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 2 Version 3
‘Brexit’ Will Require a Vote in Parliament, U.K. Court Rules ‘Brexit’ Will Require a Vote in Parliament, U.K. Court Rules
(about 3 hours 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 leaving the European Union was thrown into uncertainty on Thursday after the High Court ruled that Parliament must give its approval before the process can begin.
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. The court’s decision seemed likely to slow — but not halt — the British withdrawal from the bloc, a step approved by nearly 52 percent of voters in a June referendum.
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. The decision on Thursday was a significant blow to Prime Minister Theresa May, who had planned to invoke Article 50, the mechanism for leaving the European Union, no later than March and to prepare for the negotiations mostly behind closed doors.
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. If the court’s ruling is upheld — the government immediately vowed to appeal — that plan would be thrown into disarray, analysts said, as Mrs. May would be forced to give to Parliament a detailed strategy for negotiating the British departure, known as Brexit. She has adamantly resisted doing so, arguing that this might impede her flexibility in the negotiations, which would set the terms of Britain’s relationship with the European Union, and prevent Britain from getting the best possible deal.
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. Few observers believe that Parliament would go so far as to block a departure from the bloc, as lawmakers themselves voted overwhelmingly to hold the referendum and pledged to abide by the results. But by weakening Mrs. May’s control of the negotiating process, Parliament might soften her declared strategy of controlling immigration, even if that means leaving the European Union’s tariff-free single market — the so-called hard Brexit that was widely perceived as a threat to the British economy.
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. It was that prospect that led currency traders to bid up the pound Thursday morning, lifting it from the multidecade lows it had been plumbing in recent weeks.
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. But it was not immediately clear how the politics would play out. If Mrs. May should find parliamentary opposition intolerable, she might ultimately be tempted to call an early general election to gain a wider mandate for Brexit, some analysts said. Currently, her Conservative Party holds a slim majority, with 329 seats in the 650-seat Parliament, and many of those members opposed Brexit.
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. On Thursday, the government said that an expedited appeal would be heard in December by the Supreme Court, Britain’s highest appellate body, and that it was sticking to its timetable for Brexit for now. Yet in the growing environment of constitutional, legal and political uncertainty, the government’s strategy could easily be disrupted.
Mujtaba Rahman, managing director for Europe at the Eurasia Group, a political consulting firm, described the ruling as “a severe setback for Theresa May’s government,” though he added that the government’s timetable could still be met if the Supreme Court rules in its favor.
But if the court upholds the ruling mandating a role for Parliament, the central question will be “what form that role takes: a simple parliamentary motion or actual legislation,” he wrote in an analysis.
If there is a simple vote, “we think the government’s broad negotiating aims and timing for the Article 50 negotiations will not be impacted,” he wrote. But if “legislation is required, the picture will look very different.”
“If May looks likely to lose key votes in the Commons and Lords on her negotiating mandate, the prime minister might be tempted to seek a general election in order to ask the public to endorse her negotiating goals — in effect, to use an election to override Parliament,” Mr. Rahman added.
Although Parliament approved holding the referendum, Mrs. May’s critics argued in court that failing to give lawmakers a voice before applying to leave the European Union would turn them 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 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.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 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.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 leaving 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,” dismissing it as 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 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.
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 harder 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. While it is understandable that Mrs. May wants the freest possible hand in negotiating with other European Union nations, a failure to consult lawmakers has exposed her 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.
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. Along with the Supreme Court, the ruling might ultimately be referred to the European Court of Justice, an institution opposed by many who argued for Britain to leave the bloc.
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.