing pieces of legislation on the statute book, which would likely result in the matter returning to the Supreme Court to determine which act took precedence.