Food and medicine shortages, planes grounded, 40-mile queues of lorries at ports. Project fear? No Government contingency planning for day one of “taking back control”.
Factory closures, job losses, 15 to 20 years of declining income. Project fear? No economic experts’ assessment of what even a soft Brexit might mean. Is it too late to hope that even with under six months to go the UK might draw back from the abyss? Sadly, the answer to that is probably yes.
Read more: Scots battle to win MPs' right to halt Brexit 'likely to succeed'
But what if no deal can be agreed between the UK Government and EU and the Government puts the interest of the country ahead of Tory Party divisions and decides remaining is a better option than chaos and hardship? What if the Prime Minister gets a deal but the House of Commons decides the terms for leaving are unpalatable and votes down what the PM brings back from Brussels next month?
What if, as a result of deadlock in Parliament, we do have a “People’s Vote” and the people say we should remain? Time would be of the essence. Can the UK unilaterally withdraw Article 50, or does it need the other 27 to agree? Do the 27 have to agree unanimously or will a majority vote be enough? Will the status quo prior to Article 50 being lodged be maintained or will the 27 be able to lay down conditions for the UK’s continued membership?
Read more: Exports to EU support 40,000 jobs in and around Glasgow, as no-deal cliff-edge fears mount
How tragic if we changed our minds that we could end up as accidental leavers.
That is why I have supported going to the ECJ now to get answers to these questions.
I welcome the Scottish courts allowing this reference. I am confident the European Court will say we can unilaterally withdraw Article 50. No less an authority than Lord Kerr, the author of Article 50, has opined
this is the situation. However, we need a definitive answer to the question to avoid 11th hour incertitude.
- David Martin is Scotland’s most senior MEP
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here