This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/world/europe/uk-brexit-vote-parliament.html

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
‘Brexit’ Must Face a Parliamentary Vote, U.K. Court Rules ‘Brexit’ Will Require a Parliament Vote, U.K. Court Rules
(about 1 hour later)
LONDON — The British government must consult Parliament before proceeding with formal negotiations over its withdrawal from the European Union, the High Court ruled on Thursday, a move that is likely to aggravate the political uncertainty surrounding the country’s exit from the bloc. LONDON — The British government’s plan for exiting the European Union was thrown into uncertainty on Thursday after the High Court delivered a defeat to Prime Minister Theresa May by ruling that she must seek parliamentary approval before starting the process to leave the bloc.
The decision is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and it might ultimately be referred to the European Court of Justice, an institution opposed by those who argued for Britain to leave the bloc. The court’s decision seemed likely to slow — but not halt — the process for a British withdrawal from the 28-nation bloc, a decision approved by nearly 52 percent of voters in a June 23 referendum.
The legal action was brought in the name of several individuals, including Gina Miller, an investment fund manager, and Deir Dos Santos, a hairdresser, who challenged the right of the government to take the formal legal step that would trigger Britain’s exit from the 28-nation European Union without consulting Parliament. Mrs. May had insisted that the government could trigger Article 50, the mechanism for leaving the European Union, without a vote by Parliament. She immediately vowed to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which is to hear the appeal in December.
That process, invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, would set a two-year deadline for the conclusion of talks to define Britain’s relationship with the European Union after it leaves. Mrs. May’s Conservative Party holds only a slim majority, 329 seats in the 650-seat Parliament. Although most lawmakers opposed the decision to leave the European Union, it would be politically toxic for them to overturn the referendum outcome.
Prime Minister Theresa May believes she has the right to move ahead without parliamentary approval by using royal prerogative powers that, in modern times, are exercised by the government in the name of the monarch. Still, the British pound, which has been at a historic low against the dollar, quickly rallied as traders believed that the ruling might dilute Mrs. May’s push for an abrupt departure and raise the likelihood that Britain would stay in the European Union’s single market for goods and services.
The royal prerogative provides a variety of powers, from ordering troops into battle to authorizing the mining of precious metals. The government believes the royal prerogative is applicable in the case of a British withdrawal because the powers cover international treaty-making. The government and its legal challengers agree that invoking Article 50, which Mrs. May has promised to do by the end of March, is an irrevocable step on the road to a British withdrawal, commonly known as Brexit. Her spokesman maintained on Thursday that it was still possible to begin the process by that time.
Both the government and its legal challengers say that invoking Article 50, which Mrs. May has promised to do by the end of March, is an irrevocable step on the road to a British withdrawal, commonly known as Brexit. Although Parliament approved holding the referendum, Mrs. May’s critics argued in court that failing to give Parliament a voice in the matter before the application to leave the European Union would turn lawmakers into bystanders as Britain negotiated its disengagement from the bloc after more than four decades of membership. They also pointed out that, technically, the referendum is not legally binding.
Mrs. May’s critics argued in court that failing to give Parliament a voice in the matter would turn lawmakers into bystanders as Britain negotiates its disengagement from the European Union after more than four decades of membership. They also pointed out that, technically, the referendum is not legally binding. The case was brought by several plaintiffs, including Gina Miller, an investment fund manager, and Deir Dos Santos, a hairdresser. They challenged the right of the government to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which would set a two-year deadline for the conclusion of talks to define Britain’s relationship with the European Union after it leaves.
Although Mrs. May has said that lawmakers will eventually be consulted, many fear it would take place too late to influence the shape of Britain’s new relationship with the European Union. The legal challenge revolved around the European Communities Act, a 1972 law that Parliament enacted before Britain joined the European Union’s forerunner in 1973. That act allowed for the incorporation of European law into British law.
