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/2017/01/24/world/europe/theresa-may-brexit-vote-article-50.html
The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| U.K. Parliament Must Approve Start of ‘Brexit’ Talks, Supreme Court Rules | U.K. Parliament Must Approve Start of ‘Brexit’ Talks, Supreme Court Rules |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| LONDON — Prime Minister Theresa May must secure the approval of Parliament before she can begin the process of taking Britain out of the European Union, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday. | |
| The ruling, which upholds an earlier decision by the High Court in London, creates another hurdle for Mrs. May, who has promised to begin a two-year, irreversible process of exit negotiations by the end of March by invoking the European Union’s Article 50, the legal mechanism for leaving the bloc. | The ruling, which upholds an earlier decision by the High Court in London, creates another hurdle for Mrs. May, who has promised to begin a two-year, irreversible process of exit negotiations by the end of March by invoking the European Union’s Article 50, the legal mechanism for leaving the bloc. |
| “Today, by a majority of 8 to 3, the Supreme Court rules that the government cannot trigger Article 50 without an act of Parliament authorizing it to do so,” said David Neuberger, the Supreme Court president, in announcing the decision. | “Today, by a majority of 8 to 3, the Supreme Court rules that the government cannot trigger Article 50 without an act of Parliament authorizing it to do so,” said David Neuberger, the Supreme Court president, in announcing the decision. |
| A majority of lawmakers, including many from Mrs. May’s Conservative Party, campaigned to stay in the European Union before the referendum last year, although most political observers said it was unlikely that legislators would dare to reject the will of the voters who backed a withdrawal. | A majority of lawmakers, including many from Mrs. May’s Conservative Party, campaigned to stay in the European Union before the referendum last year, although most political observers said it was unlikely that legislators would dare to reject the will of the voters who backed a withdrawal. |
| In one important victory for the government, the court ruled that Mrs. May would not need separate approval from the regional legislatures in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. | In one important victory for the government, the court ruled that Mrs. May would not need separate approval from the regional legislatures in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. |
| “The devolution statutes were enacted on the assumption that the U.K. would be a member of the E.U. but they do not require it,” Lord Neuberger said. “Relations with the E.U. are a matter for the U.K. government. | |
| Within minutes of the ruling, Jeremy Wright, Britain’s attorney general, issued a statement saying that the government would comply with the ruling. | |
| The case has underscored the polarizing nature of the June referendum, in which 52 percent of Britons voted to leave the European Union. | The case has underscored the polarizing nature of the June referendum, in which 52 percent of Britons voted to leave the European Union. |
| One of the plaintiffs, Gina Miller, an investment fund manager, has said she was threatened with murder and rape by supporters of Brexit, as Britain’s decision is commonly known, who have accused her of trying to sabotage an exit. A lawyer by training, Ms. Miller has said she is merely standing up for the rights of Parliament. | One of the plaintiffs, Gina Miller, an investment fund manager, has said she was threatened with murder and rape by supporters of Brexit, as Britain’s decision is commonly known, who have accused her of trying to sabotage an exit. A lawyer by training, Ms. Miller has said she is merely standing up for the rights of Parliament. |
| “This case was about the legal process, not about politics,” Ms. Miller said in a news conference outside the Supreme Court, where she thanked her law firm, Mishcon de Reya, for fighting her case. | |
| Ms. Miller said she had been the victim of a torrent of criticism since filing the case, and said she was “shocked by the levels of personal abuse that I have received from many quarters over the last several months for simply bringing and asking a legitimate question.” | |
| Even the judges have found themselves under immense pressure. Members of the High Court who ruled against the government in November, setting the stage for the Supreme Court decision, were described by one tabloid newspaper as “enemies of the people.” | Even the judges have found themselves under immense pressure. Members of the High Court who ruled against the government in November, setting the stage for the Supreme Court decision, were described by one tabloid newspaper as “enemies of the people.” |
| The ruling comes a week after Mrs. May first outlined her vision for a clean break with the European Union single market, one in which Britain would close its borders to visa-free migration for citizens from other countries in the bloc — a “hard Brexit” as it is often referred to here. | The ruling comes a week after Mrs. May first outlined her vision for a clean break with the European Union single market, one in which Britain would close its borders to visa-free migration for citizens from other countries in the bloc — a “hard Brexit” as it is often referred to here. |
| Under the terms of Article 50, the prime minister, who officially supported remaining in the bloc but expressed only tepid support for it during the referendum campaign, has two years to complete exit negotiations once she invokes the rule. | Under the terms of Article 50, the prime minister, who officially supported remaining in the bloc but expressed only tepid support for it during the referendum campaign, has two years to complete exit negotiations once she invokes the rule. |
| In her speech last week, Mrs. May pledged to give both houses of Parliament the opportunity to vote on any accord, but lawmakers from across the political spectrum have made clear that they want to be involved from the start. | In her speech last week, Mrs. May pledged to give both houses of Parliament the opportunity to vote on any accord, but lawmakers from across the political spectrum have made clear that they want to be involved from the start. |
| “I and many others did not exercise our vote in the referendum so as to restore the sovereignty of this Parliament only to see what we regarded as the tyranny of the European Union replaced by that of a government,” Stephen Phillips, a member of Mrs. May’s Conservative Party, said when the case was first brought. | “I and many others did not exercise our vote in the referendum so as to restore the sovereignty of this Parliament only to see what we regarded as the tyranny of the European Union replaced by that of a government,” Stephen Phillips, a member of Mrs. May’s Conservative Party, said when the case was first brought. |
| If no deal is reached with the 27 other member states once the two-year countdown begins — or if Parliament rejects a final deal at that stage — it would most likely result in the sort of “cliff edge” breakup that Mrs. May, along with Britain’s bankers and business leaders, hope to avoid. | If no deal is reached with the 27 other member states once the two-year countdown begins — or if Parliament rejects a final deal at that stage — it would most likely result in the sort of “cliff edge” breakup that Mrs. May, along with Britain’s bankers and business leaders, hope to avoid. |
| Mrs. May’s government had argued that under Britain’s unwritten constitution, the leadership can make or leave international treaties without parliamentary approval. | Mrs. May’s government had argued that under Britain’s unwritten constitution, the leadership can make or leave international treaties without parliamentary approval. |
| The High Court disagreed, ruling in November that it would be unlawful to use executive powers known as “royal prerogative” to start a process that would take rights away from citizens that had been granted by Parliament. Only Parliament could take those rights away, the court said. | The High Court disagreed, ruling in November that it would be unlawful to use executive powers known as “royal prerogative” to start a process that would take rights away from citizens that had been granted by Parliament. Only Parliament could take those rights away, the court said. |
| The government appealed the decision, taking the case to the Supreme Court, the country’s highest judicial body, which came to its own conclusion after four days of hearings in front of its 11 justices. | The government appealed the decision, taking the case to the Supreme Court, the country’s highest judicial body, which came to its own conclusion after four days of hearings in front of its 11 justices. |
| Most legal commentators had predicted that the government would lose the case, and according to British news reports, officials have already started drafting parts of a bill that would be subject to parliamentary approval in a bid to keep to the March timetable. | Most legal commentators had predicted that the government would lose the case, and according to British news reports, officials have already started drafting parts of a bill that would be subject to parliamentary approval in a bid to keep to the March timetable. |