Revista Temas de Derecho Constitucional

318 Revista Temas de Derecho Constitucional with relevant case law in international law and EU law. It touches upon aspects such as the embedeness of international law in EU law, the Europeization of international law and the triangular relation between international law, EU law and the national legal orders of the EU Member States. The article is structured as follows. First, the article thus examine the content of the question for preliminary ruling and the procedure of withdrawal under Article 50 TEU and UK constitutional law. After doing so, the article turns the attention to examining themain controversial questions. This will be followed by an analysis of the wider impli- cations of the preliminary ruling in Wightman and a short conclusion. 2. THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING AND THE BRITISH CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK After the British Prime Minister notified the European Council on 29 March 2017 the UK’s intention to withdraw from the EU, on 19 December 2017 a group of Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs), Members of the UK Parliament (MPs) and Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) submitted a petition for judicial review before a Scottish court, the Court of Session, Inner House, First Division. 4 The proceedings involve, re- spectively, these MPs and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. 2.1. The content of the request The petitioners in the main proceedings asked the Court of Session (Scotland) to refer this question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. The object of the request was to determine whether the notification referred to in Article 50 TEU could be revoked unilaterally and, if so, subject to what conditions. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union responded arguing that the question was hypothetical and academic, since the United Kingdom Government held that the notification would not be with- drawn. Despite the relevance of the question posed, the request for a preliminary ruling suf- fered a setback at the first instance as Lord Ordinary, the judge of the Court of Session, rejected it by decision of 8 June 2018. 5 The Lord Ordinary denied the request to make a reference to the Court of Justice, refusing the petition for judicial review. The grounds for rejection were, first, that the issue was hypothetical in view of the United Kingdom Government’s declared position referred to above and that the facts upon which the Court would be asked to give an answer could not be ascertained. Second, that the matter infringed on parliamentary sovereignty beyond the national court’s jurisdiction. On appeal against the decision, the Court of Session underlined that, under section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the approval of the United Kingdom Par- liament must be obtained on the outcome of negotiations between the United Kingdom 4 Question referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Article 50 TEU — Right of withdrawal from the European Union — Notification of the intention to withdraw — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom (Brexit) — Revocability of the notification of the intention to withdraw — Unilateral revocation — Conditions for unilateral revocation — Agreed revocation. 5 Judgment, para 11.