Britain will be bound by future decisions of the European Court of Justice despite Brexit if it adopts arrangements outlined by ministers in a key negotiating document.

David Davis will publish a position paper on Wednesday which will state that the UK must no longer be under the "direct" jurisdiction of the ECJ after it leaves the EU.

However The Telegraph understands that the document, which sets out Britain’s negotiating position on dispute resolution, will highlight a series of existing arrangements where nations outside the EU "voluntarily" refer legal disagreements to the ECJ.

The twin towers of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg

Under the arrangements, which currently apply to non-EU nations including Moldova, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, the ECJ makes "binding interpretations" in disputes.

The paper also highlights other arrangements which could "eliminate divergence" between the UK's courts and the ECJ after Brexit in areas where both sides want close co-operation.

The Government insisted that the "precedents" highlighted in the paper reflect the approach of other countries and do not represent Britain's plans.

A Government spokesman said: "We've always been clear that dispute resolution will require a new and unique solution and that this paper simply outlines a number of precedents."

Dominic Raab, a eurosceptic justice minister, criticised "jingoistic" language about "foreign" courts and judges that was used by the Leave campaign during the run up to the EU referendum. He conceded, however, that the UK will still keep "half an eye" on the case law of the European Court of Justice.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "All this jingoistic stuff about foreign courts, judges and lawyers is not language I've ever used. Our commitment as a Government has been crystal clear.

"When we leave the EU there will be divergence between the case law of the EU and the UK. It makes sense for the UK to keep half an eye on the case law of the ECJ and the EU to keep half an eye on the case law of the UK. "

However other eurosceptic Tory MPs questioned why the arrangements have been highlighted in the paper at all.

They said that the approach would represent a significant retreat after Theresa May pledged last year that Brexit would see "the authority of EU law in this country ended forever".

View more!

Bernard Jenkin, a senior Tory MP who was a leading member of the Vote Leave campaign, said: "We are leaving the European Union. We are entitled to expect an even-handed, bi-lateral relationship as in any normal relations between two sovereign states.

"The European Court of Justice should not have any role in interpreting any agreement between the EU and the UK. That should be for a genuinely bi-lateral and independent tribunal as for any other international agreement.

"No non-EU country will be much interested in talking to us about a free trade agreement if we still look hobbled by our relationship to the EU."

In the paper the Government will formally reject EU demands that the rights of the 3 million EU citizens living in the UK must be directly overseen by the European Court of Justice.

Bernard Jenkin, a eurosceptic Tory MP, has raised concerns about the European Court of Justice

It will say that such a move would be "unprecedented" and is neither "necessary or appropriate". It will instead highlight existing international agreements with the EU under which the European Court of Justice does not have "direct jurisdiction".

The "precedents" highlighted in the paper include Moldova, which has an arbitration panel that refers disputes over EU law to the ECJ. The court then issues a "binding" interpretation.

Another arrangement highlighted by ministers is the European Free Trade Association, which covers Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein.

They are not EU members but have access to the single market, meaning they are bound by some EU laws. Under the countries’ agreement with the EU they can decide to refer disputes to the ECJ.

Tory eurosceptics have also raised concerns about suggestions in the paper that EFTA’s own independent court could provide a model for Britain after Brexit.

Theresa May, the Prime Minister credit: Getty Images Europe

They have suggested the body simply "rubber-stamps" the rulings of the European Court of Justice and would fail to deliver sovereignty after Brexit.

The paper suggests that such an approach could help "eliminate divergence" in areas where there is a mutual desire to work closely together.

David Jones, a Tory MP and former Brexit minister, said: "It's absolutely clear that when the UK has left the EU we must leave the influence of the European Court of Justice.

"The EFTA court in reality reflects the judgements of the European Court of Justice."

A UK Government source said that Britain is entering negotiations from a "position of strength" because of its "long record" of complying with international law.

The source said: “We have long been clear that in leaving the EU we will bring an end to the direct jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the UK.

“It is in the interests of both the UK and the EU, and of our citizens and businesses, that the rights and obligations agreed between us can be relied upon and enforced in appropriate ways.

"It is also in everyone’s interest that, where disputes arise between the UK and the EU on the application or interpretation of these obligations, those disputes can be resolved efficiently and effectively."

Q and A: Will the European Court of Justice play any role in the future of Britain's legal system?

Q: What will be proposed in the Government’s position paper when it is published today?

A: The Government will promise to end the “direct” influence of the European Court of Justice and will suggest a series of ways in which future disputes between the EU and the UK could be settled. The use of the word “direct” is crucial, as it leaves the door open for indirect influence in perpetuity.

Q: In what way would the ECJ continue to have influence?

A: One possible scenario detailed in the position paper is an independent arbitration panel that would settle disputes over trade, for example, or possibly citizens’ rights. The document will say that there could be circumstances in which the arbitration panel decides to consult the ECJ for a “binding” interpretation of a law that originated in the EU.

Q: What would that mean in practice?

A: An arbitration panel could be made up of a British judge, an EU judge and an independent judge from a third party country that will settle disputes between the UK and the EU. If they are considering a point of law that the judges cannot agree on, they might ask the ECJ to interpret the law, having first agreed that they will abide by the ECJ’s decision. In that way the ECJ would continue to have indirect influence over British law.

Q: Is there a precedent for this?

A: Yes. Moldova has just such an arbitration panel which can decide to refer decisions to the ECJ. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, non-EU countries which are part of the European Free Trade Association, can also refer decisions to the ECJ if they all agree to do so.

Q: Why can’t the Supreme Court just decide everything?

A: In the vast majority of cases, it will - but it is standard practice in any trade agreement between two sovereign nations for an independent arbitration body to settle disputes between the two countries. No country would sign up to an agreement in which the other country had the final say on all disputes. The same is true of the UK and the EU.

Q: Will this only apply to trade?

A: Probably not. It could also apply to disagreements over the rights of EU citizens living in the UK, for example, though the document will not contain that level of detail. The Government’s Repeal Bill will convert all EU law into UK law, meaning that a number of former EU laws that are taken onto the statute book could be subject to disputes in the future.

Q: Is this a contradiction of what Theresa May has previously said?

A: In the past, Mrs May has used stronger language that left little or no room for the ECJ to have any influence at all. At the Tory Party Conference in 2016, she promised “the authority of EU law in this country ended forever”, adding: “We are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That’s not going to happen.”