JUST eight months ago, as she set out her plan for Brexit, the Prime Minister promised that the UK would “take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain”.

“Leaving the European Union will mean that our laws will be made in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. And those laws will be interpreted by judges not in Luxembourg but in courts across this country,” she added.

Yesterday, Theresa May, effectively, admitted defeat.

READ MORE: Lesley Riddoch: We've been right on Brexit all along ... now others are finally waking up

In the latest Brexit negotiation paper, the government said the European Court of Justice (ECJ) would probably still continue to have some jurisdiction over UK law for some time to come.

The paper, drafted by David Davis’ Department for Exiting the EU, said ministers were willing to discuss the role the ECJ with Europe, conceding that judges in Luxembourg would almost certainly have jurisdiction during any transition period between Britain’s leaving date, and the actual day of Brexit.

And for after Brexit, the government changed language ever so slightly, saying the ECJ simply shouldn’t have “direct” control.

The ramifications of “indirect control” are, however, substantial.

That opens up the possibility of the UK effectively doing what Norway does, and accepting European laws and court judgments to get membership-like access to the single market.

Norway comes under the jurisdiction of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), which follows and interprets decisions made by the ECJ.

While the EFTA court can overrule the Norwegian supreme court on matters of European law, its judgments are advisory.

Yesterday, ahead of the publication of the paper, May insisted there had been no climb down.

Speaking during a visit to Guildford, the Prime Minister said: “What is absolutely clear, when we leave the European Union we will be leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Parliament will make our laws. It is British judges who will interpret those laws and it will be the British supreme court that will be the arbiter of those laws.”

The government paper says that once a new Brexit trade agreement is up and running, it will be for UK courts to deal with individuals. Only government disputes will escalate to the new arbitration body.

Tory MP, and former attorney general Dominic Grieve QC was scathing: “The idea that we are somehow going to wholly escape the influence of the European Court of Justice on our lives in this country is, I’m afraid, pie in the sky.

“It’s going to continue in many areas to have a very profound influence, but of course the difference is going to be that we will no longer have any direct influence into the formation of that EU jurisprudence because we ourselves will no longer be appearing in front of the ECJ as an EU member.”

Part of the reason for the u-turn is almost certainly Brussels insistence that any agreement over the rights of EU citizens in the UK, and UK citizens in the EU must be arbitrated by the ECJ.  Though in the paper, the government insisted EU citizens living in the UK after Brexit will only be subject to British law.  At a press conference in Brussels, European Commission spokesman Alexander Winterstein declined to comment on the UK proposals, but said that the EU’s position was “very clear, very transparent and unchanged”.

Labour peer Lord Adonis called the paper a “climbdown camouflaged in jingoistic rhetoric”.

Scottish Government minister Fiona Hyslop said: “It is clear from this paper the UK Government have now accepted that the UK must continue to take account of judgements from the Court of Justice of the EU. They now need to ditch their previous so-called red lines to ensure a deal can be found.

“If the UK Government’s priority, as suggested in this paper, is to provide legal certainty and an effective enforcement mechanism then the only answer is to stay in the European Single Market. “