LONDON — Just as the British Parliament began a countdown to its critical vote on plans to leave the European Union, there was a glimmer of hope from across the English Channel on Tuesday for those hoping the country will reverse that decision.

Manuel Campos Sánchez-Bordona, the advocate general of the European Court of Justice, argued in a nonbinding but significant legal opinion that Britain could unilaterally cancel its withdrawal from the 28-nation bloc before the scheduled date of its departure, on March 29.

The news came as lawmakers in Parliament were beginning five days of debate on Prime Minister Theresa May’s deal on the terms of the country’s departure from the bloc. Most analysts say the agreement will be defeated when it is put to a vote in Parliament on Dec. 11, a result that could force Mrs. May to abandon the agreement, break up her government or lead to a power struggle that imperils her leadership.

If the advocate general’s opinion is confirmed by the full European court, Britain will have until March 29 to rethink its departure and remain a member of the European Union on current terms. The government insists that the country will leave as scheduled.

Adding to Mrs. May’s troubles was the fact that lawmakers began debating a motion on Tuesday on whether her government was in contempt of Parliament for refusing to publish its full legal advice on her plans to depart the bloc. Though the charge is a serious one, the issue is more an embarrassment to the government than a direct threat, as any penalties against ministers would be unlikely to take effect until after the vote.

The much bigger political risk is defeat on Dec. 11 of Mrs. May’s Brexit plan, a blueprint that she says is the only deal possible to avoid a chaotic and economically damaging departure.

Mrs. May is expected to open the five-day Brexit debate with an argument that she has made several times already: that the deal will provide a better future outside the European Union, and that Britain will be able to take back control of its borders, laws and finances, as it would end enormous contributions to the bloc.

The prime minister faces opposition from across the political spectrum, however, as well as growing calls for on a second referendum on Brexit, so that voters can have a final say on the terms of the country’s departure.

Dozens of lawmakers in her Conservative Party are threatening to rebel, angered in particular about a so-called backstop plan to prevent physical checks of goods at the Irish border. That would keep the United Kingdom in a customs union with the European Union, and Northern Ireland would obey even more of the bloc’s economic rules.

To critics, this means that Britain would be neither fully in the European Union nor out, and that it would have no say in making rules that it would be bound by, and no clear way to end the backstop.

Mrs. May’s one advantage is that her opponents are divided: Some actively want the country to leave the bloc without a deal — or at least appear ready to risk that — while others prefer maintaining a close relationship with the European Union, much as Norway does. A third group is pushing for a second referendum that could reverse the process completely.

Those who hope Britain might remain in the bloc will be encouraged by the court opinion by Mr. Campos Sánchez-Bordona. The document concluded that, if a country decided to leave the European Union, it should also have the power to change its mind during the two-year exit process defined by Article 50 of the bloc’s governing treaty. In Britain’s case, that period ends on March 29.

Moreover, the opinion said, the country should be able to do so without having to obtain the consent of the other 27 member nations.

While the advocate general’s views are not binding, most often the full court follows them in its final rulings. The opinion was written in connection with a case brought by a group of Scottish politicians.

Under the terms of Britain’s membership in the European Union, the country benefits from a rebate on its annual budget contributions to the bloc, a significant as well as symbolic concession won in 1984 by the prime minister at the time, Margaret Thatcher. The merits of the rebate have long been challenged by other countries, but all member nations have a veto on budget questions, and Britain has succeeded in protecting most of its rebate.

London also has the right to opt out of the European Union’s single currency, as well as the Schengen zone of passport-free travel. Were it to quit the European Union, and reapply for membership in the future, such concessions would be uncertain, and their loss would make it difficult to secure public support to rejoin the bloc.

That is one reason some proponents of Brexit support Mrs. May’s plan despite their reservations: to get past the March 29 exit day.

But some opponents of leaving the European Union now see a new way forward. John Kerr, a member of the House of Lords and a former senior diplomat who helped draft Article 50, said in a statement posted on Twitter that “despite some of the bogus claims that have been made by those who oppose staying in the EU, there would be no price to pay — political or financial — if we were to take back the Article 50 letter.”

Alyn Smith, a Scottish National Party member of the European Parliament and one of the lawmakers who filed the case before the European court, said, “We now have a road map out of the Brexit shambles.”

Whether Britain could revoke Article 50 to gain negotiating time, or whether it would have to firmly decide to reverse course and remain in the European Union, is less clear.

But an influential advocate for a new referendum, Andrew Adonis, welcomed the opinion on Tuesday, saying that it “further paves way for people’s vote to stop Brexit.”

Follow Stephen Castle on Twitter: @_StephenCastle.

Source: Read Full Article