The UK supreme court is to reconsider the terms of article 50 of the treaty on European Union, which formally triggered Brexit, amid mounting political pressure for the procedure to be reversed.
The government has applied for permission to appeal against a ruling by the Scottish courts that the question of whether the UK can reverse the clause should be referred to the European court of justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg.
A date has been set for 27 November for an emergency hearing by ECJ judges of an application brought by a cross-party group of six Scottish MPs, MEPs and MSPs, along with Jolyon Maugham QC, the director of the Good Law Project.
The attempt to divert the European legal process has been initiated by lawyers for the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU).
The supreme court has confirmed that three of its justices: its president, Lady Hale, the deputy president, Lord Reed, and Lord Hodge , will form the decision panel.
Like most other applications to appeal, it is expected to be considered on papers submitted to the court without a hearing or legal arguments.
The court said in a statement: “The court is aware of the urgency of this matter.” No date has yet been set.
The supreme court last considered the terms of article 50 in December 2016 when it examined whether the government alone or parliament had the authority to initiate the UK’s exit from the EU.
That four-day hearing was held in a state of high political tension, after judges in the high court who had earlier considered the case had notoriously been labelled “Enemies of the People”.
Article 50, once enacted, imposes a two-year time limit on the departure from the EU. It is due to expire on 29 March 2019 .
DExEU is arguing that the issue of reversing article 50 – halting Brexit – is hypothetical since the government has stated it does not intend to revoke the notification and that it would be an encroachment on parliamentary sovereignty.
The question the Scottish petitioners had asked is “whether, when and how” the article 50 notification “can unilaterally be revoked” by the UK.
Maugham said: “It’s a remarkable thing for a government that asserted to Scotland’s highest court that there was no power for the supreme court to hear this case, then to ask the supreme court to do so.
“It’s also an extraordinary thing for the government to spend so much public money on trying to blind MPs’ eyes to the options before them.”
A government spokesperson said: “The government is seeking to appeal to the supreme court and it remains a matter of firm policy that we will not be revoking the Article 50 notice.”