Michael Gove's claim EU reforms could be overturned prompts firm denials
Justice Secretary claimed ECJ was 'not bound' by the agreement 'until treaties are changed'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Michael Gove’s claim that the EU reforms secured by the Prime Minister could yet be overturned by European judges prompted firm denials from Downing Street, Donald Tusk and the Government’s chief legal adviser.
The Justice Secretary claimed that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) was “not bound” by the agreement “until treaties are changed”.
His claim was contradicted by the Attorney General, Jeremy Wright, who said the agreements would have “equivalent legal force” to treaties. Mr Tusk, the EU Council President, called the agreement “legally binding and irreversible”.
Experts in EU law told The Independent that while Mr Gove might have been technically correct that the ECJ could receive challenges to the changes, it was highly unlikely judges would throw them out.
“They could be challenged,” said Professor Sir Alan Dashwood, a former director of the EU Councl legal service. “I imagine a benefit claimant feeling peeved because his child benefit was being [linked] to the much lower cost of living in an Eastern European country, might well bring proceedings, but I can’t see any grounds on which they would win.”
Professor Alexander Turk from the Dickson Poon School of Law at King’s College London said: “The ECJ would have to think very long and hard to overturn an arrangement which has been agreed over many months in a difficult political situation. The Court would have to be convinced this is worth derailing.”
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments