This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50088993

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 7 Version 8
Court of Session dismisses bid to stop 'illegal' Brexit deal Court of Session dismisses bid to stop 'illegal' Brexit deal
(30 minutes later)
Scotland's highest civil court has dismissed a legal bid to stop the UK government from passing its proposed EU withdrawal agreement.Scotland's highest civil court has dismissed a legal bid to stop the UK government from passing its proposed EU withdrawal agreement.
Anti-Brexit campaigners argued the deal contravened legislation preventing Northern Ireland from forming part of a separate customs territory. Anti-Brexit campaigners had argued the deal contravened legislation preventing Northern Ireland from forming part of a separate customs territory.
The UK government said the Court of Session should not stop the matter coming before Parliament. However, Lord Pentland ruled the application was "misconceived and unjustified".
After a hearing in Edinburgh Lord Pentland turned down the petition. Campaigner Jo Maugham QC said the case was now unlikely to proceed further.
He ruled the application was "misconceived and unjustified" and concluded: "They have no or at best a weak prima facie case" In his written opinion, the judge described the petition "of very doubtful competency" and concluded the petitioner had at best a "weak" case.
In his written opinion, the judge describing the petition "of very-doubtful competency". Mr Maugham had lodged the petition on Thursday in an attempt to stop Parliament from passing the EU withdrawal agreement.
Jo Maugham QC, who lodged the petition, tweeted: "As I said yesterday morning, we had to make a decision to issue proceedings for interim remedies quickly or not at all; once the withdrawal agreement reaches Parliament it becomes impossible to challenge. After the ruling was published he tweeted: "That was a difficult decision to make. It is difficult to move quickly and accurately and, the court has found, I got that decision wrong.
"That was a difficult decision to make. It is difficult to move quickly and accurately and, the court has found, I got that decision wrong.
"We will review the decision carefully but my instinct is that we are unlikely to proceed to a full hearing for reasons indicated above.""We will review the decision carefully but my instinct is that we are unlikely to proceed to a full hearing for reasons indicated above."
He launched the legal challenge after the prime minister and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker announced on Thursday that the two sides had come to an agreement on a Brexit withdrawal deal, ahead of a crucial EU summit in Brussels.He launched the legal challenge after the prime minister and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker announced on Thursday that 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.EU leaders then approved the deal, and MPs are expected to vote on it on Saturday.
Earlier Aidan O'Neill QC, acting for the petitioners, told the court that 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. Earlier Aidan O'Neill QC, acting for the petitioner, told the court that 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.
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.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.
Mr O'Neill said: "What we have before us is a void agreement that has been presented publicly and to Parliament as valid. Mr O'Neill said: "The agreement which was presented yesterday is void; is of no effect as a matter of law."
"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."
Government lawyers defended the deal and claimed the legal action was a "direct and manifest interference with Parliament".Government lawyers defended the deal and claimed the legal action was a "direct and manifest interference with Parliament".
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. Gerry Moynihan QC, acting for the government, described the legal challenge as "a gross intrusion into the separation of power."
Mr 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.He argued Northern Ireland would remain in the UK's customs territory because "a substantial part" of trade would still be with the UK.