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/2016/12/05/world/europe/brexit-supreme-court.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Britain’s Supreme Court Hears Legal Challenge to ‘Brexit’ Britain’s Supreme Court Hears Legal Challenge to ‘Brexit’
(about 5 hours later)
LONDON — The president of Britain’s Supreme Court said on Monday that a landmark case to decide whether the government can start the formal divorce process from the European Union without Parliament’s approval was a matter of law and not politics. LONDON — In one of the most significant constitutional cases in decades, Britain’s Supreme Court began a hearing on Monday to determine whether Parliament should vote before the government begins formal steps to quit the European Union.
Prime Minister Theresa May’s government appealed to the country’s highest judicial body after the High Court ruled last month that ministers could not invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and begin a two-year disentanglement process from the European Union without lawmakers’ assent. The outcome of the case could affect the timetable laid down by Prime Minister Theresa May, who wants to start withdrawal negotiations by the end of March. Mrs. May wanted to use prerogative powers to avoid a vote in Parliament. But the government lost a case last month in the High Court, which ruled that lawmakers should be involved in invoking formal exit procedures, under Article 50 of the European Union’s treaty.
If the Supreme Court upholds the earlier ruling, that could derail Mrs. May’s planned timetable for invoking Article 50 by the end of March and upset the government’s wider plans for the so-called Brexit, or the country’s exit from the European Union. In the highly charged aftermath of the decision in a June 23 referendum to quit the bloc, the case has also underscored the anger and division that remain in a country polarized by the plebiscite, in which 52 percent voted to leave and 48 percent wanted to remain.
The legal fight comes against a backdrop of claims by some politicians and newspapers that establishment judges want to thwart the exit, which Britons voted for in a referendum in June. One of those who took the government to court, Gina Miller, an investment fund manager, says that she has been threatened with murder and rape by “Brexit” supporters, who accuse her of trying to thwart the outcome of the referendum. She argues that she is standing up for the rights of Parliament.
In his opening remarks, the Supreme Court president, David Neuberger, said the case was simply about the law. At times, the judges themselves have seemed to be on trial. Those in the High Court who ruled against the government were described by one tabloid newspaper as “enemies of the people.”
“We are aware of the strong feelings associated with the many wider political questions surrounding the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union,” Mr. Neuberger said. Some supporters of the British exit have questioned whether the president of the Supreme Court, David Neuberger, might have been compromised because his wife had expressed support for the European Union. A speech delivered by Brenda Hale, the deputy president of the Supreme Court, about the legal arguments ahead of the Article 50 case, also annoyed some exit supporters.
However, he added, “those wider political questions are not the subject of this appeal.” On Monday, Lord Neuberger started the four-day appeal hearing with a warning to those who targeted Ms. Miller on social media.
“This appeal is concerned with legal issues, and, as judges, our duty is to consider those issues impartially, and to decide the case according to the law,” he said. “This is what we shall do.” “Threatening and abusing people because they are exercising their fundamental right to go to court undermines the rule of law,” he said. “Anyone who communicates such threats or abuse should be aware that there are legal powers designed to ensure that access to the courts is available to everyone.”
Outside the Supreme Court, located on the same central London square as Parliament, pro-European Union supporters wearing judges’ robes and wigs rode a double-decker bus emblazoned with slogans, while another van carried a billboard that read, “The Brexiteers have failed us all.” Lord Neuberger noted that the parties had been asked whether they wished any of the judges to stand down, but had not registered any objections.
It was a reference to complaints that the government has not released a formal plan for what leaving the bloc will look like. On behalf of the government, the attorney general, Jeremy Wright, argued that the prerogative power was not “an ancient relic” but a “constitutional necessity.”
A small number of rival backers of the exit waved placards reading, “This is an establishment stitch-up.” In its ruling last month, the High Court sided with Ms. Miller and other plaintiffs, who argued that leaving the European Union involved the revocation of certain rights granted to Britons by Parliament, and that lawmakers must therefore have a say, and a vote, before Article 50 is invoked.
Some lawmakers in Mrs. May’s Conservative Party had called for Mr. Neuberger to stand down because his wife had previously posted messages against leaving the bloc on Twitter. He said all parties in the case had been asked if they wanted any of the judges to stand down and no objections had been raised. Were Mrs. May’s government to lose the Supreme Court case, it could complicate its plans for Brexit, but would be unlikely to frustrate them completely. Analysts say that Parliament, which voted in favor of holding the referendum, would be unlikely to block the invoking of Article 50, though it might try to amend legislation and attach conditions to its approval.
The government’s top lawyer, General Jeremy Wright, told the court the case had been brought “perfectly properly” and raised “issues going to the very heart of our constitutional settlement.” Perhaps more important, lawmakers would expect the government to explain its objectives to leaving the bloc in greater detail, which could undermine its negotiating position before the talks begin. Critics contend that the real reason is that ministers have yet to agree on a strategy for the negotiations, and that Mrs. May knows that when she does, she risks destabilizing a divided cabinet.
The case is the highest-profile one the court has considered since it came into being seven years ago. It is expected to last for four days, and for the first time all 11 justices will sit on the panel, with the verdict expected later in January. A decision from the Supreme Court is not expected for several weeks.
If the government wins, Mrs. May can proceed with her plans to invoke Article 50 by the end of March. One slight, but intriguing, possibility is that the Supreme Court might seek further guidance on whether, once invoked, Article 50 is legally reversible. That question could have a bearing on the central issue of whether the decision to use Article 50 would, inevitably, lead to the end of some rights bestowed by Parliament.
But if she loses, as many legal experts have predicted, Parliament could in theory block the exit, as most lawmakers supported staying in the European Union. Inconveniently for Mrs. May, the ultimate arbiter of European Union law is the European Court of Justice — an institution that is anathema to many supporters of Brexit — and the question of the reversibility of Article 50 could end up in its hands.
Few observers expect the bid to leave to be blocked. Even so, lawmaker approval could open the process to greater scrutiny and delay. To complicate matters further for the government, the Supreme Court will also consider issues raised in the courts in Northern Ireland, and by the devolved governments of Scotland and Wales, about whether starting Brexit affects other constitutional arrangements.
Investors say they believe that the greater Parliament’s involvement, the less chance there is of a “hard Brexit,” in which tight controls on immigration are prioritized over European single-market access. The pound surged after November’s High Court ruling. In theory, an adverse decision could give a veto over invoking Article 50 to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, and in the case of Northern Ireland, a ruling could hold that invoking the article could undermine the Good Friday Agreement, the 1998 peace accord that effectively ended the conflict in Northern Ireland.
The case, which was originally brought by Gina Miller, an investment fund manager, and Deir Tozetti Dos Santos, a hairdresser, hinges on whether the government can use a historical power known as “royal prerogative” to invoke Article 50 without lawmakers’ assent.
The challengers successfully argued at the High Court that Britons would inevitably lose rights granted by Parliament when leaving the European Union, and that under Britain’s unwritten Constitution, such rights could only be taken away with lawmakers’ approval.
Outlining the government case, Mr. Wright said Parliament had had “multiple” opportunities to restrict the executive’s ability to invoke Article 50 but had not taken them and parliamentary sovereignty was not being undermined.
The Scottish government, which strongly opposes leaving the European Union and has been seeking ways to keep Scotland in the bloc, will also put forward its arguments.
The decision to leave the European Union has raised tensions in Britain, and Ms. Miller has received death threats and been the target of other abuse.
“Threatening and abusing people because they are exercising their fundamental right to go to court undermines the rule of law,” Mr. Neuberger said.