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 1 Version 2
‘Brexit’ Will Require a Parliament Vote, U.K. Court Rules ‘Brexit’ Will Require a Vote in Parliament, U.K. Court Rules
(35 minutes later)
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.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 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 court’s decision seemed likely to slow — but not halt — the process for a British withdrawal from the 28-nation union, a decision approved by nearly 52 percent of voters in a June 23 referendum.
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. Mrs. May had insisted that the government could invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, 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.
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. Mrs. May’s Conservative Party holds only a slim majority, with 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.
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. Still, the pound, which has been at a historic low against the dollar, rallied as traders apparently believed that the ruling might weaken Mrs. May’s control of the negotiating process and soften her emphasis on controlling immigration even if that means leaving the European Union’s single market, which could be economically damaging.
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.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.
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.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.
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. 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, which would set a two-year deadline for the conclusion of talks to define Britain’s relationship with the European Union after it leaves.
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. The legal challenge revolved around the European Communities Act, a 1972 law that Parliament enacted before Britain joined a forerunner of the European Union in 1973. That act allowed for the incorporation of European law into British law.
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. Mrs. May and the government argued that they could invoke 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.
But the court found that invoking Article 50 would essentially repeal the 1972 law — and that only Parliament had the power to do so.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.” “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.” 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.”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.”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.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. 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 leaving 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. The government had dismissed the case as legal “camouflage,” dismissing it as 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 say 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, 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. 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 harder 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.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.