UK PM loses Article 50 appeal, parliamentary approval required for Brexit
Supreme Court ruling - key points
- The 1972 Act that took the UK into the then EEC creates a process by which EU law becomes a source of UK law
- So long as that act remains in force, it means that EU law is an "independent and overriding source" of the UK's legal system
- Unless Parliament decides otherwise, this remains the case
- Withdrawal from the EU makes a fundamental change to the UK's constitutional arrangements because it will cut off the source of EU law
- Such a fundamental change will be the inevitable effect of a notice being served
- The UK constitution requires such changes can only be made by Parliament
- The fact that withdrawal from the EU would remove some existing domestic rights of UK residents also renders it impermissible for the government to withdraw from the EU Treaties without prior parliamentary authority
The UK's highest judicial body dismissed the government's argument that Prime Minister Theresa May could simply use executive powers known as "royal prerogative" to invoke Article 50 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty and begin two years of divorce talks.
However, the court rejected arguments that the UK's devolved assemblies in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales should give their assent before Article 50 is invoked.
"The referendum is of great political significance, but the Act of Parliament which established it did not say what should happen as a result," said David Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court which ruled by 8-3 against the government.
Prime Minister Theresa May has repeatedly said she would trigger Article 50 before the end of March but she will now have to seek the consent of lawmakers first, potentially meaning her plans could be amended or delayed, although the main opposition Labour Party has said it would not slow her timetable.
Last week Prime Minister Theresa May set out her stall for negotiations, promising a clean break with the world's largest trading block as part of a 12-point plan to focus on global free trade deals, setting out a course for a so-called "hard Brexit"
What the Supreme Court case was about
During the Supreme Court hearing, campaigners argued that denying the UK Parliament a vote was undemocratic and a breach of long-standing constitutional principles.
They said that triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - getting formal exit negotiations with the EU under way - would mean overturning existing UK law, so MPs and peers should decide.
But the government argued that, under the Royal Prerogative (powers handed to the government by the Crown), it could make this move without the need to consult Parliament.
And it said that MPs had voted overwhelmingly to put the issue in the hands of the British people when they backed the calling of June 2016 referendum on Brexit.
What the court said
Reading out the judgement, Supreme Court President Lord Neuberger said: "By a majority of eight to three, the Supreme Court today rules that the government cannot trigger Article 50 without an act of Parliament authorising it to do so."
He added: "Withdrawal effects a fundamental change by cutting off the source of EU law, as well as changing legal rights.
"The UK's constitutional arrangements require such changes to be clearly authorised by Parliament."
The court also rejected, unanimously, arguments that the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly should get to vote on Article 50 before it is triggered.
Lord Neuberger said: "Relations with the EU are a matter for the UK government."
What opposition parties say
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said: "Labour respects the result of the referendum and the will of the British people and will not frustrate the process for invoking Article 50."
But he added that his party would "seek to amend the Article 50 Bill to prevent the Conservatives using Brexit to turn Britain into a bargain basement tax haven off the coast of Europe".
However, UKIP leader Paul Nuttall warned MPs and peers not to hamper the passage of the legislation.
"The will of the people will be heard, and woe betide those politicians or parties that attempt to block, delay, or in any other way subvert that will," he said.
The Scottish National Party said it would put forward 50 "serious and substantive" amendments to the government's parliamentary bill for triggering Article 50.
Article 50 will begin exit talks with the EU, which are expected to last up to two years.
Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said his MPs and peers would vote against Article 50 unless there was guarantee of the public having a vote on the final deal reached between the UK and EU
The Supreme Court on Tuesday Jan 24,201 has ruled against the Government and ordered the Prime Minister Theresa May to consult MPs before she can start the process of leaving the European Union(EU).
The next steps will be
- The Government will introduce a Bill to Parliament. This will happen within days
- MPs will debate the Bill in the Commons. There will be an initial vote on the principle of Article 50.
- MPs will then debate amendments to the Bill. Depending on scheduling this is where the risk of delays lies - but there is likely to be a restrictive timetable
- Another vote will be held in the Commons on the principle. This could all happen in a single day but is more likely to be spread over a week
- Peers will then receive the new law in the House of Lords and will undertake a similar process
- Once both Houses have agreed the same text, it will go to the Queen for Royal Assent
- The Bill will hand Theresa May permission to notify the EU Britain is invoking Article 50 of the treaties, starting two years of talks to implement Brexit
No comments:
Post a Comment