2. What assessment has the Counsel General made of the possible revoking of article 50? OAQ(5)0046(CG)

I am, of course, not in a position to speak about any assessment I may or may not have made on this issue. Members will be familiar with the established convention that neither the existence nor content of law officer advice should be disclosed.

Thank you. Lord Kerr, the author of article 50 and former Permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office, suggested at a conference recently that article 50 is indeed revocable and that many political leaders have encouraged us to change our minds, including Macron, Schäuble and Rutte. He suggested that even if you have notified the EU of your intention to leave, then there’s nothing to say that we must leave, but he did say that there may be a political price to pay for that. Now, regardless of the complexities and issues of the rights of wrongs of the possible revocability of article 50, could the Counsel General actually just give us his legal assessment of whether the interpretation of Lord Kerr is correct?

Well, what I can say is that the position that was adopted by the UK Government in the Miller case—the article 50 case—was very clear: that it was not revocable. Of course, the ultimate body that would determine the legality of that would be the European Court of Justice, but as a matter of general principles and agreement with regard to the European Union, any agreement that has the consent of all the members of the European Union can achieve almost any position that is wanted to achieve.

Is the Counsel General aware that Lord Kerr’s own record of involvement and support for the European Union is almost as lengthy as Eluned Morgan, and perhaps his view on the revocability or otherwise of article 50 might be seen in that light. I was disappointed that the Counsel General was drawn rather further on his second response than he was in the first, because isn’t it the case that this consideration of revoking article 50 is essentially against the national interest because it undermines the UK Government’s negotiating strategy, it holds out the European Union possibility that we or Labour, as they might wish, might seek to revoke the decision of the British people in a referendum, and makes it less likely that we will get offered by the European Union a good deal that will be in the interests of Wales and the United Kingdom?

Well, it seems to me that the capacity of the UK Government to put forward any consistent position with regard to the EU negotiations at the moment is very much in doubt. The issue that’s being put to me in the question is: what is the status of the article 50 notification that has been given?

The UK Government has already expressed its own opinion in respect of the statements it made in the Supreme Court with regard to that. But, of course, the matter was never pursued further and, ultimately, the European Court of Justice, which the UK Government wants to break all links with, would be the ultimate determinant of the legal interpretation of that. But, as a matter of factor, many decisions with regard to the European Union are based on the consent of all the individual member states. That is how laws are ultimately made. Any proposals that were made would ultimately be a matter of negotiation and agreement with all individual member states.

As I understand it, the Labour Party is committed to withdrawal from the European Union, pursuant to the decision of the British people in the referendum last year. So, isn’t this question a bit like those medieval questions, which concerned how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?

Well, I don’t know whether that was a question that actually wanted an answer or not. The Member makes a point; he’s made his views very clear over a period of time. All I’ve done is to set out, I think, the statement of facts, as to what the position is with article 50 and in terms of the position that was adopted by the UK Government.