For example, if Parliament is given a chance to vote on an exit agreement at the end of the two-year period, lawmakers may be forced to choose between endorsing a deal they oppose or being outside the bloc without any formal relationship with the union. Mrs. May and the government argued that they could trigger Article 50 without parliamentary approval by using royal prerogative powers that, in modern times, are exercised by the government in the name of the monarch. The powers include international treaty-making.
The government had dismissed the case as legal “camouflage,” a thinly disguised effort to frustrate the democratic outcome of the June 23 referendum, in which 52 percent of British voters backed leaving the bloc. But the court found that invoking Article 50 would essentially repeal the 1972 law — and that only Parliament had the power to do so.
“The most fundamental rule of the U.K’s Constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make and unmake any law it chooses,” the court found. “As an aspect of the sovereignty of Parliament it has been established for hundreds of years that the Crown — i.e. the Government of the day — cannot by exercise of prerogative powers override legislation enacted by Parliament.”
Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats, welcomed the ruling, adding that it was “disappointing that this government was so intent on undermining Parliamentary sovereignty and democratic process that they forced this decision to be made in the court.”
In a statement, he added: “Given the strict two year timetable of exiting the E.U. once Article 50 is triggered, it is critical that the government now lay out their negotiating to Parliament, before such a vote is held.”
Cian Murphy, a senior lecturer in public international law at the University of Bristol, wrote on Twitter: “The Article 50 judgment from the High Court: a political bombshell but really rather predicable as a matter of constitutional law.”
Although Mrs. May has said that lawmakers will eventually be consulted, many fear it will take place too late to influence the shape of Britain’s new relationship with the European Union.
For example, if Parliament is given a chance to vote on an exit agreement at the end of the two-year period, lawmakers may be forced to choose between endorsing a deal they oppose or being outside the bloc without any formal relationship with it.
The government had dismissed the case as legal “camouflage,” a thinly disguised effort to frustrate the democratic outcome of the June 23 referendum.
Many observers believe that, were the decision to trigger Article 50 put to Parliament, lawmakers would probably approve it, even though a clear majority opposed leaving the bloc when the referendum was held.Many observers believe that, were the decision to trigger Article 50 put to Parliament, lawmakers would probably approve it, even though a clear majority opposed leaving the bloc when the referendum was held.
Despite that fact, lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to hold the referendum in the first place, making it politically difficult to fail to honor its outcome. Despite that fact, lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to hold the referendum, making it politically difficult to fail to honor its outcome.
Moreover, the Conservative Party, which was badly split over the referendum, has now largely embraced its outcome, in many cases enthusiastically.Moreover, the Conservative Party, which was badly split over the referendum, has now largely embraced its outcome, in many cases enthusiastically.
Many supporters of the opposition Labour Party also voted to leave the European Union, which will make it hard for their lawmakers to oppose a withdrawal.Many supporters of the opposition Labour Party also voted to leave the European Union, which will make it hard for their lawmakers to oppose a withdrawal.
The government is worried about delays to the timetable, however, and fear that lawmakers will seek to make their support for withdrawal conditional, for example on remaining part of the union’s single market.The government is worried about delays to the timetable, however, and fear that lawmakers will seek to make their support for withdrawal conditional, for example on remaining part of the union’s single market.
Mrs. May wants the freest possible hand in negotiating with other European Union nations and has said she will not offer a running commentary on the talks.Mrs. May wants the freest possible hand in negotiating with other European Union nations and has said she will not offer a running commentary on the talks.
Nevertheless, a failure to consult lawmakers has exposed Mrs. May to political criticism, not least because supporters of a withdrawal argued during the referendum campaign for the need to restore sovereignty to the British Parliament.Nevertheless, a failure to consult lawmakers has exposed Mrs. May to political criticism, not least because supporters of a withdrawal argued during the referendum campaign for the need to restore sovereignty to the British Parliament.
Along with the Supreme Court, the country’s highest constitutional arbiter, the ruling might ultimately be referred to the European Court of Justice, an institution opposed by those who argued for Britain to leave the bloc.